Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive30

On the photograph of the Members of the First Majlis of Iran
Just wish to report the following odd incidence which in my opinion points to a dishonest appropriation of my earlier work by User:Mrostam (please see below for this user's page address on Farsi Wikipedia &mdash; I have no dealings with Farsi Wikipedia). By chance I discovered that the photograph that was first uploaded by me into Wikipedia, on March 18, 2007, has been overwritten, without any trace of this action having been left in the history file of this photograph, by the last-mentioned user on August 25, 2007. Please compare the following two histories of Hasan Taqizadeh (expanded from one sentence to its present form by me): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hasan_Taqizadeh&oldid=116018662 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hasan_Taqizadeh&oldid=116020471'. In the former page there is no photograph of the Members of the First Majlis to be seen and in the latter there is this photograph to be seen. This makes evident that the photograph at issue could not have been uploaded as late as August 25, 2007. How is such an incidence possible? Aside from the dishonesty involved here, how is it possible that someone (whether this person be Mrostam or anyone else for that matter) could have appropriated the photograph at issue without leaving any trace in the history file of this photograph? In this connection, it is relevant that I point out that the file which apparently has been "uploaded" by User:Mrostam, has exactly the name that I had given to my file, namely First_Majlis_MPs.jpg; interestingly, even the underscores in this name, between "First", "Majlis" and "MPs", coincide with those in my original file name. To correct for this injustice, I have now uploaded my original photograph again and named it First_Majlis_MPs_1.jpg. I have subsequently changed the name First_Majlis_MPs.jpg into First_Majlis_MPs_1.jpg in all Wikipedia entries that cite this photograph. I hope that in due course my original file (carrying its creation date) will be restored.

I should like hereby to request that appropriate action be taken against User:Mristam who has so blatantly attempted to take credit for my earlier work. In this connection, please also consult: http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1:First_Majlis_MPs.jpg. You will notice that the copy-right statement of this photograph on Farsi Wikipedia refers to English Wikipedia! User:Mrostam is registered with Farsi Wikipedia and his Farsi Wikipedia page address is: http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1:Mrostam. The question arises as to how a person who has not made a single contribution to English Wikipedia could have uploaded a photograph to this Wikipedia for the sole purpose of subsequently citing it on Farsi Wikipedai (please note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:First_Majlis_MPs.jpg gives "Mrostam" as the User who must have uploaded the photograph at issue on August 25, 2007).

For completeness, please also consider: http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D9%82%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D8%B2%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87 and note that the photograph on this page is also taken from Hasan Taqizadeh, which was again uploaded by me. I hope that you will demand from Mrostam that he discontinue with his dishonest practices on Wikipedia. With thanks in advance, --BF 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

user:83.67.73.117

 * Fairly new editor that fits the description of a WP:SPA, who has been blocked once for inserting misinformation. Editor is now contributing solely to Talk:Bosniaks‎, where his comments are consistently in violation of WP:TALK, and often WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE as well.  Editor has been warned multiple times but persists. --Ronz 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An editor not editing in bad faith really doesn't have alot of hope on this board. The best we can do is ask him/her to be polite and to follow the rules. With multiple prior warnings and no sign of wanting to contribute appropriately to the talk page in question (or to contribute anywhere else at all), this is much more suited for the an administrators' noticeboard. --Cheeser1 17:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but wanted to get another opinion first. Thanks for the help! --Ronz 17:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but wanted to get another opinion first. Thanks for the help! --Ronz 17:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be advised that any opposing argument of the "Serb and Russian view of the world" isn't automatically inappropriate. Although I do appologise if I've appeared very strong with my oppinions. 83.67.73.117 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who are you all? What is going on, why did you tell me to go here. Do I know you? 70.234.133.124 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

user:TenPoundHammer
Please note that this user is uncivil and rude as demonstrated in the following comment: (cur) (last) 06:27, 2 December 2007 TenPoundHammer (Talk | contribs) m (8,217 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by WBoutros; What part of "MUST BE SOURCED" do you not understand?. using TW) (undo)

There are far more civil ways to communicate, and editors who act like children should be banned. WB 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide us with the diff of this edit so we can properly contextualize it. It appears that he is quoting an already-existing reliable sourcing notice. --Cheeser1 01:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's this diff from 03:27, 2 December 2007, and in this case, I am inclined to agree with, given that all of the other entries in the article, List of musical works in unusual time signatures, are well cited. It is expected that in this case, per WP:CITE, should be cited as well. , please provide reliable citations on all future edits wherever possible.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is also the same notice essentially given by TPH on WB's talkpage: diff. It would be great to heed the advice.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies to the user above; it was only one comment and I definitely don't think I should be banned for it. The user in question repeatedly added the same unsourced info, and repeatedly asked that it not be removed -- despite the big warning on that page that states that all info must be sourced -- and I guess I snapped a little. Again, my apologies to User:WBoutros.  Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Michaelbusch
This user has repeatedly deleted well sourced statement, and misquoted statements from reliable sources. See list in his talk page. Please help us address this issue. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Copying the text from the talk page to here for easier access.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Michaelbusch, for the sake of making wikipedia a WP:reliable, WP:NPOV source of information, please stop deleting relevant, well-sourced statements, like you did here:
 * 1. cold fusion theory vs experiment, and here (see talk)
 * 2. cold fusion patent (see talk)
 * 3. cold fusion bibliography (see talk here and here)
 * Also, please stop misquoting reliable sources:
 * 4. cold fusion and hydrino (see talk
 * 5. hydrino and Quantum Mechanics and here (see talk
 * The best way to defend your opinion that cold fusion is "bollocks", as you say, is to provide reliable source to that effect. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with . is removing cited sources and is misquoting texts after doing a general query on the books. The removal of the citations alone, and the revision of text to remove any critism, is pointing to an unbalanced viewpoint that violates WP:NPOV. Michaelbusch has so far refused to engage in discussion and has taken it upon himself to revert-war on several articles, and has also violated WP:3RR.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hated to do this, but Michaelbusch has revert warred: AN3 case.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard is thisaway. &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 18:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd thought I'd remembered to count, but now I see that I may have run over - depending on what is counted and what is not. I'm afraid I don't understand Pcarbonn's statements, however, and note that he seems unduly partial to various forms of pseudoscience - in particular hydrino theory and cold fusion.  I have been trying to enforce WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE and generally ensure that scientific validity isn't compromised.  Please see the full discussions at Talk:Hydrino theory and Talk:cold fusion and let me know if I have exceeded acceptable bounds. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:ADouBTor
This user has been engaged in a dispute over the history of China template. He seems to believe that showing the Republic of China as continuing from 1912-the present to be POV pushing, and that separating the People's Republic of China from it with a line somehow suggests that the PRC is subordinate to the ROC. He first accused me of inadvertent vandalism. I then contacted him on his talk page. Subsequently, he (properly IMO) moved the discussion to the template talk page. He has since accused another editor of adding incorrect information. Discussion there has been met with insults. There also seems to be a case of not getting the point regarding the discussion that other users have been trying to have as well as ownership of articles.Ngchen 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:NgChen
Please keep in mind that I was representing the on-going situation and wrote/modified based on factual documents, not by opinion based information (opinion of Taiwan island doesn't belongs to PRC by Taiwanese) which this user was trying to promote. On the contary, the information this user stated was baseless and without supportive evidence neither by official documentations nor agreed course of historical events.

