Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive57

User: ThuranX Use of a swear word that begins with an "F" and rymes with "Duck"
Uncivil communication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs)


 * Firstly, you can say "fuck" here; Wikipedia isn't censored. Secondly, I don't personally think that WTF (the form of words used in the diff above) is all that uncivil. I'd hope ThuranX would avoid such figures of speech in future (perhaps using "what on earth" instead) just as I hope you notify them of this thread.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with comment about "fuck," but the 'Shut the hell up already' seems uncivil to me. Gerardw (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am more concerned with ThuranX's implication that Jojhutton is racist without any evidence being provided. I agree with the sentiment on the page that Jojhutton took the argument way too far, but ThuranX should be cautioned about his statements, both his "shut the hell up already" and his implication that Jojhutton is racist.  Theseeker4 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fuck is in the suburbs of civility, strong, open to being taken wrong, rarely needed, but when used as a modifier like that, no need for admin action. The bit about the sheets is a blatant personal attack and I hope ThuranX will take it back. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with either. Jojhutton is insistent that we point out that he's not really a black president because he swore the oath wrong. It's racist, and I called him on it. Obnoxious racism deserves ridicule, and I sarcastically gave that. As for 'shut the hell up', that too was long overdue. His response to overwhelming consensus NOT to include was to call the entire group that replied a conspiracy against the truth, among other insults he kept hurling. He needed a trout slapping, and I gave it. Note that I wasn't the only one who found him to be bigoted, or ridiculously obnoxious there. In order to relieve the pressures of being the police of a Nanny State, I have helped you out by striking the 'horrible' blunt speech used against a bigoted partisan hack. Go write some articles. ThuranX (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you've redacted it. Jojhutton didn't even edit the article. Racist and/or original research talk page comments like those can get very nettlesome very quickly, as these did, but personal attacks aren't the way to deal with them. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, the personal attacks have to stop. I looked at every diff and comment Jojhutton made on that thread, and he never mentioned anything about him being black.  Where is the diff?  It is against Wikipedia policy to make personal attacks, like that noted above and the one you just made here, without strong supporting evidence.  There was no racism evident in that thread, which makes your posts, not his, worthy of censure.  Did he argue the case to death?  Yes.  Did he refuse to accept consensus?  Yes.  Did he edit war or try to force the article into his own viewpoint?  No. Attacks are not OK, and striking out a statement while saying he is a "bigoted partisan hack" shows he is not the one in need of a trout smacking. Theseeker4 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a bit concerned that tensions could escalate here. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to all who have participated in this discussion. I would like to point out that my insistance on the talk page to continue arguing was not for arguments sake. It was because, like Thuranx, many did not seem to understand what exactly I was trying to point out. Almost everyone continued to argue very valid points, but the incorrect way. Its like if I was arguing on point A, and someone rebutted on Point B. It wasn't making sense to me, that is why I continued to try and rephrase the question, hoping that someone might actually make a rebutal on the actual point I was trying to argue. All I got were illogical statments and accusations of racism.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

FurryMUCK? --NE2 06:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "All I got were illogical statments and accusations of racism." That's a rather sweeping statement, considering how many editors responded in that thread. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The post was very far from civil, and this is user who has a history of not playing well with others. IronDuke 01:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

IP address 70.23.234.194
Clearly stirring up anti-semitic statements on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Jews and more importantly, see this diff on Talk:Zoophilia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=265770955. I think this IP address should be blocked. Sposer (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Warned. Anything further should be brought to ANI as this is an informal board, and for a block to be instituted, administrators need to be notified.  Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Theseeker4 (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. He has already added "Jewish American" to the David Berkowitz article. I suspect he is going to try and find articles on every heinous Jew in history, and make sure the fact that the person is/was Jewish is highlighted front and center. These are obviously more defendable, but part of a pattern. I will keep track and notify anything overboard. I forgot how to report on ANI however. Thanks. Sposer (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The editing behaviour isn't really a civility issue nor is necessarily against any policy, if the info is correct and verifiable. --neon white talk 05:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at another edit[] he's made, and note the only American Jewish person he retags is serial killer David Berkowitz. Why not John Francis Daley, for example? It seems to be Anti-Semitic POV pushing. Gerardw (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What i meant was that the talk page comments are obviously incivil but adding the tag to the 'David Berkowitz' is a good edit. His motivation may not be pleasant but it's not disruptive to add what appears to be correct tags to articles. --neon white talk 16:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you need help reporting someone let us know, right now as long as he heeds the warning, I don't think administrator notification is necessary, but if he keeps skirting the line too closely, bringing it up on ANI may be best even if he is not worth a block just yet; admins at least will watch him. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Garden variety troll. Very worth blocking now, certainly if edits continue. IronDuke 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * His [Talk:Zoophilia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zoophilia&diff=prev&oldid=265770955 comment] "my pastor says beastiality is having sex with a jew." should get him blocked right away. I didn't bother to look through what else he did, that enough to warrant a block. Dream Focus (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * IP has been reported to WP:ANI for action. ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 16:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: this sequence of vandalism is far too old to deal with from an IP-based account at this point in time. Future iterations should be taken directly to WP:ANI for immediate action. ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 16:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Hapsala
I believe this complaint is as an admin has has acted to fix the problem. Thanks!Doright (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are nine issues. (1) Impolite, (2) [WP:Civil], (3) [WP:Attack], removal by User:Hapsala of unresolved disputes from (4) article and (5) user talk pages, (6) choosing a strategy of reverting instead of engaging in talk, plus gratuitous accusations of (7) trolling wikistalking, (8) sockpuppetry, and (9) WP:Nonsense in User:Hapsala's edit summaries are the issues. Please see the following sections at THIS link since they may be deleted by Hapsala from the current user talk page: * 14.0 Please do not Remove Unresolved Disputes from Article Talk pages * 14.1 [WP:Civil] * 14.2 [WP:Attack] * 14.3 Notice of Wikiquette ALERT - Do not Remove * 14.4 Disputed Edits are not Minor

Doright (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The links and sections I provide above are not merely proof that I warned the user against certain behaviors they contain the diffs exhibiting the behavior. Context counts. For example, if you click above and go to the very first link and click on it you are presented with a diff that says: ''Hi Hapsala, Please do not Remove Unresolved Disputes from Article Talk pages [Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict]. Please see this. Thanks, Doright (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When you click on that diff you are taken to the diff that says: '' Hapsala, Please stop reverting the archive bot setting as you did HERE without first addressing the above identified issues associated with such short deletion intervals. And please stop marking the edit as minor. There is nothing minor about removing content, ongoing discussions and unresolved disputes from the talk page. Thank you.Doright (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)''

Dear editors seeking to assist in this matter, obviously, you would then have to click that HERE link.

Dear editors, by setting the bot value to 9 hours all talk section that have not received comment for the last 9 hours are removed from that Article Talk page. This results in disputes that have not been resolved being removed while people sleep. It further prevents other editors that are not on here 24/7 from participating in the discussion. It is highly disruptive. It serves those that don't want changes to be made to the article. Context counts. Sincerely, Doright (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to help if you have less than 1 year WP experience or equivalent. :)

Added to make viewing information more convenientTheseeker4 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoa, pardon me? You're choosing who can and cannot assist in trying to resolve only civility issues between editors?  I think you'd better rethink that concept here as it is in and of itself rather uncivil towards Wikiquette volunteers. ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 10:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? I sure wish I had read THIS Nomination for Deletion of this page before requesting assistance here. It provides a warning about the kind of "help" one may receive on this page.  I'm sorry that you were personally offended.  Please accept my apology.  However, stating my preference that only experienced editors attempt to help is hardly [WP:Uncivil].  Nor is politely letting an editor  know that I would prefer they did not try to help me.  That is quite different from "choosing" which implies I think I have any control over what you or anyone else does here. Clearly, this is a Wiki and anyone with an internet connection can do pretty much anything.  In light of the opinions expressed by other editors in this page's WP:DELETE nomination, it seems downright prudent to be cautious about getting involved with a "helper."  Since, I'm sure you can take it as well as you give it, you may also want to consider reviewing the tone of your own communication.


 * " It's simply a process time sink with little good coming from the page. The project would be better served by directing users who have issues with a users incivility to WP:AN, which is more than capable of handling a few extra threads, and has better coverage from experienced admins/users who will be able to offer a better evaluation of situations. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)".
 * WQA varies between useless and actively harmful. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read the thread here 1 you will see why I feel the page should be deleted. Especially: I apologize for thinking that this forum was the best place to begin without making my complaint a major issue. Lacking a reasoned response, I found other ways to address my concern. Tom Butler (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read and followed the going-ons of this page since I was notified of a dispute between two editors in which I was peripherally involved. In that particular case, instead of dealing with the issue . . . it became a 72-hour rant fest in which more editors were concerned with rationalizing the reasons for a ... editor's incivility rather than addressing the issue of incivility itself. Take some time to peruse some of the recent archives and you will see that the Wikiquette Alerts page is extremely inefficient and largely ineffective.''
 * Doright (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Doright, can you provide links to the specific actions that hapsala took that you consider uncivil? I see the two removals of your warnings, and while the edit summaries border on incivility, a user has every right to remove whatever they want (with a couple exceptions) from their user talk pages, including warning and notification templates.  It also is not vandalism to do so.  What other attacks and incivil remarks has this user made?  Thanks. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Theseeker4, I'm concerned we may not be off to a great start. I did not say anything about vandalism so there was no reason for you to introduce it.  If based upon the links I provided on Hapasala's talk page you do not see a problem for you to address, I see no need to introduce any further evidence beyond that already provided and I would suggest that perhaps another editor may see where they can be of assistance.  Thank you for your time.  Respectfully, Doright (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Vandalism was my word, sorry if it seemed I was putting it in your mouth, but it is unnecessary to warn users about removing content from their own talk page, as that is specifically allowed. That said, how is asking for clarification of the specific cases of incivility an unreasonable request?  I have reviewed what you provided and see a dispute, with yourself and several other editors, of how long a period of inactivity needs to occur before the bot should archive discussions. That does not sound like a civility issue to me.  I also don't understand why you have taken a dismissive tone in response to my request for clarification and my notifying you of wikipedia policy.  Do you believe providing actual diffs to the instances of incivility would not help other editors either?  The links and sections you provide above are proof that you warned the user against certain behavior.  Even your link that you provided to the user is a link to another one of your statements.  You need to provide evidence in the form of diffs of the actual behavior you are complaining about if you want anyone to help you. Theseeker4 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Theseeker4, I know Vandalism was your word. It did not seem that you were putting words into my mouth.  What you did do is introduce a straw-man that was not helpful.    My tone was not dismissive.  I was politely yet quite clearly telling you I did not want your help in this matter.  You could have responded by merely saying, You're Welcome, when I thanked you for your time and I suggested someone else help me and then left me alone.  However, you did not.  Now, it does seem to me along with your incomplete analysis and apparent lack of experience, there is a risk of creating additional and unnecessary controversy and complexity, and that the project will be better served if you moved on to helping other editors.  So, let me try again a little more emphatically.  Please accept my sincere thanks.  Thank you for your time and have a nice day and now please stop.  Respectfully, Doright (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The links and sections I provide above are not merely proof that I warned the user against certain behavior they actually contain the diffs exhibiting the behavior in question. Context counts. Doright (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Doright, do not remove responses on this page. Your handling of the complaint, the informal investigations, and your interactions with those who attempt to help resolve situations are all fully relevant to this process.  They may, indeed, show a pattern of abrasiveness that may have led to civility issues.  I have re-added the discussion.  Please do disrupt this page again in that manner. ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 10:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bwilkins, I trust the irony of YOUR removal of THIS reasonable accommodation and completion of the Refactoring talk pages by Theseeker4 involved editor (where he said about his solution was "better than restoring my comments," and I, of course agreed) will not be lost on the reader.  However, Bwilkins, unlike you, I will not accuse you of disrupting this page.  I will WP:Assume Good Faith and assume you thought it would be better to remove it, no matter how much I disagree with what you have done.  However, I must point out that your speculation that my discussion on this page may show "a pattern of abrasiveness that may have led to civility issues" is simply poisoning the well and entirely unhelpful.  I am quite confident that my interactions  with other editors on this page will be viewed as suggestive of a fair, thoughtful, respectful editor that has worked to improve the project.  I am so sorry I came here. However, if it helped elucidate what are apparently ongoing problems with this page, it will not be for not.  Further, it may provide insight for other editors that are the recipient of your "assistance." Doright (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is some relevant background which may save other editors some work in replying to Doright's complaint. The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict talk page apparently receives a very high volume of traffic. Consequently, a bot, MiszaBot I, is used to archive it regularly (once a day, as I understand it). Apparently some editors of the page believe that if a thread has not been contributed to for some fairly small number of hours, then the bot should archive it on its next run. There has been some disagreement, however, on precisely what that number of hours should be.

When the bot was run on January 12th it was archiving threads which had not been contributed to for 4 hours. On January 14th timeshifter extended the idle time to 8 hours. On January 15th Hapsala changed it back to 4 hours. It was extended to 6 hours later on same day by Timeshifter, and then extended further to 9 hours by Hapsala on January 20th.

Thus, over the week from January 12th to January 20th, the thread archive idle time used by the bot was never greater than 9 hours. Timekeer had complained that 4 hours was too short in his edits of January 14th and 15th, but was apparently content to settle for 8 hours on the 14th, and 6 hours on the 15th. Apart from that, there appears to have been no other complaints during that period about the shortness of the thread idle time being used by the bot to archive threads. Note also that it was Hapsala who extended the time to 9 hours, the longest it had been for the whole week.

On the following day, January 21st, Doright apparently noticed that a thread to which he had wanted to make further contributions had been archived, and made this edit to the talk page, which falsely categorised the setting of the archive idle time to 9 hours as "vandalism".


 * Comment. To his credit, Doright later acknowledged that the accusation of vandalism had been "a poor choice of words". Nevertheless he did not opt to strike it out and replace it with something more appropriate. And even without the accusation of vandalism, the above edit would still have been unnecessarily confrontational, in my opinion. The sarcastic question, "Who is the clever editor that set the bot to delete from this page active discussions after only 9 hours of inactivity?", with which Doright opened the thread, is hardly an ideal way to go about achieving the results he was looking for.

—This is part of a comment by David J Wilson which was interrupted by the following:
 * Comment on Comment, plus added info. First, I would like to thank the editors for the obvious effort put forth. Also, I would like to bring your attention to the "nine issue" at the top of this section that was unfortunately deleted by user:Bwilkins and was therefore not present on the page when yours and other editors comments were made above here and below here.  Now let's continue looking a little further under the iceberg of context that may not be  immediately obvious.  Part of that admittedly less than ideal statement was "Also, who deleted the POV notice from the article? The notice should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. More importantly, who can restore the deleted talk (those deleted since the 9 hour criteria was set) section back to this talk page? Doright (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)  So, significantly, at the same time ongoing disputes of a substantive nature regarding the content of the article are being swept from the talk page, the formal POV Tag on the article itself was removed.  Also, note this is an extraordinarily short setting on the archive bot.  Most article pages that use the bot have it set to weeks or months, but here its hours. Ask yourself what would happen if the bot was installed on this page and all text sections that had received no comments in 9 or 24 hours were automatically removed from the page? Would that be disruptive?  Would that give the larger WP community an opportunity to comment?  Would it serve the interests of the project.  Additionally, I ask you to use your imagination about whose interest would be served by having unresolved and ongoing disputes removed from an article talk page?.  Unfortunately, that context is missing.  Also, please note that the immediate reply I received from an editor on the page was "I agree, after having found some talk material, and searched for other talk material that's buried somewhere in 21 pages of archive.".  This is the kind of results I was looking for.
 * Additionally, please also note that at the same time, Hapsala was also involved in disrupting another ongoing discussion regarding article content on the article talk sub-page that was created separately for the purpose of discussing the lead to the article. But, this time it was being done manually not via the Bot.  In reply to the justification for terminating this page which claimed "No unsolved issues left on this page," and "no value in discussion to add to article," I posted [ "[THIS] is hardly suggestive that there are "No unsolved issues left on this page". In fact the existence of an ongoing NPOV Dispute is emphasized at the above link just prior to the archiving edits. Please restore this page to so that the disruption can be mitigated. Doright (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)]"  Here is a link to the page just before it was terminated.  You can see at the bottom of the page there is a newly created section titled NPOV that is part of the WP:OR section.  In fact, the very last edit before the termination of this page was an edit that emphasized the existence of this  ongoing dispute.  That is of course why I wrote, that "This is hardly suggestive that there are 'No unsolved issues left on this page."
 * Please note all this occurred prior to my posting to Hapsalas' user talk page. Plus, he was reverting me (I think at least a couple or a few times without engaging in the talk page discussion regarding this issue.  So, I posted the problem to his user talk page and his reply was to delete it from his talk page and  label my post [Wikipedia: Nonsense ]
 * So, then I have the situation where not only was Hapsala not engaging in the talk section created to address the problem on the article talk page, starting to edit war, manually terminating ongoing discussion pages, moving towards edit warring, declines to talk about it on his user talk page and dismisses my post as [WP:Nonsense], accusses me of (1) being a sockpuppet (2) trolling. Plus, in addition to all this, the normative behavior among the participant on the article talk page even prior to my arrival can perhaps be most delicately describe as uncivil and chaotic.  Not that it excuses anything unhelpful that I may have said or done, but one can not properly judge my behavior outside the context in which it occurs.  So I came to this page not to make a mountain out of a molehill about Hapsala's incivility.  Rather, I came here to begin a process of correcting the ongoing chaos and violations of policy at the article and the incivility that feeds it and substitutes for the kind of discourse that serves the purposes of the project.  I was merely starting with what I think should have been a readily apparent case of misconduct with regard to a key player who in my view is contributing to the problem in a very significant way.  That is, by participating in both the manual termination of article talk pages containing ongoing disputes regarding both content and policy and by setting a BOT parameter to do the same.  Please consider reevaluating the comments below in light of the additional information provided above.  Thank you for your assistance. Doright (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

At 1030 on January 22nd Doright extended the archive idle time to 4 days, and Hapsala reverted it to 9 hours 37 minutes later. About two hours after that Doright added a subsection to the talk page requesting no further reversions without discussion, and then re-reverted the time to 4 days a little later. About 9 or 10 hours after that Hapsala reverted the time back to 9 hours with the edit summary "currently, 4d simply wont work", but without engaging in any discussion on the talk page. Twenty-five minutes later, though, he apparently decided to compromise and set the time to 24 hours.

After another 10½ hours Doright set the time to 3 days with the edit summary: "changed bot content deletion interval to 3 days as a comprimise see talk". Eight minutes later he posted this request to Hapsala's talk page.


 * Comment: This edit also seems to me to be unnecessarily confrontational on Doright's part. In the first place, the implied accusation that Hapsala was himself removing unresolved debates from the article's talk page doesn't appear to be accurate.  In the second, Hapsala had already compromised by changing the archive idle time from 9 hours to 24 hours, so there seems to me to have been little point in Doright's dredging up these earlier requests which were still pointing to Hapsala's previous reversions to a time of 9 hours.

Two minutes later Hapsala removed Doright's request with the edit summary "Undid revision 265853329 by Doright (talk) - per WP:nonsence". This is an edit which Doright considers uncivil. I agree with him, but I would also suggest that:
 * given his own unnecessarily confrontational approach to the dispute, it's pretty much a response he should have expected, and one he should have been prepared to excuse, and;
 * his wisest response would have been to ignore it.

However, he did not do this, but chose instead to continue the dispute by restoring his previous comment, adding accusations of edit warring and incivility, and demanding that Hapsala leave the comment and accusations on his talk page. Hapsala responded by removing the comment some 9 hours later, with an edit summary "Undid revision 265856654 by Doright (talk) - per sockpuppet trolling". Doright considers this edit summary to be a personal attack. Again, presuming Hapsala has no solid evidence that Doright really is a sock puppent (and, as far as I know he has not provided any), I would agree that this does constitute a personal attack.

Doright made two other allegations for which I found no evidence: The only grounds offered for the first of these two allegations appear to be that when Hapsala set the archive idle time to a low value, it caused the MiszaBot_I to archive threads that Doright still wanted to contribute to. If the allegation is indeed based on nothing more than that, then I would consider it both unwarranted and tendentious.
 * that Hapsala removed unresolved disputes from article talk pages; and
 * that Hapsala had accused him of wikistalking.

The second allegation is one for which Doright will need to supply more specific evidence in the form of diffs, since I didn't come across any edit or edit summary in which Hapsala accused him of wikistalking. &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Doright has not demonstrated understanding of talk page policy, in that a user removing comments from their own talk page is allowed, and that removing their own and others (Theseeker4's) from a talk page (this one) is not cool. Additionally, his responses to Theseeker4 and Bwilkins do not demonstrate Civility. Doright's suggested that new editors not participate in the discussion is not consistent with the anyone can edit tenet of Wikipedia. Hapsala's editing comment is a minor incivility that would have best been ignored.  Accusations of sockpuppetry are uncivil, to which extent I have left a request to cease. Gerardw (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies Doright if I missed restoring an edit. Thanks to the absolute mess caused by the removal of wide swaths of text from this page, and a number of newer posts to unrelated threads, and even replies to this thread, I did my very best to restore all issues, indeed I am quite certain that those that were specifically Civility related. Ensure that non-Wikiquette issues are taken elsewhere.  I'll suggest that you WP:AGF yourself, as you can clearly see what my intent was.  From my reading, it appears that Gerardw has captured the essence here. ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 10:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bwilkins, it seems to me that with each post your edits progressively create more problems than they solve by reverting a [WP:Refactoring] of a discussion between two editors that had already arrived at an accomadation, by your edit deleting the extensive edit to my introduction that was subsequently not present when the other editors made their comments, by your edit poisening the well (as identified above), in addition to now an edit beating a dead horse, by making innacture claims which THIS diff shows to be false (there was no "absolute mess" created, there was no removal of a "number of newer posts to unrelated threads", there was simply the replacement of a discussion between two editors with a link to that discussion, which in my own view was much less of a "mess"), and by suggesting by innuendo that there is any evidence whatsoever that I explicitly or even implicitly questioned your good faith regarding your deletion of content from this page.  In fact, I wrote (as can be seen in an above section), "' However, Bwilkins, unlike you, I will not accuse you of disrupting this page. I will WP:Assume Good Faith and assume you thought it would be better to remove it, no matter how much I disagree with what you have done. '" Having arrived at this point I will have to consider evaluating how the assumption of good may pertain to your further contributions to this thread.  That is, despite some evidence that might begin to suggest the contrary, I continue to assume good faith on your part, but frankly, it may not take too much more for me to reject that hypothesis.  Respectfully, Doright (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This criticism of Bwilkins's efforts to restore deleted content to the this page is completely uncalled for, in my opinion. Between Doright's unjustifiable removal of Theseeker4's response to his original complaint, and Bwilkins's attempt to restore it, there had been 5 edits to the page, one of which (by Neon white) was to an unrelated thread. If Bwilkins's statement, "Thanks to the absolute mess caused by the removal of wide swaths of text from this page, and a number of newer posts to unrelated threads, and even replies to this thread, I did my very best to restore all issues, ...", is read with a conscientious effort to understand what he was saying, it will be found to contain only one relatively minor inaccuracy&mdash;namely, it gives the impression that there had been several edits to unrelated threads rather than just one. Doright has apparently misread the statement as asserting that some posts had been removed from unrelated threads. Admittedly the statement was ambiguous and open to the misconstrual which Doright placed on it. However, even a cursory examination of this page's edit history should have been enough to show him that this was a misreading of the statement. —This is part of a comment by David J Wilson which was interrupted by the following:


 * David Wilson's false, misleading and biased analysis is quite uncalled for, in my opinion. Between the omission of the fact that my edit along with Theseeker4's comprised a [WP:Refactoring] of the section along with a link to the "deleted content", and his failure to mention that I removed absolutely nothing from any other editors or sections, and David Wilson's failure to point out that it was actually Bwilkin's himself that in fact removed User:Neon white's edit from an unrelated thread, not I, and that it was while he was actually attempting to negate the refactoring completed by Theseeker4 that Bwilkin’s deleted content from other parts of the page, and that  even Theseeker4 himself said, providing the link is “better than restoring [the] comments” (unfortunately, Bwilkins reverted both Theseeker4 and myself and apparently created an “absolute mess”), and his failure to point out that if there was an “absolute mess” it was created by Bwilkins’s as my edit of a contiguous span of text with no intervening edits by anyone anywhere else on the page can hardly be considered an “absolute mess,” and his failure to note that there was in fact not 5 but only 1 edit to the page following the refactoring (which Bwilkins not I, promptly deleted and then restored) should not only provide impetus for reevaluating both the inaccuracies, omissions, focus and emphasis of David Wilson's contributions to this page, but be seen as further affirmation of my thesis that "it seems to me that with each post your edits progressively create more problems than they solve."  By the way, so far I have only partially addressed the first two sentence of David Wilson's edit.  I will not spend my time in a seemingly endless and in my view entirely pointless exercise addressing his other statements in his current edit or elsewhere on this page. Suffice it to say, you can assume that if I was getting paid for this that I would refute most of his contributions, including but not limited to his narrative and purported evidence.  My only concern has been what I see as poisoning of the well by Bwilkins and David Wilson’s incomplete, inaccurate and biased analyses and the rhetorical effect of those edits.  The reason for my concern is that it makes it even more difficult to address the problem of the disruption to the article talk pages by user Hapsala.  That is why I came here.  Finally and obviously, only a fool would argue with "the judge" as I have done here.  For that stupidity I pronounce myself guilty. However, you or going to have to pay me to waste anymore time here as I just found out that an admin has corrected the problem.  Have a nice day.Doright (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When Bwilkin's decided to restore the removed content, this was the difference between the then current state of the page and the state it was in before the content was removed. In light of this, he apparently decided that the safest way to go about restoring the removed content was to revert the page to the earlier state and then redo the subsequent edits. In doing so, he apparently inadvertently missed this edit of Doright's, for which he has now apologised. Perhaps it would have been simpler for Bwilkins to have simply copied and pasted the deleted content back into the page at the appropriate place, but since I haven't examined the subsequent edits in any detail I wouldn't presume to criticise him for having chosen a different approach.

Doright is apparently concerned that if editors who based their comments on the original version of his complaint had instead had the later "heavily edited" version available to them they might have come to different conclusions. I'm afraid I can't see much justification for that concern. The only differences between the original version of the complaint and the "heavily edited" version seem to be: I can assure him that my own comments, at least, would not have been influenced in any way by these changes. &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * the addition of "impolite" as an extra issue (This appears to me to be redundant anyway. Isn't the issue of impoliteness already adequately covered under WP:Civil?);
 * the attachment of numbers to the issues; and
 * the addition of a statement informing respondents that there were nine issues.


 * In my opinion, This comment by Doright has added nothing of any consequence concerning the issue of alleged misconduct by Hapsala. Most of the comment consists of arguments to try and convince WQA editors that the setting of the time parameter of the archiving bot on the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict talk page is too small, and that one of the talk page's subpages was archived prematurely.  It would appear from these remarks that Doright was expecting WQA to take his part in the dispute over these issues.  But WQA cannot do that.  If those sorts of issues cannot be resolved by negotiation among the disputants, then another avenue of dispute resolution (such as a request for comment, for instance) should be tried.


 * The following accusation:
 * "Additionally, please also note that at the same time, Hapsala was also involved in disrupting another ongoing discussion regarding article content on the article talk sub-page that was created separately for the purpose of discussing the lead to the article. But, this time it was being done manually not via the Bot. "
 * by Doright seems to me to border on the disingenuous. The subpage in question was archived by Skäpperöd (not Hapsala) some 30 hours after the last contribution had been made to it. Hapsala's involvement consisted of nothing more than a completely appropriate reformatting of the already archived page, and an entirely unobjectionable transfer of material from one archive to another.  Doright might have a legitimate gripe that Skäpperöd had archived the page prematurely, but that is not by itself a Wikiquette issue.  I would suggest to Doright that a polite, conciliatory message on Skäpperöd's talk page would have been much more likely to elicit a sympathetic response than this wholly inappropriate edit to an already archived talk page.
 * P.S. Please do not interrupt another editor's comments with your own unless the latter are short. It is contrary to WP talk page guidelines. Although this is not specifically a talk page, it would seem to me to be common sense to adhere mostly to the same guidelines when editing it.
 * &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Doright added the template while I was composing the above remarks. They are therefore unnecessary and I withdraw them.
 * &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Doright has quite clearly so badly misunderstood what I wrote (just as he did Bwilkins's earlier comment) that I see little point in attempting to clarify it. I will merely point out (again) that BWilkins did not accuse him of removing anything else from the page other than  this. Nor do I believe there was anything in my comment that could be construed as implying that he had done so either, but just in case, I deny categorically that any such implication was intended.
 * &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection, in view of this, this, and this, I shall reverse my withdrawal of these comments.
 * &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In my opinion, Doright's characterizations of the actions of the editors here is not reasonable. The thread went awry when Doright deleted other user's comments[]. His references to poisoning the well to me imply that my reasoning and analysis of the situation has been unduly swayed by the statements/actions of other editors, a contention that is offensive to me. However, taking on good faith his contention he will not waste any more time here, continued discussion is moot Gerardw (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gerardw, I'm sorry that you took offense and in the interest of spreading good cheer, I must say I'm sorry if anything I have said here has offended you. At the same time, I must say perhaps thou dost protest too much, as pointing out that another editor's speculations could be understood as poisoning the well says absolutely nothing about you nor anyone else.  A critical analysis of your contributions would be different.  However, as all is moot at this point and I did not want you to have the bad feeling I just want to engourage everone to have a nice day.Doright (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rude and extremely unpolite participants in discussion over serbo-croatian language
Usernames Čeha, Ivan Štambuk, Laz and Zenanarh are resorting to swearings and personal insults to anyone who disagrees with their point of view, which is by the way wrong and is stemming from "current" works" of highly politically orchestrated and designed "grammars of so-called "hrvatski" language. Their nationalistic and blatantly racist remarks, derogatory use of the noun serbian in a vide variety of variations, identifying all participants as serbs, communists and "chetnikofiles" just because other users disagree with their incorrect interpretations of grammar is destroying any serious discussion or exchange of ideas. They also openly boast of intentionally editing anything that they deem unsuitable to their personal point of view. These users should be prevented from being able to edit and should be monitored for possible use of other aliases to edit texts in order to promote their own political agendas, usually with strong racist and agressive tones.

Discussion tab under serbo-croatian language contains plenty of examples of their agressive and insulting style. Please ban from these pages, or at least disable their edit functionality so that they cannot insult and swear at other users, and change contents to promote their racist point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.23.242 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no wikipedian named Čeha. Also, post where they made the inappropriate comments at. Dream Focus (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ancient Land of Bosoni
User:Ancient Land of Bosoni comments on Talk:Bosniaks has become very uncivil of late, including personal attacks. Here are a couple of examples: I believe this user has gotten way out of order for which there should be consequences. Ex-Yugoslav article are hard enough to edit without this type of language (I even think there is a special arbcom case relating to bad behavior in Ex-Yugoslav article, Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, see Decorum and Remedies under the Final Decision section. Osli73 (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 02:37 24 January 2009: "you are a bunch of very pitiful people...", "...Please you narrow-minded thing, do not make your presence here anymore." and "But once again, and please is it not obvious, how the oldest trick of the serb and croat nationalist cooperators once more is played out with a great deal of clumsyness: to create some sort of moral and factual relativsm, that is to create confusion."
 * 03:11 24 January 2009: "Wikipedia's own personal and appointed PhD. geneticist. I am glad to see that your quasi-intelligent contributions to this discussion are bringing the whole deal with wikipedia yet another distinct foul smell." and "But zenanarh, you very intelligent man, go ask mummy for a cookie now will you. "
 * Article edit comment on 02:18 24 January 2009: "Revert slavo-fascist edits"
 * Per the instructions at Wikiquette_alerts, please notify Ancient Land of Bosoni by placing a short polite message at their talk page. Thanks!  Gerardw (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree about the civility. As far as i can see, this user is not an involved party in the arbitration case. If i am wrong here and the user is then it would probably need to be dealt with there, however in this case i think a warning is very necessary. --neon white talk 17:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not as bad as some, but still a warning is in order. IronDuke  01:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Osli posted a justified warning concurrent with the Wikiquette notification. Gerardw (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Eleland (again)