As all of the editors/contributors here might known, delibrate addition of opinion material (not being NPOV) is an act of vandalism.

Thirdly, at which point did I made insults (insult of personal integrity like "You are a waste" or "Go back to kidergarden and relearn the facts, you are just like a small kiddo", etc). Those references you pointed out shows me making remindals of the basic operations of Wikipedia which wasn't opinion of myself and wasn't baseless. Also, I did not claim ownership in anyway. If two parties are engaged in a debate, supportive or unsupportive, that doesn't make it a claim of ownership.

Lastly, with regards to me not getting the point, it seems to be this user not getting my point and keeps posting his opinionised points. My points was picked up by user:readin later which was rebutted.

All I can about this debate as, or if, I was an observer, was nothing but senseless misunderstanding of the interpretation of the lines used, which i pointed it out in one of my post.

However, instead of ceasing the senseless debate, this user continues the senseless onslaught(everything about this debate is senseless after a serious thinking) here in Wikiquette, which I am left with no choice but to defend myself here, when I am planning to make my life happier and cease fire =D.ADouBTor (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Words to NgChen. Please try and understand the meaning of each phrase and sentences before trying to make an empty 'rebute'(or how-ever you spells it). It's a fact only Readin has understood me.

124.191.92.25
I am an admin, and came to the Ed_O'Loughlin to review a 3RR request. I am now involved as an editor so I do not wish to exercise my admin powers (with the exception of having semi-protected the page).

The user has thus far been warned on numerous occasions for violating WP:3RR, WP:NPA. Three editors (including myself) have reviewed the article and all felt it was questionable under WP:BLP, and that some of the sources of criticism on the individual were not impartial. 124.191.92.25 responded by adding this section to the talk page Unethical_Editors_bring_Wikipedia_into_disrepute.

The user repeatedly demanded an RfC to assess the "unethical conduct" of myself and Eleland. I explained to 124.191.92.25 how to initiate the process, but the user did not do so. I eventually created an RFC:BIO over my own concerns.

On the article RFC section I summarised my position about my concerns with the article. The user deleted my summary, and then cut and pasted a comment from a different discussion into the RfC section. See the diff page here.

Manning (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Update - after another extensive rearrangement of my RfC comments, I have reported the user to WP:ANI. Manning (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's way past etiquette - it's definitely disrupting the discussion in bad faith. Your actions seem appropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ronz
This user has repeatedly battled to retrieve sections which are already covered in Previous Archives and in this way is repeating the same sections in each Archive which to me qualifies as spam, as people can list archives easily and chose what topic they want to read. So I am reporting vandalism & spam. Further - this user is supporting dismissal and 'Peakocking' of famous anthropologist to satisfy one-sided non-neutral perspective. I doubt this user is interested in dialogue as he/she has resorted to vandalism more often then discussion. This user's behaviour is in evidence particularly in: Talk:Bosniaks. NeutralBosnian 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * See User talk:NeutralBosnian, WP:Third opinion, and Administrators' noticeboard/3RR 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Further - The content which Ronz is war'ing over contains swear words by user Frvernchanezzz in Talk:Bosniaks to dismiss Genetic evidence and further the Slavophile agenda by trying to therefore airbrush a people and their Government/Uni based references which claim that Bosniaks have Illyrian/Goth/Celt Genetic heritage almost exclusively... NeutralBosnian 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to discuss the situation. I don't believe I've vandalized anything in any way, let alone spammed.  I archived old discussions and some inappropriate discussions.  When NeutralBosnian restored some of them, I sought third-party opinion.  As for "dismissal", I simply asked for verification, which is what another editor had already requested in his edit summary, in order to try to make some progress with a dispute. When NeutralBosnian removed my, and others' comments from the talk page, I restored them as legitimate discussions. If NeutralBosnian has a problem with Frvernchanezzz, he should discuss the issue with him. --Ronz 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Ronz is unable to remain Civil, and is promoting a narrow one-sided propaganda as well as foul and unprofessional language via repeated undo's of comments with adult language. Wikipedia does not endorse bias especially bias with evidence. Ronz has failed to take action against adult language while Ronz has not failed to take action against perspective on history other than his own. 83.67.3.166 21:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm unaware of any effort on your part whatsoever to discuss, much less support, such assertions. Please read WP:TALK, which is already linked on your talk page, then either remove your accusations above, or follow WP:DR. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

83.67.3.166, your very dispute is laughable, and most level headed Bosniaks would not agree with you. No prominent Bosniak Wiki-editors, (such as Kseferovic), have ever made any such ridiculous claims, and never will, because they accept, and our proud of, the truth, which is, Bosniaks are Slavs. This is 100% factually accurate, and only those who operate on the very fringes of science try to suggest that Bosniaks are anything other than Slavs. Please don't try to insert any ridiculous pseudo-historical "facts" about Bosniaks being "100% Illyrian/Aryan/Blonde-haired blue eyed Scandinavians but we just speak Slavic language" because it is complete rubbish. There are a lot of people who believe many of the lies and half truths presented on Wikipedia, but no one in his right mind would ever believe anything so blatantly erroneous. - Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The following was moved from WP:THIRD:"User Ronz seems to be very unreasonable and uncivil, with active deletion of any content which doesn't favour Slavophile agenda. In that biast direction Ronz has dismissed and therefore insulted famous anthropologist and any possible Bosniak perspective. There is space for everybody's point of view, not just the Slavophile one. I have tried to reason with Ronz and have given up. Ronz has repeatedly Spammed and Vandalised Wikipedia pages which I tried to retrieve because they were repeats of topics already discussed and resolved in previous archives. I suggest Admin action on this. Please see Wikiquette_alerts and Talk:Bosniaks. NeutralBosnian 18:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)"

Can an Admin please stop user Ronz from modifying my discussion comments and changing what I typed, he has now done it repeatedly without warning in Talk:Bosniaks. 83.67.73.117 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * After a cursory look in at the talk pages mentioned, I don't see evidence of incivility by Ronz. Rather I see a long list of requests for discussion and appeals to policy. It is clearly a contentious and emotionally charged issue, and there have been refactorings of the talk pages in question by Ronz and by his accusers, but I would like to see some diffs in order to follow precisely what specific instances of incivility being complained about. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think he's talking about this, but it's nothing more than comment splitting. I see no error in 's contributions.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Disagreements do not equal incivility, as implied by this alert. I consider the issue closed. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bradeos Graphon, I cannot fatham why you have ignored the fact that User:Ronz has undone comments with Adult Language via a WP:BATTLE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralBosnian (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is coming from a who has a 3RR block and incivility warnings. Also, please cite a DIFF where he has used "adult" language.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * look at the bottom of the page for 'bull' And those incivility warnings are initiated by this user who seems to have reversed biased and contents with adult language, as well as Frvernchanezzz who has written adult language in Wikipedia.NeutralBosnian (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So? Wikipedia is not censored, and given that the word bullshit is not used to shock or intimidate the reader, WP:PROFANITY does not apply here. You were given warnings for repeated blankings and reverts, and an administrator felt that you were not heeding your warnings. It would be appropriate if you would stop deleting, removing or reverting content that contains "adult" language.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The user who used the word "bullshit" was commenting on a content issue at that point, not another user. Some previous refactoring of comments by Ronz would seem to have been in aid of interrupting a cycle of ad hominem statements. A person is allowed to express opinions germane to article content on the article talk page, so deleting an entire section of discussion will be seen as disruptive. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's news to me, at the moment usage of Adult Language is not to be frowned upon by Admins especially as it by default leads to negative reactions and aids to further problems. NeutralBosnian (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Language like that is frowned upon if it specifically violates policy. As a means of expression, any given admin may or may not care personally, but administrators will react to issues that fall under the umbrellas of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:PROFANITY. Those are your benchmarks. Unilaterally assigning motives to others working with those policies but whom you personally disagree with will not help your argument. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read all three of those in detail and the section which Ronz kept reverting had WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:PROFANITY. You've not even warned or banned Ronz at or Frvernchanezzz at all. Case closed. NeutralBosnian (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