 * User has been blocked for two weeks. IronDuke  16:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User is being grossly uncivil and violating NPA. Calls edit "shit", when editor (who is an admin) complains, advises user to "fuck off". (Previous complaint here, impressive block log here). I think this user, literally, wants a ban. IronDuke 00:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm being grossly uncivil and violating NPA. Wehwalt's edits were shit. Wehwalt is on a multi-year rampage, making a total mockery of BLP. He's attributing calls for genocide to a living public figure based on a fucking Comcast personal homepage! This isn't about civility or wikipolitics, this is about gross abuse by one admin, now cynically backed up by another admin. Unbelievable. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 00:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't mean me, do you? I'm not an admin, I only play one on AN/I. I have no opinion re Wewalt's edits, not having looked at them, but that doesn't excuse the personal attacks. And this is a recurring pattern with you, not just losing your temper the once or twice. IronDuke  00:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eleland, you're likely right on the content, based on a quick glance, but the personal attack just the focus from Wehwalt's behavior to yours. It's not going to help make Wikipedia better in any way. IronDuke, I'm curious how you happened to come up this posting on Wehwalt's talk page in the first place? Gerardw (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have W's page on my watch list. IronDuke  01:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Gerard, your judgment is of course correct. But what do you want? The guy's an admin. He's supposed to wield the mop and instead he's throwing mud! Of COURSE I lost it! Isn't anybody going to address the underlying problem here, which is a multi-year pattern of disgusting libel against a public figure? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You've documented that pretty well here, that's just the wrong spot. You should probably post at AN/I. Gerardw (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of this board, the underlying problem here is your multi-year pattern of gross incivility. There's not a legitmate workplace in the world that would stand for the behavior you have exhibited. Is there any way -- any way at all -- you could promise to stop doing that? IronDuke  01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * IronDuke, dredging up past actions that have been dealt with isn't going to be helpful. The fact that you weren't a participant in the Wehwalt discussion and were a participant in the previous Wikiquette alert raises the question whether you have a WP:COI. There are 75,000 editors in Wikipedia -- if Eleland's behavior is consistently out of line someone else will notice and call him on it. Gerardw (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the point may be moot here. I see it has been raised at AN/I . For what it's worth, you're quite wrong about what WP:COI covers. It would have nothing to do with this situation. I'd also note that my previous awareness of Eleland's harsh personal attacks does not disallow me from raising the matter again. Quite the reverse, actually. But I appreciate your comments nonetheless. IronDuke  02:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Chasesboys
Every time this user has the slightest disagreement with someone, they instantly resort to condescending rudeness, name calling, and a post on their own little section of the user page apparently reserved for mockery of other editors. Examples: A quick scan of their talk page shows that several users, including myself, have tried to discuss civility with them, to no avail. Maybe yet another uninvolved third party could take a look and try to talk some sense... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You really are my favorite guy in the world beeblebrox, and so is kelly. I would take a spot on my userpage as a compliment. Chasesboys (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also I would just like to say that I have never started an argument with anyone here at wikipedia. Whenever someone comments to me, I comment back. I believe I have that right. I never have went to someone else and just started an argument with them. I dont do that. The only people that I have ever had a disagreement with were Ward3001, and Beeblebrox. Kelly is someone who was un-informed about Rush Limbaugh so I will let that one pass. Between me and Ward we settled that issue a long time ago on John Lennon's talk page. Me and him are fine at the moment. The only person who continues to talk to me is you beeblebrox, I havent said a word to you since the Dark Crystal talk page. I really need to consider getting a restraining order, because you are really starting to creep me out here. Thank you for your time. Chasesboys (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to want to grasp the point here. Whether the issues in dispute are resolved or not, you have been consistently rude and condescending in your interactions with other editors. Telling another user to "get a life" or sarcastically calling them "sweetie" like they're a five year old is rude, unhelpful, and disruptive. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all calling someone sweetie is not an uncivil action. I should flag you for trying to block me for saying "Sweetie" to someone that has nothing to do with you. I could easily lose my temper with you Beeblebrox but I wont. You are obviously mad about losing the argument about the Dark Crystal situation, so I wont bring that up. I will not apologize to you because I dont have to. I already apologized to Ward and that is enough for me. So farewell Beeblebrox, you have NO case against me whatsoever. Ohh and sue me for saying get a life, this is a free country I can say what I want to you. Chasesboys (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Chaseboys, Get a life,' 'sweetie, and the like are not exactly the epitome ofcivility. While the US may be described as a free country, Wikipedia is privately owned and has standards for use. Please be more civil in the future. Beeblebrox, the easiest way to deal with Chaseboys page would be not to look at it. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had actually forgotten it was on my watchlist after out little encounter actually. Since they are so obviously not interested in even trying to grasp the concept of civility, I'll remove it. For the record Chaseboys, I never once said "block". If you took the time to at least try and understand things you might have a better time here. This page, along with WP:3O is non-binding dispute resolution. Next time you act this way, someone probably will take you to WP:ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:LedRush, overreaction, incivility, and selective editing of User talk page to hide relevant responses
Resolved.

I saw that User:LedRush incorrectly placed a WP:TALK warning template on User talk:Goldsztajn (and thread ), and commented upon this fact, and his reading on policy in his talk page. His response was rude, uncivil, and totally over the top. When I reminded him that civility is a core policy around here, he reacted by further rudeness with a claim I had been uncivil in my talk page. Furthermore, he deleted my response to his rude response from his talk page - giving the impression I haven't responded, a further example of rudeness (yes, we kinda own our talk page, but Wikiquette usually establishes that non-rude, non-NPA comments in a thread remain, unless the whole thread is archived). I responded in my talk page to his latest, and as I wrote this, he posted this - which quite frankly makes no sense to me, but might to others - which further means my instincts were right in raising this here. I am worried, as he has blanket reverted me in Union busting without any real discussion, and his bellingerent attitude is an early sign of an edit warrior, long-time editor or not. I want to discuss in good faith our edits, and his treatment of the other user and myself are not good signs. Could someone look at this, please? --Cerejota (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * His response seems perfectly logical and appropriate. The bottom line being, don't edit other people's comments.  Grsz  11  04:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Besides that I'm wondering and are left in the dark about what would be so offensive in shortening Goldsztajn's user name to Gold since it's common to do so (in general) and s/he didn't answer this question even when kindly ask for an explanation [I'm "sitting on red coals" because of that]. It seems to me like making a big deal out of nothing and I just see lots of ??????? there.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and why is Cerejota filing this report and not Goldsztajn [I almost wrote Goldy] :) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I this is not about the "Gold" issue, but about how he responded to me.--Cerejota (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be overreaction on the part of all three parties. While LedRush is correct that Goldsztajn's editing of his comments technically violated the Talk_page_guidelines, it is a guideline -- it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. and there is a Good faith argument to be made that correcting a user name falls into the exception category. Goldsztajn could have just fixed his name without the strikethrough, which called undue attention to the issue. Cerejota's posting on LedRush's talk was unnecessarily inflammatory, and begs the question of why he's getting involved. Gerardw (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I got involved because we are editing in Union busting, and I felt LedRush was being very aggressive. Why was my response "unnecessarily inflammatory"?--Cerejota (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because! No, seriously, there was no need at all for you to kick in. It shouldn't be your concern since the two parties (involved) seem to have settled it on their own.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise, can we close this as resolved and unnecessary?LedRush (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Mitchazenia
This is a minor thing, and I'm not offended, but someone might want to have a talk with Mitchazenia. In my experience, he seems to take things way too personally. --NE2 16:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the instructions at Wikiquette_alerts, please notify Mitchazenia by placing a short polite message at their talk page. Thanks!  Gerardw (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to reminding filing parties to notify the subject, others can help by notifying the subject themselves - this ensures that as little time as possible is wasted in keeping a WQA open without any response. I've notified the subject in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its who I am in real life. Its not something I can solve. I can't go into further detail because its very personal. Mitch 32 ( Go Syracuse ) 18:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We value useful contributions by anyone, regardless of who they are in real life. However, for contributions to be useful they also have to follow all of the guidelines and policies, especially the civility guidelines and guidelines against personal attacks.  You need to be able to deal in a civil manner with other editors on Wikipedia.  Your personal issues are, as you say, personal and none of anyone's business.  However, saying "its who I am in real life" and "its not something I can solve" does not give you a free pass; you still have to follow the rules of Wikipedia or eventually an admin will block you.  I suggest, if you have to type something like that in the future, you type it and then walk away without saving, or type it out in a notebook application or some such, and not post anything on Wikipedia until you are calm enough to remove any uncivil or attacking comments.  However you want to do it, I strongly suggest you do NOT make similar comments in the future as per the above cited Wikipedia guidelines.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Manutdglory