NeutralBosnian has been indef blocked as a ban evading sock. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mayalld
I'd like to document the problems I've been having with this user. The user removed a lot of text I had been writing on the Grandiosa-page, which I thought was unnecessary. And later, I think the user was harassing me. I'll copy from the discussion:

'[edit] I really don't think that we are getting anywhere fast The problem that we have is that Johncons has an agenda here. He suspects foul play, and is determined to say so in the article, one way or another.

We are never going to get anywhere if we start off from the position of "I want the article to say this, how do I achieve it". That is POV pushing, and can only lead to further edit protection of the article, and blocking of Johncons from editing to protect the article from further POV pushing.

Johncons, if you really want to improve this article, please enter into a discussion here. A discussion is NOT simply demanding that your questions are answered, it is not adding reams and reams more text to the discussion trying to prove your case, it is not crafting questions to try and "win" an argument by getting a yes/no answer to a question so that you can extrapolate out to suport what you want to do.

Unless you can edit the article from a NPOV, it is best that you don't edit it at all.

Mayalld 16:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Ros0709 16:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already mentioned my agenda.

There were many things to comment at once.

So if we could take one thing at a time, then that would be fine I think.

Johncons 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so here are three points for you to take one at a time;

Please stop typing your replies with many paragraph spaces. It just makes the talk pages longer and longer Please keep your arguments short. More words doesn't mean more right Please accept, once and for all, that Wikipedia is NOT the place to pursue your agenda. Mayalld 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grandiosa"'.

I don't think the user is acting civil or in good faith. I think the user is harassing me, and also trying to dictate the editing. And I think this user and also an other user, Ros0709, is trying to 'overflow' me, with information on the Grandiosa discussion-page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grandiosa

I'm quite new on Wikipedia, but I hope I've proceded in the right way regarding this. Thanks for the help in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncons (talk • contribs)


 * I don't see the etiquette issue. It appears to be a content dispute. I would urge you to review WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTE Dlabtot (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Example of not having good faith and also not acting civil I think, because these answers, weren't with the case, these were advice not asked for, I would say they are patronising, person attack and impolite:

'Please stop typing your replies with many paragraph spaces. It just makes the talk pages longer and longer Please keep your arguments short. More words doesn't mean more right Please accept, once and for all, that Wikipedia is NOT the place to pursue your agenda.'.

Example of not having good faith (I had already explained my agenda): 'The problem that we have is that Johncons has an agenda here.'.

And there were examples of overflow of information from both mentioned users. Thats impolite and not civil, I think. These are the etiquette issues, and more can be found on the page in the link. I can have a new look on a later occation if someone wants more with the etiquette issue. Johncons (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, he's giving friendly advice per WP:TALK. Your comments, such as what you made here before I condense them, took up a considerable amount of real estate. You began new paragraphs with essentially every sentence. Per, I reformatted your posts because it was difficult to read. In future posts, please indent using a colon, which can be found at WP:TALK, and sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ).  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In my book, if someone are giving you advice, that you haven't asked for, then thats called to patronise.

Johncons (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I read those comments the first time you posted them here. I don't see any etiquette issue. Some other pages that might be helpful for you to review are WP:TALK and WP:DIFF. Dlabtot (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Response by User:Mayalld
When I happened upon this mess, User:Johncons had been on a 220 (yes, two hundred and twenty) revision editing spree attempting to add two paragraphs to the article. The edits contained a great deal of WP:OR, WP:POV and the references were mainly related to discussion boards (and not WP:RS). Every attempt by other editors to clean-up the additions to remove the worst excesses of unreferenced POV had been met with further determined editing to re-add the content. Other editors had already started a discussion about a user with an agenda blitzing the article.

I reviewed the editing, and it was as clear a case of POV pushing as I've seen, so I reverted the whole thing back to where it was befor the POV pushing started, and issued a level 2 warning for adding unsourced material.

The reversion was promptly undone, with a demand to discuss it on the talk page. I reverted back to the last known pre-dispute revision twice more, issuing a unsourced level 3 and a vandalism level 4 in the process. I also explained on the article talk page that as the edits were contentious, the right way to proceed was to discuss first, rather than add contentious unsourced material and demand discussion before it could be taken out again.

Following the level 4 warning, the vandalism ceased (subsequently my RPP request was accepted, and the page protected for a week), and User:Johncons started talking on the article talk page.

It was clear from these discussions that the user has an agenda (and admits to having an agenda), and wishes to soapbox a personal theory that he has about the maker of these pizzas.

The user is also convinced that the fact that another editor connected him with his posts in an off-wiki chatroom on the same subject is evidence of stalking and harassment.

I attempted to explain policy on original research, reliable sources and POV pushing. I also suggested that given the fringe theory, it was hardly surprising that the other editor had made a connection.

My attempts at explanation have borne little fruit. User:Johncons has an agenda and will discuss only to the extent that will allow him to get his additions into the article. Anything else is dismissed (at great length) as not answering his questions.

I have remained civil throughout, but have concluded that there is little hope that we will make any progress. The user adds huge volumes of text to the discussion without saying anything different, and refuses to accept that he cannot use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I have asked him to try and contribute to the discussion more productively and to accept that he cannot soapbox in an article.

His response has been to bring this complaint. It seems to me that, given the history of accusing another editor of stalking him, there is an emerging pattern of attempts to smear editors who stand in the way of his soapboxing, in the hope of removing people who might undo his POV pushing.

I can only hope that somebody else can achieve where I have failed dismally, and convince User:Johncons that he cannot proceed like this. If not, it seems inevitable that on expiry of protection, the POV pushing will start again, and User:Johncons will end up blocked.

Mayalld (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:Johncons
Hi, this is also a reply, for your message on my talk-page, since I hope you agree with me that we should only discuss these issues at one place at a time.

I appriciate your time and effort very much, so thanks very much for that!

I also appriciate very much the importance of getting the articles correct, and in line with the Wikipedia policies.

That I fully understand.

But since this section, is about netetiquette, then I will focus on the netetiquette issue in this answer.

I think that even if it is important to get the articles correct with the rules.

I think that even so, one should do this in an atmosphare, that isn't out of line with the netiquette standards in the Wiki comunity, (and of I would also say in normal society, I would think that these rules applies in here also).

I will try to write a new example.

Like in your text above:

'I can only hope that somebody else can achieve where I have failed dismally, and convince User:Johncons that he cannot proceed like this. If not, it seems inevitable that on expiry of protection, the POV pushing will start again, and User:Johncons will end up blocked.'.

Here you are in fact writing, that I am difficult to teach. (If my understanding of the English language isn't failing me).

And that's called harassment.

If one are saying that someone are more difficult to teach than others.

Then one are putting them on a lower level, compared with the others.

This can be an example, with the others, that I've written earlier, above, on what my point is in this section.

I'm not sure if I managed to explain this in an understandable way, but please just write me an answer here, if there is something that I haven't managed to explain good enough.

So thanks very much in advance for the reply!

Johncons (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I managed to write the answer before users signature, that I was answering, so had to edit. Sorry about this.

Johncons (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply by User:Mayalld
No I'm not saying that you are difficult to teach. I am saying that I have failed in my efforts to teach you.

Having said that, I refuse to pollute this page with even more text, as people really do have better things to do,

Mayalld (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:ros0709
I became aware of User:Johncons's activities a little before Mayalld when I was reviewing then recent edits. I am also briefly mentioned in the complaint. Two other editors have also briefly contributed to the debate, expressing concern at the edits (by either removing them or flagging them POV). Initially User:Johncons responded to other editors by simply reverting to his text, removing tags and refusing to listen to the opinions of the other editors. Mayalld has responded fairly, sensibly and entirely accoring to Wikipedia's principles, finally encouraging User:Johncons to enter into discussion, and is to be commended for his contribution. Ros0709 (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Follow up: it appears User:Johncons continued to pursue Mayalld by taking this (three times) to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (first archived already), continued to meet with disagreement and finally got himself suspended. I believe this item can be closed. Ros0709 (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Dennis-from-accounts
Hi there, User: Dennis-from-accounts has been using some rather harsh language and tactics, and it's gotten to the point where it's disrupting discussion. Recent examples include and  and, but you could look at pretty much any contrib of his on any talk page he has frequented and get about the same flavor. I have tried to ask him to lighten up the rhetoric over on his talk page, but he has made it abundantly clear that he "don't give a flying fuck about your policies"  ( and , ). I thought perhaps a gentle reminder from some other sources might be in order. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've taken care of it. I've reverted or deleted his personal attacks on other editors and on talk pages, and have restored deleted comments from talk pages. He's also been left with numerous notices, and upon his next attack, let me know personally.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you to both of you. Please note, this is a woman so don't refer to me as "him" and "he" you knobs. Dennis-from-accounts (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, pronoun mistakes happen, especially when your username contains a traditionally male name. On the other hand, calling people "knobs" is inappropriate. Please do not call people names anywhere on Wikipedia, especially the etiquette alert board. It's vulgar and intentionally denigrating language that could have no sensible justification. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And even more detrimental to (her) case of incivility.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the prompt and courteous attention. I hereby take back 1/2 of all the nasty things I've told my students about using Wikipedia. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.8.150 (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * lol, just so you know dennis from accounts is from this television ad from New Zealand, you can watch it if you want: http://youtube.com/watch?v=dKJIg3EXHOs. I'm so happy that this matter has been resolved, it makes me so giddy. But what the fudge? I haven't closed my account obviously, I'm just going to take hard earned Wikibreak. I love you all. Dennis-from-accounts (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are dangerously close to having your account reported to WP:AIV if your vandalism persists. Blanking of comments, vandalism of article status, etc. are not acceptable uses of your time.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 12:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Make that 'more than close.' An admin stepped in and has blocked the user.  Kudos...I guess I'll have to take back as much as 3/4 of the nasty stuff I tell students about Wikipedia.  Y'all are still hideously unreliable though. :)

User:Mikkalai
Mikkalai is attacking me on Articles for deletion/Korphai without provocation. Not only calling me biased and lazy, but when I objected, made further attacks. Corvus cornix talk  03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kind of weak and I really don't see much incivility just yet, outside of calling one lazy or saying one should do some "reverting" elsewhere. Let me know if it escalates. I left a note on the 's talk page as well.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And Mikkalai removed your comments from his Talk page without comment, and has removed editing tags from Korphai as "trolling".  Corvus cornix  talk  16:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And now Mikkalai has expanded his incivility on the Articles for deletion discussion to including attacks on other people who have come to comment.  Corvus cornix  talk  16:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't see incivility. It's weak at best. And a user is allowed to remove comments from his/her own talk pages as they please.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't see labeling others as trolls incivility? I agree that a person can remove other people's comments from their Talk pages if they want, but he did so without addressing this problem.   Corvus cornix  talk  18:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not if its on his own talk page. If we have a user who is pushing to label a user as incivil for whatever minute reason, then the responding user has every right to remove comments from his own talk page and label it as a trolling comment. This is probably a great reason as to why he removed the WQA notice from his page and has deferred from replying here. User talk pages give a lot of leeway. But I can't find a diff for that; can you provide one?  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is where he called another editor's edits as "trolling".  Corvus cornix  talk  18:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee, I wonder why. You piled on the tags, yet did no real work to the otherwise short article. For the amount of time you spent applying tag after tag, taking up real estate (screen), you could have improved the article and be done with it. Furthermore, some of the tags make no sense at all (additional sources, when nearly every sentence is sourced?). There are many editors who are tired of others coming along, tagging up an article, and leaving, doing no real work outside of that.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The only tag I put on it was the afd tag, and the additional sources tag was there for over a year, before Mikkalai and others added sources. And I did do some work on The Overture, but again, I didn't do anything to the article in question because I couldn't find reliable sources, and didn't want to add anything from unreliable ones.  And as of yet, nobody has added any reliable sourcing.  Corvus cornix  talk  21:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what the article looked like before I got anywhere near it.  Corvus cornix  talk  21:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To look back on the AfD post, it does seem that Mikkalai's language was probably needlessly inflammatory. I'm not sure it's necessarily a personal attack, but the message could certainly have been conveyed in a more civil tone. -- B figura (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai has apologized. I consider this matter finished. Corvus cornix talk  02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:GusChiggins21
I've been the subject of repeated personal attacks and uncivil comments from User:GusChiggins21 because he disagrees with some of my edits. He has called me obnoxious, a spammer, and told me he doesn't like me. He's also accused me of not liking him. He's also used strong profanity and all caps on my talk page. He has also accused me of starting an edit war. I've never dealt with quite this level of unreasonable behavior, so I'm not sure how to handle it, but I'm going to step away from the situation now after reporting it here. Here are links to the pages with the personal attacks and uncivil comments:

Talk:Sharp_betting, Talk:Bonus_hunting, User_talk:Rray

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Rray (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For easier access,, .  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has been following me around wikipedia and editing my contributions in a negative way. He acknowledges this "I watch your edits because a lot of them are bad edits". See Talk:Sharp betting. This user does not contribute to these articles, he merely reverts my edits, and disputes what I write. I caught him spamming an article: bonus hustling; he replaced several links to a reliable site that I put in with a link to his personal homepage. He has deleted several sourced statements without grounds, and has even deleted sources on several occasions. He has reverted edits of mine several times, without getting consensus from the other editors of the article, and without cause. I believe that this user has a problem with me for some reason, and I have asked to be left alone. Nothing would make me happier than to never deal with this user again, and consider this issue settled. GusChiggins21 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems as if is insisting ownership, though comments like, and inserts citations whereas there is no mention of "sharp betting" such as . "Common knowledge" is also not an acceptable citation, as Gus indicated in this edit. Per Rray's comment, one edit doesn't constitute a revert war, and removal of a spam link does not constitute grounds for a "ban."   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at the context. This user has been editing every article or edit I make for weeks, and then comes into an article I wrote, and demands a citation for whether two terms are exactly synonymous, then reverts a citation because it didn't explicitly equate the terms; it just equated the concept that a skilled bettor is known as a handicapper. At a certain point, one gets fed up with the antics. In the interest of ending this whole thing, I will freely admGusChiggins21 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * After a certain point, I did not assume good faith with this user, and accordingly got sarcastic on some talk pages, and asked the user to leave me alone. It was after the user made a number of edits, reverts, and deletions that I believe were based on POV issues with me, and made some edits which were spam. I believe that this user also acted inappropriately, by editing my articles from the POV that I am a bad editor that needs to be policed. I also believe that this user is unevenly applying wikipedia policies, by demanding extremely rigorous citations for facts that he knows to be true on my articles, and not doing so on anyone else's articles. Again, nothing would make me happier than for this editor to stop editing my articles from an extremely hostile position, and leave me alone. GusChiggins21 (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Outside view- I happened to be visiting Rray's talk page and was shocked to see the two personal attacks in swift succession from GusChiggins21. Gus, Rray is a good editor who's been here a while.  Try not to take other's edits personally, take a look at RRray's edits on their own merits rather than judging them based on who they're from or whether or not it's an edit of yours he's altering.  You might find the edits are ok really or even good.:)  Certainly try not to take wiki so personally or get so upset about it, and you will enjoy your time here a lot more.  Happy editing.:) Me rk i n s m um  23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Merkinsmum. Gus, you need to tone it down as far as personal attacks go. You should not contribute to Wikipedia unless you agree to have your contributions mercilessly edited. It's the nature of Wikipedia. You need not be aware of all the policies that might motivate the removal of links or reversions of your contributions, but when someone cites such things you have to acknowledge their right to do so and abide by the community-accepted guidelines (e.g. external links). --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This and this (to a lesser extent), comments by, are considered incivil and should be refrained by all means. To reply to Gus' reply, your citation must explicitly equate the terms; to quote an entire web-site where no such term or phrase can be found is not acceptable. Either link to a specific web-site where the term can be explicitly mentioned, or remove it and the phrase, per WP:PROVEIT.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:DionysiusThrax
The article on Bernie Ward has always been a hotbed of controversy because of disputes over his political and religious views. Now that an, arguably quite controversial in itself, federal child pornography indictment, to which Mr. Ward has pled Not Guilty has just been handed down from the government he regularly lambastes, his detractors seem intent on having a field day dragging the man through the mud. I personally -- I want to make this VERY clear -- have mixed feelings about Bernie Ward, but I do not think this occasion constitutes Open Season on Bernie Ward. I WISH TO ASK THE PROPER ADMINISTRATORS TO INTERVENE AND FREEZE THE EDITING OF THIS ARTICLE NOW, as it seems absolutely DOOMED to spark an Edit War! RESPECTFULLY, EVERYBODY PLEASE SHOW SOME RESTRAINT! AND ADMINS: PLEASE CONSIDER FREEZING THE ARTICLE NOW! Thanks for your consideration. DThrax (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good grief. There are several blogs listed as "credible" sources, which fails WP:EL and WP:BLP. I'll do cleanup.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mshake3
I am making this report due to recent edits by the user concerned. He has been behaving in a manner that I consider to be rude and probably a violation of WP:CIVIL.

I asked a question about 411mania.com and it's status under WP:RS on the Wiki Project Pro Wrestling talk page. The user - per a previous debate over the status of another website - promptly used this question to deride it "And I know how much you love that site" in the context of mocking my view of the other site. Which was irrelevant in this instance. I asked other users for opinions "without personal backchat" and the user again repeated his behaviour - ordering me to remove all sources if "I didn't trust it". I was trying to do the right thing, and this person's attitude leaves a lot to be desired. I requested him to cease on his talk page here only for him to revert the edit here and continue the mocking behaviour in the edit summary. Just now I tried to restore the edit here with what I consider to be a resonable point in the edit summary, but he has reverted it again here and citing WP:DRC. Whilst that may be a fair comment, he is still refusing to acknowledge his conduct is not appropriate and he may need to be pulled into line.

I hope that adding this here will help resolve matters and I don't have to take the matter further. ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 02:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as a precautionary note, per WP:TALK, users are allowed to delete comments, notices, etc. on their user talk pages. If this extends into discussion pages elsewhere, that would be a valid concern.
 * The citation in question,, is a blog entry. Note that the entry was "posted" by a username and not a journalist, and that it was credited to a more authoritative news source. Cite _that_ source if it meets WP:V, WP:CITE, etc. (PWInsider.com). I trust that it can be met; if not, the source should not be used.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * SERVED! SERVED! SERVED! SERVED! I kid, I kid. OK now. The issue at hand was over the blacklisting of PWInsider.com, which in turn lead to a separate discussion on whether or not the site is reliable. After dealing with what I felt were "circular arguments" from Punk, I left comments on his talk page that I felt were acceptable, but in the end probably shouldn't have been left. Flash forward to this week, and Punk brings up the reliability of 411mania. A quick look at it's use in the Brock Lesnar article shows that the "articles" were merely cut and pastings from the PWInsider site. Remembering our "conversation", I brought up how much he hated that site, with a wink, basically to say "we both have our opinions on that site." Even though I answered the question at hand, he decided to remove it because I was a "smart ass". And after my clarification (I know you don't trust that site, so remove them), he then threatens me with this. As for the message being left on my talk page, apparently he doesn't want me to comment about these sites. Not sure why, as I have an opinion on them just like everyone else, and I certinally have the right to express them. So to recap, yeah, I can be a bit of a hardhead, and my attempts at humor might not come through in a typed format. At the same time, I feel that Punk should be showing a better sense of humor. Mshake3 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a neutral party, I see Punk's point. I know you don't trust that site, so remove them sounds like an order to me rather than a clarification. And I don't see the humour. How is your conduct funny? Surely you realise that not everyone will see that? GetDumb (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, GD! It's not funny at all. Worse still, MShake just won't acknowledge my offence to his conduct. I had a serious query about a site and WP:RS and he comes in and in effect derails the query. Not a time to "lighten things up" especially with the previous argument still relatively fresh. I maintain my edit referring to his diversion as "smart ass" was correct under the circumstances. He knew the subject was to be avoided and yet he re-introduced it anyway - which he now explains as an attempt at humour. I'm not laughing. There's a time and a place for humour - and this was not it. I agree with GD that MShake was in effect giving me an order. I am due an apology and a statement that he will not broach the subject with me in any way whatsoever again. And it has nothing to do with my opinion of PWInsider. That is not relevant to this current issue.  !! Just a Punk !!  08:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mention below, it's not really an "order" when I tell you to do something that you yourself said should be done. Mshake3 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please provide diffs of the actual comment(s) that was/were allegedly uncivil? All I see is some reverting of talkpage comments (which Mshake is allowed to do, it's his talkpage). In fact, Mshake seems to refer to a moment where JustaPunk removed his comments (made in good faith) from an article talkpage because they may or may not have contained humor that he didn't like (I'd like to see diffs for that too). I'm not so sure of this issue, and I think "giving orders" is not exactly something we can extrapolate from a decontextualized quotation (or something that's necessarily the biggest no-no around - people "give orders" all the time in ways that are perfectly acceptible). Note that this is also relevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there's this, which shows his opinion on PWInsider (and yes Punk, this site is quite important with this issue), citing "If it's a PWInsider mirror it should be [blacklisted]". While there are no official "mirrors" of this site, it is common for other wrestling sites and blogs to repost this information on their own. Therefore, in his stated reasoning, if an article cites PWInsider as a source, then it is unreliable. So when he questions the reliablility of 411mania, and I point out their sources, and tell him to do something that he himself said should be done, I don't expect there to be an issue! Mshake3 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Cheeser, I thought I'd provided enough. This took me some time, and hopefully you'll follow it.