 * Warned by 3 users besides me(including an admin, User:ZimZalaBim ) about civility and edit warring issues:  . He deletes warnings at once so it's hard to go over his talk page.
 * He's trying to get me to stop editing Rick Warren since my first edit, claiming I'm biased:
 * "As someone who clearly has a similar bias (noted from your user page), I would encourage you to follow his lead and abstain from editing this article before you start another edit-war."
 * "...You also have absolutely zero credibility because of your admitted bias against Warren, so attempting to "out-argue" us is ridiculous. If you continue, all you will accomplish is getting this article protected again. You're not going to "win" this - walk away from the article."
 * "Well, don't do anything that would make me need to comment on you further..."
 * A previous case in Administrators' noticeboard/Incident: Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In context, and assuming good faith, Manutdglory's comments can be interpreted as referring to the Phooenix's content. The AN/I referenced portrayed Manutdglory is a better light than the other party, and neither was blocked. The posting here and an article RFC[] appears to be forum shopping. Please continue discussion on the merits content dispute on the article talk page. I'm leaving a comment on Manutdglory encouraging extra civil behavior. Gerardw (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Gerardw (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. My issue is that each time I make an argument on the talk page, Manutdglory replies to me and his replies have nothing to do with my arguments but instead he suggests I have no credibility and should stop editing the article (eg: "You're not going to "win" this - walk away from the article." ) Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the same behavior exhibited by Manutdglory on all previous occasions concerning the Rick Warren article as well as other articles where there would be contention about factuality, neutrality, and bias. This behavior is then followed by canvassing. It's a clear-cut example of somebody "babysitting" an article for fear that it might not portray the subject in a positive light, leading to a total piece of puffery. Teledildonix314 talk 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By "previous occasions", you mean when your behavior caused the Warren article to be completely protected Teledildo? Manutdglory (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Manutdglory for 24 hours for repeated incivility towards his fellow editors. He has been repeatedly warned as to this type of behaviour and today alone I count at least three breaches against that warning.  I am not sure if that resolves this matter and thus closes the thread - but I note for the record that I am prepared to block as required in regards to this situation (as I have detailed at previous ANI's) if that is the only way to gain and maintain peace at this part/s of the project.-- VS  talk 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Kangarugh22
has blown up at over Collectonian's tagging of Asklepios (manga) and subsequent nomination for deletion. I believe other editors need to step in to calm the situation before it gets out-of-hand. --Farix (Talk) 21:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kangarugh22 is pushing the envelope. However, it seems to me Collectonian is continually pushing the envelope herself. From Talk:Asklepios (manga)
 * I realize you are a newer editor so try reading WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and WP:MOS-AM before declaring it has a valid amount of plot. No one is "authorized" but I am a very experienced editor, (please see WP:EXPERT)
 * No, I'm not belitting you, but that you don't seem to understand the basic tags (sounds belittling to me)
 * ~checks page and laughs to see what part you got that... (not nice to laughing at other editors)
 * At [] Get over yourself
 * From User_talk:Kangarugh22 I could care less about you, (yeah, me too, but no need to write it down) and At least you acknowledge that you should know those guidelines and policies, so why not actually go learn them and follow them(A little on the condescending side, perhaps?)
 * I'm not intending to imply that any of the above is a horrendous breach of WP:Civil, just that escalating tension has not been entirely one-sided.
 * With regards to the content issue, the consensus seems to be with Collectonian. I recommend she choose to just walk away, not feel compelled to reply on the article talk page and refrain from additional posts on Kangarugh22's talk. The more strictly future discussion focuses just on content and the more neutrality it's stated the less likely the issue is to escalate. Additionally, I recommend that while I'm sure the community appreciates the work Kangarugh22 put into the article, part of WP:Consensus is sometimes things just don't go the way an individual wants and accepting that is part of what being a Wikipedian is all about. Gerardw (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I could care less about you is a direct reply to a comment he posted on my talk page claiming implying I was just bothering him because it amused me or something. He also mentioned specifically "constant links to Wiki standards that I should know about" hence my saying that he acknowledge he should know them (and my asking that maybe he actual read them since nothing he's said implies that he has). His very first message regarding the article was a targetted remark at me complaining about the article tags and calling them idiotic and immediately claiming I had something against the manga. Sorry if I found the direct attack to be annoying and found it hard to be patient, though I did attempt (and no, I didn't intend to sound belitting, and I don't find "but that you don't seem to understand the basic tags" to be belitting at all. If I don't understand something or am misunderstanding something basic like that, I'd certainly rather have someone say so instead of just letting me live in ignorance. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Collectonian is always accusing someone of attacking her. Is there a list somewhere of how many complains have been posted by her, or concerning her? I Googled but its hard to gauge just how often this happens. Dream Focus (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Did I file this report, no? And yes, people do attack me frequently, as they do most active editors who actually do a lot of editing. I'm not the most attacked person here by a long shot. Since your google-fu fails you, let me make it easy - I have filed 3 reports here in the time I've been editing, two of which resulted in apologies from the other parties who agreed they had acted inappropriately, and the other we just kept arguing awhile then ran out of steam. I could not find any filed against me. Also note this was filed on my behalf without my request from an outside watching what was going on. And will you please stop following around and leaving remarks, its getting rather stalkerish. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You accuse people of being against you on their user pages, on the user pages of administrators you complain about them on, and elsewhere. Are you accusing me again of stalking you, since I became active in the Anime and manga deletion review page?  Some people believe everyone who disagrees with them, or complains about their editing practices, is out to get them.  See this example for proof of that.  I believe most problems come from the general attitude of the self proclaimed deletist, who believes in erasing information without discussion, or bothering to check for reference. Dream Focus (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see...you wouldn't know about this alert unless you are reading my user page, then you chose to come here to make disparaging remarks. You Got involved in that deletion page after your own article was deleted in a fair AfD discussion, and have taken upon yourself to run around claiming keep on multiple AfDs even though no one else agrees with you except the article creator, dismissing all notability guidelines as irrelevant and nothing that really needs to be followed, turning your user page into an attack page against "deletionists", etc etc. I think you are being disruptive and I alerted an administrator to this. He agreed, warned you, yet you are continuing. And no, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is "out to get me", YOU however are making it a deliberate point to follow behind me, make ill remarks, etc. You are borderline wikistalking, by Wiki standards, those things you still don't care about. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I became active on the AFD page again recently. I had previously been there.  You did make me aware of the fact that the AFD pages were divided into categories, that making it easier to keep track of the manga.  And many pages you wanted deleted, have been preserved, since enough people see them as valid.  I vote keep if the manga is its sales are high, or if it is published in a magazine that sells quite well.  Otherwise, I wouldn't vote Keep.  And the administrator you spoke to did not warn me.  You are the one going around deleting people's messages on talk pages, claiming they are attacking you.  And don't accuse me of stalking when you are obviously following me around, since how else would you know I had posted on the Star Trek weapons page, or in the wikipedia notability guidelines? Dream Focus (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, let's have a little bit of WP:AGF here. Your finger-pointing input here is not helpful.  Collectonian did not submit this WQA alert, and although her actions may be part of the issue, your insult that she complains a lot is below the belt.  If you have your OWN filing against Collectonian, it belongs in a different section than right here, and indeed if you're claiming Wikihounding, take it to WP:ANI.  ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 16:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right. She didn't submit this one, her friend did.  I just wanted to point out the fact that she does argue with a lot of people, and believes everyone is against her.  Notice how she didn't accuse me of stalking, just insinuated that I was.  Looking at where she and Kangarugh22 have talked, on each of their user pages, and elsewhere, she does seem to find a way to provoke people.  Such as insinuating that an editor she disagrees with, is inexperienced at editing, or young in real life, thus immature.  This is not the first time she has done that to someone. Dream Focus (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone with thousands of edits on Wikipedia is bound to have 1 or 2 "incidents" :-) ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 17:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right...because an editor who is active in the Anime/manga project AND who had posted to that same notability page the day before you did in another topic wouldn't at all notice you had posted there after her...uh huh...keep trying. (as for the Star Trek thing, because you kept mentioning it). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And why are you throwing fuel on the embers? The whole point of Wikiquette alerts is to calm a situation down before it gets to a point where blocks are issued over incivility. --Farix (Talk) 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

/ talk and his anti-evolution agenda
This user has repeatedly inserted agenda driven nonsense into evolution related articles. At first he was posting under the name and was relatively harmless so I tried to work with his edits on a few occasions such as here: here. He then started posting using this IP address from which he has inserted such nonsense as this this.

He has also admitted to his agenda on this talk page. I have admittedly completely lost my cool with this guy but he keeps inserting this junk into pages on my watch list so I have no idea what to do. --Woland (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are content issues for the most part. If you believe he's a real problem, please submit to WP:ANI. ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 16:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition, rather than make accusations of sockpuppetry, please post notification at WP:SSP. Gerardw (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks!--Woland (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Artw making personally acrimonious statements about me, poisoning the well
This user has made some very rude comments about me personally at an AfD nomination.

When I confronted him about it: he responded with more rudeness and condescension.

I don't care that he's voting keep on the article. I just want him to remove the rude and false accusations of bad faith. 

Please help and advise.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read everything at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Talbott_(2nd_nomination) and I don't really see a problem. He stated his belief that you nominated it because you had a disagreement with someone elsewhere.  That isn't something to make a case over. Dream Focus (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a personal statement that has no basis in any of the words on that page. Imagine if someone went around following you making false accusations about your motivations. Would you be happy? What recourse is there? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, per WP:AGF the claims he made about SA need to either be proven, or need to be refactored. Making a negative statement about someone's motivation is not civil, and is harmful to the encyclopedia when used to influence the AFD of an article. Additionally, responding to SA's requests for refactoring in the way Artw did is additionally uncivil, in effect it seemed to me that he said "I have dealt with SA before so I don't need to assume good faith about anything he does that I disagree with."  As I said, if Artw cannot provide evidence to support his accusation, it is uncivil and should be withdrawn.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  18:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I beleive my comments to be entirely reasonable gven the dismissive tone of the AFD, the weakness of the case for deletion, and the conversation on WP:FTN (where SA appears to be having his own trouble with misrepresenting another user), and the conversations within the talk page.
 * For whatever it's worth there also appears to be some kind of weirdness with SA and scokpuppetry on a prior AFD, that I'm not sure I know how to interprete that.
 * I apologise if I was a little curt with on my talk page, but I donot beleive he has a case here, and from my point of veiw it seems like an attempt to cause noise and distraction. Artw (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by 'have a case.' This isn't a place where blocks are issued or anything. Please review Theseeker4's comments above regarding perceived incivil actions. A better way to deal with what you consider an attempt to cause noise and distraction, such the  talk page comment would be a simple I believe the comments are appropriate. Gerardw (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Spotfixer
Personal Threats

has threatened []: And to be very clear, WP:3RR does apply, and I will personally make it my mission to get you blocked if you violate it, even if I get blocked myself. This is your only warning. Spotfixer (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC) This has occurred because Spotfixer and Teledildonix314 have decided to use the Rick Warren page for a personal agenda, which is currently trying to insert terminology about anal sex in church teens into the article. This clearly violates WP:BLP, and they have been asked to wait at least 24 hours for consensus, since this is highly contentious and not verifiable. Lyonscc has tried to discuss the item, asking for civility and consensus (beyond two hours) for something that is rather clearly contradictory to WP:BLP.


 * No threat involved. I am reporting you right now. Spotfixer (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal Threats

has threatened Spotfixer also threatened me on my talk page (see below), even though I had absolutely nothing to do with his fight with Lyonscc.

''Look, I just reported Lyonscc‎ for WP:3RR violation and I still have the template up, so doing another is no big deal. Do you really want to follow him into block-land? Stop edit-warring, stop censoring.'' Spotfixer (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, something needs to be done. Manutdglory (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, not a threat. I am ready, able and willing to report you if you continue your edit war.  Count on it. Spotfixer (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. this should be referred to the current Admin boards thread(s). -- Banje b oi  11:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Teledildonix314
has made uncivil personal remarks to

Teledildonix314 made this highly inappropriate personal comment about me (below). Oh yeah, he's also caused the Rick Warren article to be fully protected not once, but twice. Manutdglory (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

''::And now Manutdglory is trying to push for violation of the 3RR. I would like to point out: Manutdglory has openly mentioned that they are a member of the Saddleback Church and thus it seems there is a Conflict Of Interest when they try to delete anything which might go against their personal preferences for how to portray the Church with puffery and WhiteWashing. Teledildonix314 talk 05:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC) ''


 * These are content disputes that led to edit wars, not matters of etiquette. Wrong forum. Spotfixer (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fabartus
On my talk page (User talk:pd_THOR), misinterpreted edits I made and referred to the editorial efforts on my part as "arrogant" and "evil", further describing unnamed editors as "nazi's" [sic] and rapists. While uncivil, I didn't find it warranted warning or further elabouration; I've had other editors call me names before. Had that been all, I would have ignored this editor's bile.

However, on the talk page of (user talk:sgeureka), Fabartus make personal attacks and threats against that user today (bolding added):"FIX THE DOUBLE REDIRECTS FROM THIS EXAMPLE OF WHAT A TOTAL SCREW UP YOU ARE. and stay out of Charmed pages... I've spent six weeks of my free time trying to pick up the mess you created when fucking up the merge of these pages. FYI, had you not screwed up our coverage here, I wouldn't have seen so much of the series, so in a way I owe you thanks. Nonetheless, Pray, Really Pray we never meet face to face, for you won't enjoy the common sense I pound into your sorry and foolish ass. In between, study IAR... you seem to have missed the lesson. And get some consideration for others time spent. Raping their GF efforts that took hundreds of man-months because you aren't mature enough to know when not to apply a rule or two really shows how unqualified you are to be editing here, much less be an admin. Fortunately, you can find most of them using R to Charmed. // Fra nkB 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC) You know... you're fucking crazier than I  thought. Try ADDING SOME CONTENT, not judging others. What a frigging piker. GROW THE FUCK UP. // Fra nkB 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)"  While wholly uncivil, a personal attack specifying violence seemed very over-the-top of acceptability.