As stated, I was checking the WP:RS status of 411mania.com. MShake came on and said this. I found this comment to be innappropriate and divisive, and I removed it. I feel that referring to the comment I removed as "smart arse" was correct and appropriate. He then restored it ignoring my annoyance and request for serious assistance here. He also ordered me not to remove his comments per the edit summary. A clear indication that he didn't care that I was offended by the first edit. It refers to a previous dispute which I'll talk about in a moment.

This caused me to go to his talk page and post this. He removed it and his edit summary was rude and unfunny - and again showed no respect for my offence to his conduct to this point.

I restored it in order to push home my point. But he removed it again citing WP:DRC, which is not policy incidentally.

Back on the Wiki Project page, MShake said this. It was rude and continued the previous line - including orders (telling me how to react to a situation - it's the same thing) and rehashing the issue which as far as I was concerned was closed (see further down). This was after I asked for serious opinion and not "personal backchat" thus.

I then referred him to WP:NAM and WP:WQT to further drive home the point that his behaviour was offending me. I also mentioned WP:WQA as a warning in this edit. It was when MShake posted this that I brought the matter here.

The original dispute was associated with an RFC over WWE Smackdown spoilers. Providing diffs for this is not possible because in sheer edit load it's long way back (mid to late November) with the initial edits as well as the RFC itself (in which there were no edits by me directed at MShake). The best I can suggest in this respect is to go here and scroll down. My sig is easy to find. There's nothing here except a reasonable debate.

But on my talk page, MShake posted this. It was a reference to PWInsider breaking the news earlier this year that New Year's Revolution had been cancelled for 2008. There was nothing to confirm this on WWE.com. I felt this question was a bit silly to be honest, and then he added this. As I recall, I never expressed a solid personal view of PWInsider's accuracy, except to agree with some other opinions that referred to it as a dirtsheet. This edit insinuated that I'd added the references, and I was furious at what I saw as a hasty conclusion.My response expressed this clearly.

He came back to my talk page and failed to apologise for my offence and acknowledge his error. Instead he sought to correct it, and again associated my personal opinion with an action that he felt I should take (which is the beginnings of his move towards the "orders" later).

I returned to his talk page and asked him to control himself. This is the first edit that MShake refers to above, and I was talking about my view of blacklisting on WP - not the reliability of PWInsider. MShake has taken that comment out of context, assuming that I was saying the references should be removed. I was not saying that at all.He didn't control himself. I considered this to be a violation of WP:CIVIL and I removed it thus. And I also told him on his talk page.

But he returned with another rude comment. I removed it again citing WP:CIVIL thus, and I warned him again.

That seemed to be the end of that, and I assumed he'd got the message. This latest dispute shows that I was wrong.

Hopefully that helps, Cheeser. I find MShake's conduct offensive and at the very least he should stay away from me and understand that not everyone finds this funny. ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, this whole thing seems to be nothing but misunderstandings. And looking at it, I might have confused Punk with another user, and thus misdirected my rage. As for staying away... I'm still going to post at the project, and I'm still going to comment on wrestling websites. If we cross paths, then hopefully you'll have good arguments to your statements. Mshake3 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * hopefully you'll have good arguments to your statements
 * THAT remark demonstrates the very sort of behaviour that I consider unacceptable, MShake. It's confrontational at an inappropriate level, and that's why I want you to stay away from me. I already told you once back in November. I'm not stopping you from editing at certain pages completly. Just don't get involved in any conversation that I am involved in - especially if the subject is dirtsheets. I'm still don't think you are understanding the situation as it stands. Even in a misunderstanding, you don't try to inject humour when it's clear the other person is hardly in a mood for it.  !! Just a Punk !!  02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, because when it comes to other websites, I've seen some god-awful reasoning from you and others. If you don't like that, oh well. As a member of WP:PW (and even if I wasn't), I have every right to comment on issues related to the project, especially one as important as reliable sources. Mshake3 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * JustaPunk, you need to cool it. You are the one who's stepping across community-accepted boundaries. You're removing peoples comments (not acceptable) and then disrespecting others' talkpages (also unacceptable). The worst he did was tell you that you don't know what your talking about, which (if true) is actually probably the most appropriate thing to do. I suggest you take a break from this conflict, instead of putting so much energy and fuel into a meaningless and insubstantial conflict. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How is it the wrong thing to remove comments that I consider offensive from my own talk page? The others - all right I'll cop that, but I claim provocation. And further it was NOT meaningless and insubstantial. Are you saying I haven't been insulted? MShake even did it again calling my reasoning "god-awful". That's extremely personal, and if you are saying I have no right to be offended by such behaviour, then I shall have to do more than just take a break. I'll have to leave WP altogether. WP:POT is not applicable beyond the reverting edit issue, which as I said I'll cop. But I will not tolerate MShake's conduct over the dirtsheet issues. If he stays away from me as previously indicated - then OK the matter is closed. If not then I shall have no alternative but to depart WP once I deal with a couple of outstanding issues.  !! Just a Punk !!  05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I attacked your arguments by calling them god-awful. And I still think they are. I have every reason to doubt your arguments. And just to be fair, we could go through the entire PWInsider debate again, right here, so it's crystal clear what everyone's opinion is. Mshake3 (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for a debate. Why doesn't anyone see what's happening here? This is getting worse!! On second thoughts I won't bother. MShake - do not speak to me ever again on any subject. You create too much stress for me because you won't listen and understand and accept my offence. (This alert should be labelled as permanently unresolved - thank you)  !! Just a Punk !!  09:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're getting offended because he disagrees with you and does so because your arguments seem to make no sense. Saying so is not a deathly personal attack. I strongly suggest that you take a break, instead of issuing some sort of restraining order demanding that another Wikipedian never speak to you again. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:74.33.197.125
This is reference to the article Jacob Klock (colonel). This user is engaging in a personal attack on an external website []. User has placed a link to this website in the discussion page. User may have recruited a "meat puppet". I don't care that much what happens to this article. Based upon my interaction and the fact that the user is willing to escalate the dispute to an external website I don't feel it is safe for me to have any further interaction with this user, since I believe this user is capable and willing to post personally damaging information about me on an external website. BradMajors (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For reviewers: Previous related discussion took place at Editor assistance/Requests. I dorftrottel I talk I 10:24, December 10, 2007

Personal attack against another editor on article talk page
I'm not quite sure how to handle this and I'll be away from the computer for the holidays, so I would appreciate it if someone could watch this and make sure it doesn't escalate.