Fabartus was again politely warned against incivility and personal attacks by on the former's talk page (user talk:Fabartus), to which he responded (original bolding preserved):"Over applying questionable guidelines aren't anything but a wast of time. Why is it that every rookie around here thinks they need to say 'WP:CIV... THAT WAS VERY CIVIL... you should see the first three drafts. Rapists should be jailed or shot. What he did to the 180 charmed article is mind boggling. So. Sorry, don't agree... read the above exchange (a day or two back). Someone has to tell a fuck up the truth. It's also free speech. Mine, so thanks, but I'll do what's right. // Fra nkB  23:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)"

While I didn't feel warning him yet again would garner any suitable result, I certainly didn't feel comfortable silently condoning comments about physical violence and guns with regards to other editors. I don't know if being clearly and detailedly warned by an administrator is the reminder needed, or if the comments themselves warrant something more, but comments and insinuations such as these are, I infer, unacceptable. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 02:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur the behavior is uncivil. Wikipedia is not a USA public forum subject to free speech rules and editors are expected to abide by applicable guidelines and behaviors. Gerardw (talk)


 * Fabartus threatening someone with physical violence is totally unacceptable. Doesn't that warrant an automatic ban? Dream Focus (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest involving an admin at WP:ANI per the ownership issues, severe incivility, lack of any remorse about his behavior, and most importantly, threat of physical violence. I believe a block is in order and the above quoted response to a good-faith reminder of civility issues shows another third party warning this user will have no effect. The   Seeker 4   Talk  03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur, I recommend blocking user Fabartus. Having had the opportunity to look up the applicable sections;
 * Civility
 * Harassment (Threats)
 * Battleground
 * Personal attacks
 * This user, by his actions, has shown a complete disdain for the policies and procedures that we have in place to ensure that this type of behavior does not happen, and having displayed this, should be held to account by these same standards. Also concur that this needs to be taken to Administrator Notice Board, with a link back to this section for reference. Edit Centric (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Ninguém
Once again the same user in the same article: White Brazilian. Last week, this user was blocked 2 times for his behavior in this article. Now that his block expired, he is back again to the same article, wih the same useless discussion in the Talk:White Brazilian. He's flooding this talk page with his personal opinions and theories about the figures of the Embassies of Italy and Lebanon in Brazil (his theory is that the Embassies are lying). He is frequently changing the article with his own theories, with unsouced informations (he has a "pro-Portuguese" point of view of the subject, and tries to erase the informations about Germans, Italians, Arabs and other ethnic groups).

WP:NOTFORUM -- Wikipedia is not forum, but Ninguém is ignoring this rule, trying to cause troubles, not only in White Brazilian but in other articles as well. Opinoso (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If a user is blocked for disruption, and immediately on return engages in the same disruption, take it directly to WP:ANI. If a block is not enough to change his behavior, a polite request by a third party from this forum is not going to do any good, so a longer block is in order. Admins are obviously needed for that, so I suggest you place this on WP:ANI. The   Seeker 4   Talk  16:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you. I placed this on WP:ANI. Opinoso (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinoso
Can someone please take a look at Opinoso's behaviour in the White Brazilians Talk Page? Ninguém (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is already being discussed on ANI. Without supporting one side or the other in this dispute, I can say please discuss it there and on the article talk page and avoid pointy filings in retaliation.  Thank you.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, I should not post in the article's Talk Page because I'm being accused of "flooding it". But thanks for your advice, I will keep myself to the ANI page. Ninguém (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:IslandShader
(Moved from where I originally posted, which was a less appropriate place) Could an admin have a word with this user, please? He's new, and I left a note on his talk page because he used the f-word twice in one edit summary, and he took exception, leaving uncivil comments on my talk page and continuing to swear in his edit summaries, like this. I don't know how admins deal with this kind of thing, so here it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He is continuing to attack other editors Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * With a nice edit summary! This editor needs to have things explained in a way that might get through to him, by someone whose words carry some weight. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since his behavior indicates average users will not carry any weight with their warnings, I have brought this issue to ANI. An admin there can decide to block or final warn this user as they deem appropriate.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  04:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Abusive behavior from a Wikipedia user
User:Kirihari: Wikihoarding, personal attacks, threats, gaming the system, disrespect, etc., , , , , , SharkD (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please clarify which diff shows which violation that you're asserting here? I'm trying to find the "threats" that you've mentioned, and I'll definitely click through the diffs again, jic I missed something. What I'm most amused by is the "life-changing" comments. Come on. If someone makes major changes to the article, how is that going to change one's life? Lemme take another look... Edit Centric (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, as for the threats, they're not very serious but are maddening nonetheless. First, there are the edit summaries where I'm accused of violating WP:POINT for modifying content. Then there are the threats of notifying his inside source, the Wikimedia arbiter - which was never actually done according to his contribs log. What's the point of threatening to inform a moderator? Why not just do so matter-of-factly?
 * Please get rid of this annoyance, OK? :) SharkD (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, nice username, BTW. :) SharkD (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SharkD, he is "amused" by our conversation... doesn't that tell you anything? Also, "Please get rid of this annoyance?", as if you control the admins? I have made no threats and I am not angry, by any account you have made the only threat "You don't want to go down that road with me", implying some kind of movie style threat.  This is really humorous to me, you do know? Please try to be constructive so we can come to a solution. I apologize if I have offended you as I have said on my own talk page and in the article, can't we just work together to make this page as good as possible, or working together is not your style?  --Kirihari (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of the behavior I am talking about! Here he's trying to play the two of us against each other. He knows he can't win as long as he stays on the subject, so he changes the subject to something else in order create a disruption. I've tried cooperating civily with Kirihari, but he continually stonewalls conversations by rambling on about how he's really a good guy and my friend, and how there's really an outside majority who's right and they have my best interests in mind while I'm wrong. I can't work with someone who's purposefully incoherent! If this isn't gaming the system I don't know what is! SharkD (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, enough of the biting. I looked again, and don't see what you're talking about as far as threats, SharkD. What I DO see is an editor that cares a lot about the work that they have put into the article. Kirihari, you maybe care a bit too much, article changes aren't "life-altering", trust me on this. (You or SharkD could go make massive changes to the Foot drill article that I spent days on, and the sun will still rise tomorrow, my baby girl will still love her daddy.)
 * While I agree with you on some of the article points, such as it being a list and NOT a chronology, I'm quite disappointed in BOTH SharkD and Kirihari for the move and edit warring that is happening with this article. SharkD, if Kirihari states that he / she is going to "get a mediator", that is perfectly acceptable. It is not a threat, and you shouldn't take it as such. If Kirihari feels that, instead of edit warring, he / she wishes to have third-party mediation of the issue(s), then that is a far preferrable solution than carrying on an edit war.
 * As for "getting rid of this annoyance", that is ALSO not contributing to this situation being resoved. NOW, can you both work together on this article, or is the edit war (and yes, both of you are each just as culpable as the other in this!) going to result in blocks? I personally would much rather see the two of you working together, its quite apparent that you both have an interest in the subject matter! If both of you are serious about doing some good with the article and the encyclopedia as a whole, here is what I suggest;
 * Wipe the slate clean. What's in the past is in the past, period.
 * Leave the article content alone for now.
 * Start a new dialogue on the talk page, stating and enumerating your individual aims for the article's improvement.
 * I (that's me, Edit Centric) will join you over on that project, to provide a third set of eyes and constructive comment on each change, to aid in consensus-building.
 * NO CHANGES COMMITTED unless by consensus.
 * This process would be in place for as long as necessary. It may take a few days, it may take a few weeks. The aim is to get everyone working toward the same goals. Is everyone okay with that? Edit Centric (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Frick, I think I love you Edit Centric! HEHEHE, Yeah, hell yeah, listen I will work with anyone who wants to make this article better. I will also start reading up on Wikipedia guidelines because I think I am lacking.  I just really want to do my best and help make an awesome article and help get it moved from "Low priority" to at least "Mid" heheheh.  Slate is clean! I will start a fresh edit tomorrow and hopefully we can come to a nice solution or solutions!  Space combat sims are more than a hobby for my wife and I though.. ehhehe I can't help get excited about them, I mean especially with games like the new X Terran Conflict where the entire earth solar system is remarkably recreated, sorry for always getting worked up, but damnitt I think I own most of the games on the list,  I will do my very best to be civil and more than understanding to other people's changes and try to work better towards a common goal. --Kirihari (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's one. SharkD, are you on-board with this? Also Kirihari, please start by discussing what your ideas are and what you would like to accomplish, on the talk page. Don't just jump in and start making changes to the article its self just yet. Let's first build a constructive dialogue, then we'll move on to implementation. Edit Centric (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried working with him in the past. It hasn't lead to anything positive. It hasn't even been possible to follow along with the discussion, much less participate, given how he commandeered the Talk page. And, I was flamed just for pointing this out! I don't see what you expect me to do. SharkD (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, here's another threat that I missed the first time: . "Basically add something to this conversation or start a new one, your antics are boring me." This is basically the second thing he said to me since I found the page. And, this is in response to merely suggesting that non-3D space sims be added to the list. This has characterized the tone of the discussions from the start. But I see you guys are getting along so well now... SharkD (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

SharkD - Are you saying above that you're not open to informal mediation? You're the one who brought this to WQA. If you were hoping to simply "get rid of this annoyance", this was not the place to make that happen. Those that mediate here are all about the dialogue, all about cooperation, unless a user is just not willing to give that a try, then other avenues are looked at and considered. In this case, I truly think that there is a chance to get something good from all of this. I have already gotten Kirihari to agree to the stips above. If I can mediate the Duke Math Journal article (and I know SQUAT about the Duke Math Journal!), then I can surely get you two to work constructively on a list of video games! Come on, SharkD. Give this a try? Edit Centric (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I already said, I've tried. SharkD (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I just browsed over to the new diffs that you posted, and I see absolutely no instance where you were "flamed". Criticized, yes. And maybe that criticizm was a bit unfounded. But definitely not flamed. Trust me, I've been flamed by some of the best in the biz, from BBS systems to IRC, to the web, so I know flaming when I see it. As for the restructuring of the talk page, that has already been addressed, so it's moot now. Trust me, SharkD, accepting this framework for informal mediation is a win-win scenario, for you, for Kirihari, and for Wikipedia. Edit Centric (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We must be looking at different pages. SharkD (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, are you turning down the offer for informal mediation? If so, I'll gladly change the "In progress" template at the top to the "Stuck" template. I suspect however, that others would encourage you to take me up on the offer. (Come on, I'm offering to help you guys on this thing, in the midst of my own personal emergency up in Anchorage! Take...the offer.) Edit Centric (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I came here to report uncivil behavior. I don't feel the need for assitance on the article itself; it's a small article! But if it's so easy to change "culpibility" from "both" to "me", then go ahead... SharkD (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In other words, the purpose of this exercise was simply to vent? Okay, that in and of itself is a good thing. As I stated previously, the edit warring was a shared culpability. However, your own words here, "I don't feel I need assitance (sic) on the article itself; it's a small article!" sound dangerously like WP:OWN, which has me honestly concerned. At this point, I'd like some other third-parties to comment on this. Edit Centric (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Vent? You're putting words in my mouth. And the WP:OWNership is only true if I in fact intend to continue editing the article. Look, I came here to report incivility. The template at the top of the article states that this is the place to come to do so. I assumed that the person would be warned or reprimanded in some way. It says, "[This] is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors (...) [or] advice, informal mediation...". It says "or" to come for "advice and informal mediation". It doesn't say "and". There's no mention of mediation with regard to article content. As for the incivility, WP:Civility lists:
 * Rudeness
 * Insults and name-calling
 * Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")
 * Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
 * Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
 * Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
 * Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel
 * Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors
 * Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them
 * Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
 * Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner
 * Harassment
 * Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"
 * These are all things which Kirihari has subjected upon me--not some!
 * Finally, please don't break normal discussion flow. I find that disruptive.
 * As for the article--well, it's a list article. How much more material can it require? Going through this entire process of mediation just to add one or two items to a list seems silly, and is rather embarrassing. SharkD (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Woops! I misread that last post. I thought it was an straight-up admonishment. SharkD (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles are always in a state of change. When one party is willing to mediate, and the other party is unwilling, it says a lot about both parties. Mediation requires you to use the past as a route forward. A failure to try is a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia Community. ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 10:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I've already tried working with Kirihari, and it has not been successful. And there has already been mediation, whether by asking on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games or by patiently weighing Randomran's third opinions. Other editors have als come to voice their opinions. Yet Kirihari continued to spew his vitriol. This is not a case where mediation hasn't already been pursued!!! SharkD (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you please use the PREVIEW button before saving your changes to any article from now on. It should not take you 4 edits to write one paragraph.  Use the preview button at all times (I could template you about it, but I won't .. yet) ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 11:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think SharkD should consider carefully the sentence already quoted:

It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.
 * It is a misunderstanding to suppose that means a user can bind administrators to provide only perspective, or only advice or only informal mediation or only referral etc. just by demanding. Unless SharkD is willing to cease trying to prosecute Kirihari here and now, and accept Edit Centric's condition Wipe the slate clean. What's in the past is in the past, period. then nothing can be done here and it looks like SharkD is the problem. BTW I have zero interest in the article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well all, I just read through the entirety of the article talk page, (pretty good for 03:50 in the blessed AM!) and I've come to the healthy conclusion that BOTH users need warned at this point, about edit warring, maintaining civility, ownership of an article and making false accusations. (To include ballooning otherwise true statements up in scope!)
 * Right now, it looks like both of these editors are making an honest effort at working the issues over on the article talk page. As long as constructive communication is adhered to, I'm hopeful that this will work itself out. As for me, this one has me "brayne-fryde", I'm hitting the snore shelf! Good luck, all! Edit Centric (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone, I really appreciate everyone's help, I will do my best to remain positive and and keep the conversation constructive. Thank you so much for staying up late and trying to help! ;) --Kirihari (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm tagging this one as resolved for archiving, as both editors seem to have a new perspective over at the article's talk page. Hopefully everything remains above board and "on the level". Edit Centric (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Mickproper
After I AFDed one of his articles and reverted some of his edits, Mickproper seriously lost it and posted this to my talk page and sent me a personal threat in email, which I took seriously enough to report to my local police. ("just so you know you punk...when I find out your real identity, you're going to have a VERY bad day!") I don't wish to be involved with this guy anymore. Someone should keep an eye on him, though - I think he is well-intentioned, but his edits are frequently unsourced, unverifiable, and/or contain original research. And he has a temper. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This needs to be taken to WP:ANI ASAP please. ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 23:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Blueboar, User:MSJapan and User:WegianWarrior
They seem to be tag-teaming to prevent changes to the article Masonic conspiracy theories. There is reason to suspect that at least 2 of them (User:Blueboar and User:MSJapan) may engage in edit-warring as well as revert-warring. User:Blueboar has already been blocked for violating 3RR. This has been mentioned in the noticeboards of: Edit warring, Conflict of Interest and Neutral point of view. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly has and in AN/EW forum shopping like this is frowned upon. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There seem to be several concurring problems. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No it's clearly the same dispute and one place is enough. I suggest this board isn't that place. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User:GroundhogTheater
No further input x24 hours after suggested resolve.

This user sent another user's FAC to WP:AFD. I have my opinions about that, but I'll leave that out of this. However, the nominator of the AFD is using phrases like "DEFUNCT ROUTE FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS" and "NO AGAIN!" Something doesn't seem right about it... --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How does this fall under bad wikiquette? I don't think the article passes WP:N being a small route that disbanded 40 years ago. It also only served a hamlet of 38 people. If looked at the sources don't even pertain to the route, they pertain to the surrounding areas. I haven't mocked any user for giving their time for the article. I get discouraged when stuff of mine is questioned by others, but I realize it isn't personal. Every wiki user has a right to raise questions. It is a collective effort. But for some reason, User:Rschen7754, believes its personal just because I disagree with his feelings. With that said he isn't even the author of the article in question. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine to make a suggestion the article isn't needed, but the all capitals is considered shouting . Gerardw (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion is it should be only considered shouting when it is directed at another user personally. Groundhog said he was making a point, and not everyone knows every Wiki guideline through and through. He should in the future not use caps to eliminate confusion, but User:Rschen7754 also didn't need to bring this here. Let the two users settle their dispute on their own. -- Burp The  Baby    (Talk)  02:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're insulting another author's work, which can be taken as an insult to the author itself. Furthermore I do have the right to bring this up here, especially as I am an uninvolved party in the matter (it was not my article sent to AFD). --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really make sense -- if a comment about a piece of work is automatically about the author, then isn't all commentary about authors? And wouldn't every Afd be an insult to the work? Gerardw (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly could be taken that way. And that's the thing about AFD - you obviously have to criticize it somehow without seeming to be rude or insulting. But using ALL CAPS and writing it the way he did was being insulting. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The author didn't find it insulting. Check out Rschen's talk page. He uses caps to emphasize importance in his "week of" list. That's all I was doing. I did not single out anyone by name. You need to have thicker skin Rschen. I was not personally ripping anyone. Look at the context of the caps I used. I felt that was an important sentence as I've found people don't always read everything you write. Thanks. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "NO!" looks rude in just about any context. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that bringing an article at FAC to AFD is a violation of WP:POINT. If the subject of an article isn't notable, then its sources will be deficient for FAC purposes, and it will likely fail quickly. The fact that this didn't happen at FAC demonstrates to me that the article subject was judged to have sufficient notability by the community. The FAC would probably have been the best venue to discuss the issues he had with it. I think that while GroundhogTheater's actions in nominating the article were probably not incivil (nor do I feel they were intended to be), bringing the article to AFD shows poor judgement on his part. If the article had been in need of deletion, it would have inevitably failed FAC, and only after that happened would an AFD have been proper.

That said, I wasn't particularly happy with the tone of the AFD nomination as filed. AFDs should be brief and lay out the arguments for deletion in a calm, logical, concise method. Use of all-caps for emphasis is a bit rude...italics seems more polite. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone has their own style of writing. And I don't believe the article should be anywhere near where it is. I believe it fails WP:N. Please disagreed, it got shot down quick and we've moved on. Even if I'm in an extreme minority, I still have a right to my opinion. And I did put it up for a discussion. I could have been WP:BOLD and just merged it all down. What's so bad about having a discussion. I won't be a puppet and just agree with everything. That would make Wiki quite boring and monotone. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You do have a right to express your opinion. However, when it is actively being considered for FA status, it seems like bad faith to nominate it for AFD.  You have every right to argue it is not notable and to argue against its promotion to FA status. However, when enough editors not only think it is notable but also think it is deserving of FA status for it to be seriously discussed there, you shouldn't have brought it to AFD.  I am certainly not saying you should be blocked for it or that you violated policies, but you really should use common sense when nominating articles for deletion, and even if you don't agree that it is notable, you should respect that consensus is against you and not nominate it for deletion during an active FAC discussion.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  17:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not something I just did, I gave it alot of thought, how is it bad faith to express an opinion? It obviously didn't hinder anything. But I just believe the page is a total fraud. My friend and I broke down the sources and none of them have nothing to do with the route. It took a lot of clever writing to bring the page to where it is. Plus its sister route (that is still active) only has a one line blurb about it. You may find it unusual, but in my opinion doesn't lie between the article being FA and GA, but whether it should exist or not. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not bad faith to express an opinion per se, but the method in which you chose to express that opinion—filing an AFD—is not the best way that you should be doing. Also, you should have looked at how the FAC was doing—if multiple users were expressing that they feel the page should be deleted, then you would have had good reason to take it to AFD. As I see it, only one other user has expressed anything anywhere close to that, and other users commented that they were being absurd and WP:POINTy. That other users were discussing the article on its other merits should have indicated that an AFD would be a waste of time as it would be likely to pass as keep (which is indeed what happened).
 * Now, I'd like to address the comment you just made. Calling the article a "total fraud", and insinuating that Mitch is being "clever" in writing the page, is absolutely a textbook assumption of bad faith (you're implying that Mitch is making up stuff and using the sources to support it in an inappropriate manner). I can assure you that Mitch, while he may write articles on routes of sometimes questionable notability (though I do not feel this is one of these cases), and though he makes mistakes sometimes (as do we all), is thoroughly honest in his work. Mitch has done a lot of stellar work for the U.S. Roads WikiProject—to accuse him of dishonesty is, frankly, unthinkable. In the future please assume good faith. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding obscure articles, I once looked up an obscure subject on google and found it on WP. I later found out that the author of that obscure article has written hundreds of obscure articles.  So it is possible that others benefit from obscure articles.  Whether these are allowed or not is a WP policy question.  In case you are curious, the obscure articles author is Billy Hathorn. Chergles (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Examine the sources my friend, examine the sources. Did you see the comments User:BurpTheBaby made? I'm not implying Mitch is making stuff up, but I'm rather saying that he is stretching things to create a good looking article here. I did it in college! We all have. But I say again, examine the sources my friend, examine the sources! --GroundhogTheater (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's still an assumption of bad faith—an assumption of good faith, as policy ascribes, would be to assume that Mitch was merely misinterpreting the sources. To express suspicions that he was intentionally trying to game the system by misusing sources is assumption of bad faith. This is a very serious allegation; you are asserting that Mitch (who, I might note, is an administrator) has malicious intent to compromise the veracity of this project. I don't find it plausible that Mitch is capable of harming the encyclopedia like that. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You two [BurpTheBaby and GroundhogTheater] seem to work very closely together. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I already told you that he's a friend of mine. You attacked him, I stuck up for him. You need to broaden your horizons on Wiki if all you've been doing is whining about people who may speak to your disliking. -- Burp The  Baby    (Talk)  16:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As explained above ( Asking you ... ) a WQA is not a personal attack. GroundhogTheater's use of all capitals does not follow community standards for discourse. The content issue is not germane here. The You need to broaden comment is uncivil. Gerardw (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible resolution of this Wikiquette alert: Disclaimer: I have successfully worked with others in the past but have not participated in alerts before. Therefore, please allow some laxity if I am unfamiliar with any unwritten customs of this board.