On Dec. 2, User:Harald4244 posted out of the blue a personal attack against User:Jesusfreund at Talk:Die Feuerzangenbowle. I pointed out that he had accidentally overwritten the talk page with his comment and he commented on the article talk page: "I think this was done by someone called Jesusfreund, a German Wiki-colleague of yours, an ardent communist and an almost professional IP-faker, and I am now going to sue him for the latter." I felt this comment was way out of line (political slur, accusations of fraud and a lawsuit threat all in one against a user who had not even contributed to the discussion at all), so I posted back a suggestion to remove the comment. That hasn't happened yet and it appears Harald4244 hasn't even logged into Wikipedia since posting it.

Digging around some, I found that there is indeed an editor User:Jesusfreund, but he hasn't edited since May and never touched the article in question. He probably doesn't even know it's there and I don't feel like stirring things up by telling him. User:Harald4244 didn't start editing until October, so there are no pages on the English Wikipedia where these two editors interacted. However, looking at the German Wikipedia, I found that de:Benutzer:Jesusfreund has been a long-term contributor since 2004 while de:Benutzer:Harald4244 has been blocked - apparently after being reported by Jesusfreund on Dec. 2 which explains what triggered his spiteful comment on the English Wikipedia on that date. Regardless of that explanation, I still feel the comment should be removed from the talk page, but I wasn't sure where to report it and how to go about that. Suggestions welcome. - tameeria (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I say go ahead and remove the personal attack. If you want, you can leave a note on the perosn who posted the attack's talk page reminding them not to make such attacks in the future.Ngchen (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it doesn't sound like this user is behaving civilly. It would be helpful if you could provide diffs to help us isolate and examine the behavior more closely. Additionally, I always forget exactly what to do when people start threatening others with lawsuits, but that is a whole separate issue that requires additional treatment - threatening people with lawsuits on Wikipedia is very much not tolerated. One of the other regulars can (hopefully) recall this better than me and give you a suggestion about that. If you provide me with some diffs of the insults/attacks, I'd be happy to look them over and leave a suitable warning/suggestion on the rude user's talkpage. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the questionable addition. The attack wasn't directed against me but against a totally unrelated editor not involved in the article at all. I was puzzled by the out-of-the-blue spitefulness against this editor at first, but finding the report and ban on the German Wikipedia shed some light on it. - tameeria (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left a note. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Legal threats are quite serious - see WP:LEGAL. Egfrank (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the one I was looking for. This user may need to be indef-banned until the legal issues are either resolved or dropped, but that's outside the scope of this alert board. I'd suggest going to the WP:ANI if anyone thinks this issue needs to be addressed. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's necessary. He doesn't seem to have signed in since posting that comment, so it appears he has stepped away and taken a Wiki-break to cool off his frustration, if he hasn't even lost interest in Wikipedia completely. - tameeria (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! It is indeed true that I haven't signed in for quite a while. But several things did not happen as it is maintained here.

1) "Jesusfreund" didn't make the false edits under his own nick. This should sufficiently explain why his name doesn't show up anywhere near the articles in question.

2) At an earlier stage he had (wrongly!) reported me for writing an edit in the German language article about holocaust denial that I was not in the least responsible for. When complaining about this incident via mail, guess who answered me: Jesusfreund! He who allegedly is not even an administrator. This way - after some more tries - I found out that he has at least three more administrator nicks under which he is still being active. He didn't even deny.

3) I do not quite understand what would be wrong about taking him to court. What he has done is a serious offense, including slander and posing for other persons. In the end, I didn't sue him. But I could have, though I cannot recall having threatened to do so. But maybe Tameeria only made that up.

4) Jesusfreund seems to have a great dislike for t-online-users. No one objected when he started threatening me without any reason. The reason why I am now here: Some days ago I received an angry email from a new user named Elchskopf. Apparently he had been immediately banned from the German project by some guy named Engie. I remember that nick very well. It belongs - you will never guess - to Jesusfreund (whose real life name and profession I still don't know). He maintained that Elchskopf was me, solely on the basis of a seemingly identical IP. In fact everyone having t-online as a provider in the greater area of Colone has an (almost) identical IP that changes just a little each session.

So please, Tameeria, be a bit more careful with your unspeakable allegations next time.

harald4244 (talk) 20:14, 04 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mshake3
I am making this report due to recent edits by the user concerned. He has been behaving in a manner that I consider to be rude and probably a violation of WP:CIVIL.

I asked a question about 411mania.com and it's status under WP:RS on the Wiki Project Pro Wrestling talk page. The user - per a previous debate over the status of another website - promptly used this question to deride it "And I know how much you love that site" in the context of mocking my view of the other site. Which was irrelevant in this instance. I asked other users for opinions "without personal backchat" and the user again repeated his behaviour - ordering me to remove all sources if "I didn't trust it". I was trying to do the right thing, and this person's attitude leaves a lot to be desired. I requested him to cease on his talk page here only for him to revert the edit here and continue the mocking behaviour in the edit summary. Just now I tried to restore the edit here with what I consider to be a resonable point in the edit summary, but he has reverted it again here and citing WP:DRC. Whilst that may be a fair comment, he is still refusing to acknowledge his conduct is not appropriate and he may need to be pulled into line.

I hope that adding this here will help resolve matters and I don't have to take the matter further. ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 02:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as a precautionary note, per WP:TALK, users are allowed to delete comments, notices, etc. on their user talk pages. If this extends into discussion pages elsewhere, that would be a valid concern.
 * The citation in question,, is a blog entry. Note that the entry was "posted" by a username and not a journalist, and that it was credited to a more authoritative news source. Cite _that_ source if it meets WP:V, WP:CITE, etc. (PWInsider.com). I trust that it can be met; if not, the source should not be used.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * SERVED! SERVED! SERVED! SERVED! I kid, I kid. OK now. The issue at hand was over the blacklisting of PWInsider.com, which in turn lead to a separate discussion on whether or not the site is reliable. After dealing with what I felt were "circular arguments" from Punk, I left comments on his talk page that I felt were acceptable, but in the end probably shouldn't have been left. Flash forward to this week, and Punk brings up the reliability of 411mania. A quick look at it's use in the Brock Lesnar article shows that the "articles" were merely cut and pastings from the PWInsider site. Remembering our "conversation", I brought up how much he hated that site, with a wink, basically to say "we both have our opinions on that site." Even though I answered the question at hand, he decided to remove it because I was a "smart ass". And after my clarification (I know you don't trust that site, so remove them), he then threatens me with this. As for the message being left on my talk page, apparently he doesn't want me to comment about these sites. Not sure why, as I have an opinion on them just like everyone else, and I certinally have the right to express them. So to recap, yeah, I can be a bit of a hardhead, and my attempts at humor might not come through in a typed format. At the same time, I feel that Punk should be showing a better sense of humor. Mshake3 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a neutral party, I see Punk's point. I know you don't trust that site, so remove them sounds like an order to me rather than a clarification. And I don't see the humour. How is your conduct funny? Surely you realise that not everyone will see that? GetDumb (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, GD! It's not funny at all. Worse still, MShake just won't acknowledge my offence to his conduct. I had a serious query about a site and WP:RS and he comes in and in effect derails the query. Not a time to "lighten things up" especially with the previous argument still relatively fresh. I maintain my edit referring to his diversion as "smart ass" was correct under the circumstances. He knew the subject was to be avoided and yet he re-introduced it anyway - which he now explains as an attempt at humour. I'm not laughing. There's a time and a place for humour - and this was not it. I agree with GD that MShake was in effect giving me an order. I am due an apology and a statement that he will not broach the subject with me in any way whatsoever again. And it has nothing to do with my opinion of PWInsider. That is not relevant to this current issue.  !! Just a Punk !!  08:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mention below, it's not really an "order" when I tell you to do something that you yourself said should be done. Mshake3 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please provide diffs of the actual comment(s) that was/were allegedly uncivil? All I see is some reverting of talkpage comments (which Mshake is allowed to do, it's his talkpage). In fact, Mshake seems to refer to a moment where JustaPunk removed his comments (made in good faith) from an article talkpage because they may or may not have contained humor that he didn't like (I'd like to see diffs for that too). I'm not so sure of this issue, and I think "giving orders" is not exactly something we can extrapolate from a decontextualized quotation (or something that's necessarily the biggest no-no around - people "give orders" all the time in ways that are perfectly acceptible). Note that this is also relevant. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there's this, which shows his opinion on PWInsider (and yes Punk, this site is quite important with this issue), citing "If it's a PWInsider mirror it should be [blacklisted]". While there are no official "mirrors" of this site, it is common for other wrestling sites and blogs to repost this information on their own. Therefore, in his stated reasoning, if an article cites PWInsider as a source, then it is unreliable. So when he questions the reliablility of 411mania, and I point out their sources, and tell him to do something that he himself said should be done, I don't expect there to be an issue! Mshake3 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Cheeser, I thought I'd provided enough. This took me some time, and hopefully you'll follow it.

As stated, I was checking the WP:RS status of 411mania.com. MShake came on and said this. I found this comment to be innappropriate and divisive, and I removed it. I feel that referring to the comment I removed as "smart arse" was correct and appropriate. He then restored it ignoring my annoyance and request for serious assistance here. He also ordered me not to remove his comments per the edit summary. A clear indication that he didn't care that I was offended by the first edit. It refers to a previous dispute which I'll talk about in a moment.

This caused me to go to his talk page and post this. He removed it and his edit summary was rude and unfunny - and again showed no respect for my offence to his conduct to this point.

I restored it in order to push home my point. But he removed it again citing WP:DRC, which is not policy incidentally.

Back on the Wiki Project page, MShake said this. It was rude and continued the previous line - including orders (telling me how to react to a situation - it's the same thing) and rehashing the issue which as far as I was concerned was closed (see further down). This was after I asked for serious opinion and not "personal backchat" thus.

I then referred him to WP:NAM and WP:WQT to further drive home the point that his behaviour was offending me. I also mentioned WP:WQA as a warning in this edit. It was when MShake posted this that I brought the matter here.

The original dispute was associated with an RFC over WWE Smackdown spoilers. Providing diffs for this is not possible because in sheer edit load it's long way back (mid to late November) with the initial edits as well as the RFC itself (in which there were no edits by me directed at MShake). The best I can suggest in this respect is to go here and scroll down. My sig is easy to find. There's nothing here except a reasonable debate.

But on my talk page, MShake posted this. It was a reference to PWInsider breaking the news earlier this year that New Year's Revolution had been cancelled for 2008. There was nothing to confirm this on WWE.com. I felt this question was a bit silly to be honest, and then he added this. As I recall, I never expressed a solid personal view of PWInsider's accuracy, except to agree with some other opinions that referred to it as a dirtsheet. This edit insinuated that I'd added the references, and I was furious at what I saw as a hasty conclusion.My response expressed this clearly.

He came back to my talk page and failed to apologise for my offence and acknowledge his error. Instead he sought to correct it, and again associated my personal opinion with an action that he felt I should take (which is the beginnings of his move towards the "orders" later).

I returned to his talk page and asked him to control himself. This is the first edit that MShake refers to above, and I was talking about my view of blacklisting on WP - not the reliability of PWInsider. MShake has taken that comment out of context, assuming that I was saying the references should be removed. I was not saying that at all.He didn't control himself. I considered this to be a violation of WP:CIVIL and I removed it thus. And I also told him on his talk page.

But he returned with another rude comment. I removed it again citing WP:CIVIL thus, and I warned him again.

That seemed to be the end of that, and I assumed he'd got the message. This latest dispute shows that I was wrong.

Hopefully that helps, Cheeser. I find MShake's conduct offensive and at the very least he should stay away from me and understand that not everyone finds this funny. ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, this whole thing seems to be nothing but misunderstandings. And looking at it, I might have confused Punk with another user, and thus misdirected my rage. As for staying away... I'm still going to post at the project, and I'm still going to comment on wrestling websites. If we cross paths, then hopefully you'll have good arguments to your statements. Mshake3 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * hopefully you'll have good arguments to your statements
 * THAT remark demonstrates the very sort of behaviour that I consider unacceptable, MShake. It's confrontational at an inappropriate level, and that's why I want you to stay away from me. I already told you once back in November. I'm not stopping you from editing at certain pages completly. Just don't get involved in any conversation that I am involved in - especially if the subject is dirtsheets. I'm still don't think you are understanding the situation as it stands. Even in a misunderstanding, you don't try to inject humour when it's clear the other person is hardly in a mood for it.  !! Just a Punk !!  02:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, because when it comes to other websites, I've seen some god-awful reasoning from you and others. If you don't like that, oh well. As a member of WP:PW (and even if I wasn't), I have every right to comment on issues related to the project, especially one as important as reliable sources. Mshake3 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * JustaPunk, you need to cool it. You are the one who's stepping across community-accepted boundaries. You're removing peoples comments (not acceptable) and then disrespecting others' talkpages (also unacceptable). The worst he did was tell you that you don't know what your talking about, which (if true) is actually probably the most appropriate thing to do. I suggest you take a break from this conflict, instead of putting so much energy and fuel into a meaningless and insubstantial conflict. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How is it the wrong thing to remove comments that I consider offensive from my own talk page? The others - all right I'll cop that, but I claim provocation. And further it was NOT meaningless and insubstantial. Are you saying I haven't been insulted? MShake even did it again calling my reasoning "god-awful". That's extremely personal, and if you are saying I have no right to be offended by such behaviour, then I shall have to do more than just take a break. I'll have to leave WP altogether. WP:POT is not applicable beyond the reverting edit issue, which as I said I'll cop. But I will not tolerate MShake's conduct over the dirtsheet issues. If he stays away from me as previously indicated - then OK the matter is closed. If not then I shall have no alternative but to depart WP once I deal with a couple of outstanding issues.  !! Just a Punk !!  05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I attacked your arguments by calling them god-awful. And I still think they are. I have every reason to doubt your arguments. And just to be fair, we could go through the entire PWInsider debate again, right here, so it's crystal clear what everyone's opinion is. Mshake3 (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for a debate. Why doesn't anyone see what's happening here? This is getting worse!! On second thoughts I won't bother. MShake - do not speak to me ever again on any subject. You create too much stress for me because you won't listen and understand and accept my offence. (This alert should be labelled as permanently unresolved - thank you)  !! Just a Punk !!  09:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're getting offended because he disagrees with you and does so because your arguments seem to make no sense. Saying so is not a deathly personal attack. I strongly suggest that you take a break, instead of issuing some sort of restraining order demanding that another Wikipedian never speak to you again. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)