The Wikipedia product should be the most important goal. Whether or not AFD was appropriate, it was done and has been concluded. Editors' energy should be primarily directed to improving the article of their choice in the most cooperative way possible. Changes in policy, such as to further define notability, may be useful depending on the editor's interests. Left unresolved is whether the tone of the original AFD was appropriate. Two possibilities are either to continue to debate that or to try to work cooperatively in other issues and leave that question unanswered. Chergles (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However, this editor continues to be uncivil - is not WP:AGF. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A claim of uncivil seems thin in this context, after all the explanation of the #1 wikipedia principle notes we are all biased. I'd just simply note that GHT is also inherently biased and continue the content discussion in attempting to reach WP:NPOV Gerardw (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly Gerard, I'm just looking for someone who hasn't been in the argument to determine what merit the sources have. You can't do it, and neither can I. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Several thoughts here. 1.) I think that Rschen7754 is being overly sensitive, but I understand that given the amount of work put into the article.  2.) I think it showed poor form to put the article up for deletion.  I understand that many people want to maintain a sort of status quo type of encyclopedia, but there's plenty of HD space to keep this article.  3.) FA? no, sorry - GHT does have a point about the quality of references.  All official, verifiable, and all - but maps and tour books alone shouldn't be what's driving an article to Featured.  4.)Delete? I guess this is a serious question, but I can't fathom how one would come to the conclusion that this article should be deleted.  It is sourced, and verifiable.  As far as notable, I guess it depends on who you are.  I'm sure there are thousands of people who used this road.  If you're using the argument that it doesn't exist anymore - I'd counter with neither does JFK (and I don't think that article is going to be deleted any time soon).
 * Comment If GHT could tone down the caps (it's a textual form of shouting that goes back to BBS and early text communication), and Rschen7754 could understand that nothing personal was meant - I think everything could be worked out. There's plenty of garage band articles out there that can be deleted, but Wikipedia should be more that "What we have", it should include, and be legacy of sorts, to our past. Well, that's my 2-cents for what it's worth.  Hope you all work things out for the best. — Ched (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we done here? --GroundhogTheater (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't my article - my concern is for the actual author. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm finally chiming in on this one, I've been kind of silently watching the conversation track from the sidelines up to this point. I'm inclined to agree with everything that Ched outlined above. Rschen, Scott5114 and I have worked together in the past as part of US Roads, and they both know that I'm a reasonable person. GHT, I'm sure, understands the point that has been made about using all caps when conveying his perspective. Rshen, I know how involved you are with USRD (you KNOW I do!), and your passion for the project is more than admirable. I think the most important thing at this point is to call it a day on this one, and move forward if we can. That being said, I would like to mark this as "tentatively resolved", if everyone's copasetic with that. Edit Centric (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrator incivility
I would like the opinion of other editors and even more so administrators on the following matter:

I placed a requested move template on Major UK railway stations suggesting a move to Major British railway stations however I misread the instructions and placed it incorrectly. This caused an administrator User:Ddstretch to place a message on my talk page. I believe the tone was harsh and aggressive as the administrator threatened to take action against me for being disruptive. I feel this was unfair as the admin was not civil and good faith did not cross their mind.

The admin also claims I threatened editors who removed the template. This is simply untrue which can be seen on revision history of Major UK railway stations and Special:Contributions/Welshleprechaun. Furthermore, the admin claims I made threats of reporting people for vandalsim if they revert the changes in good faith. While I admit that I misjudged that the reverts by an editor on Major UK railway stations were vandalism, it is clear that they were not in good faith, given the lengthy discussion with the editor, User:Hammersfan, on the talk page of Major UK railway stations.

I accused the admin of hypocrisy, which I didn't intend as a personal attack, merely what I believe is a fact, as he accused me of being uncivil and not assuming good faith, given the admins incivility and non assumption of good faith on my part, to which the admin replied sarcastically Thank you for your suggestion about me being civil, and I suggest you review WP:CIVIL.

So I would like to ask editors and administrators if this administrator acted unreasonably and unnecessarily hostile towards me. I would be happy to answer any questions or provide any more evidence on the matter. Thank you Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This editor has been an editor for over one year, has been blocked previously for edit-warring, and caused problems some time ago for posting lists of uncivil editors on his user page. Given that he has been an editor for over a year, placing a RM template on the main template page was certainly disruptive, and I consider I was correct to point that out to him. That he also reverted a different editor's prior reversal of edits to the same template with an edit-summary including an accusation of vandalism certainly was an inappropriate act first mesage second message, since edit-summaries remain unless removed by oversight, and one is allowed under WP:BRD to do what that editor did. In the light of this, a stern warning was certainly justified, and his accusation of hypocrisy on my part did little other than confirm that the stern warning was appropriate in the first place. Hypocrisy can be nothing other than a personal attack since it roughly implies that I behaved in a morally poor way in being inconsistent. The attribution of "sarcastically" in the above message is an interpretation of my message that also fails to assume good faith.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (reposted because of clarity expansion and edit conflicts) This editor has been an editor for over one year, has been blocked previously for edit-warring, and caused problems some time ago for posting lists of uncivil editors on his user page. Given that he has been an editor for over a year, placing a RM template on the main template page was certainly disruptive, and I consider I was correct to point that out to him. That he also reverted a different editor's prior reversal of edits to the same template with an edit-summary including an accusation of vandalism certainly was an inappropriate act first mesage second message, since edit-summaries remain unless removed by oversight, and one is allowed under WP:BRD to do what that editor did. In the light of this, a stern warning was certainly justified, and his accusation of hypocrisy on my part did little other than confirm that the stern warning was appropriate in the first place. Hypocrisy can be nothing other than a personal attack since it roughly implies that I behaved in a morally poor way in being inconsistent. The attribution of "sarcastically" in the above message is an interpretation of my message that also fails to assume good faith.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I admitted I placed the template incorrectly and you were quite right to point it out, but not in a hostile and uncivil manner given that I have never come across you before. I considered the edits in question vandalism (which I now understand was wrong)because I believe the editor failed to respect the rule of taking any addition/removal to the talk page first. I removed those stations after there was little reply to my discussion on the talk page. However the matter is the admin's unnecessary aggressive tone in pointing out what I did was wrong. Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Effect of the misplaced RM template on the template itself, leading to its propagation on all articles the template was used on: [ here]. Given the scale of problems, I do consider that the stern warning was justified, especially in the light of the inappropriate edit-summaries and the length of time the editor had been on wikipedia.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Did it cross the administrator's mind that my incorrect placing of a template was a mistake? If not, they must have assumed I placed it deliberately to cause disruption. That is not assuming good faith. If it did, why was such a hostile warning given Surely a kind message indicating that I had done so incorrectly and advising me of the correct procedure was warranted. Welshleprechaun (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the above message contains an instance of the fallacy of False Dilemma along with speculation about motives. Here is the message I posted to Welshleprechaun that seems to have caused so much ousrage. I contend it is form, but not uncivil or inappropriate:"I have removed the wikipedia discussion template from the template page as it was completely misplaced and disruptive to other articles. If you wish to raise the matter of the contents of the template, you should do so in the normal way on the template talk page, and should then announce the discussion on the talk pages of all the articles affected by this as well as related project talk pages. Additionally, to threaten editors who removed the RM template in good faith is borderline disruptive itself and does not encourage a collaborative atmosphere. I suggest that if you think there are changes needed to this template, you try to foster discussion and achieve consensus by using the normal routes for doing so, rather than use such a non-standard and disruptive way of trying to achieve this coupled with threats of reporting people for vandalsim if they revert the changes in good faith. If you reinstate the template in the form it was before I reverted it, I will take administrative action against you as a means of preventing further disruption. DDStretch    (talk)  17:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)"   DDStretch    (talk)  16:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, I have read the Template Talk, and both Welsh & DDS's Talkpages, plus the information above. Let me clearly note that although I have been editing Wikipedia for 3 years, I am not an admin at this point in time, and that I have spent a lot of time assisting here in Wikiquette.

One of the key tenets of WP:CIVILITY/WP:NPA is to discuss edits and not editors. You added a template wrongly. It was removed and you reverted. It was removed again, which you reverted. The "stern warning" above is not an administrator type of "warning", it is a seasoned editor type of warning - indeed, it's extremely descriptive of what and why, and does its very best to discuss the brutal repercussions of specific edits and not editors. The paragraph details why it was removed, recommends discussion, advises against threatening to "report" editors who revert you, and encourages discussion. This "warning" is far more verbose than a standard warning, and indeed appears to be agood learning message. Because the multiple additions of the template caused disruption throughout Wikipedia, he was required (after 3 times) to warn you about some form of "administrative action". It could have been article protection, or even a block ... it is a very mild, non-specific warning, and is the only real "admin" portion.

Although I have trouble seeing "threats" when someone simply says "I will report you for vandalism" because I say "if I did AGF edits, go ahead, report me" (we all know that ANI Reporters who were disruptive to begin with usually get the bad end of Admin action in that situation).

The warning was stern, yet polite. It met WP:NPA and because the template was re-added multiple times, WP:AGF does not apply - the FIRST time was AGF, the repetitions were not.

Welsh, if you disagree, you may take this to WP:ANI or even WP:RFC. However, at this point, I would suggest that the severity of the first addition was ignored, the repeats could not be. Rather than block first and advise later, you were politely and properly (and clearly) educated. ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 17:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't revert the removal of a WP:RM template. Where did this accusation come from? I reverted edits by a user that added Belfast stations. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The important thing is you reverted someone who reverted you. The action is "bold, revert, discuss" not "bold, revert, revert the first revert and demand they discuss it and so on."  You were engaged in an edit war over a template that appears on many articles, which is disruptive.  You then improperly added a RM template, which also turned out to be disruptive.  The administrator in question warned you sternly, but did not accuse you of intentionally being disruptive, he simply told you your actions were disruptive and to stop.  Any user would have been justified to do what the admin did.  He was firm, but not incivil, especially considering your own refusal to refrain from reverting someone while a discussion was ongoing.  In response to your question in your first post here, no the admin was not unnecessarily hostile, was not unreasonable and did not act in an uncivil manner. I believe the best course of action in this case would be to learn from the situation and walk away with the intention of discussing a change when you are reverted, not engaging in an edit war.  You can let a change you don't like stand while discussing it rather than continually reverting it.  If you let it stand and discuss it, you will not be accused of edit warring and will not be blocked for edit warring. If you do engage in edit warring, other editors will be less likely to assume good faith on your part.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with TheSeeker4 above. (Took the words right outta my head there, Seeker4!) Edit Centric (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But what I'm saying is that I added the requested name change template incorrectly by mistake (once). Fair enough, I should have been told that - but a polite notice was all that was needed and the admin did not assume that I put that template there in good faith. There was certainly no need for a stern warning against being disruptive, or for: If you reinstate the template in the form it was before I reverted it, I will take administrative action against you as a means of preventing further disruption. The reverting of edits of a different topic is completely unrelated to the above! I reverted edits of a user who did not respect the rules of adding/removing stations without discussion. I said to this user that if he persisted I'd report him for vandalism, which I have now accepted was wrong, as the editor's reverting is not classed as vandalism. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the admin falsely accused me of reverting the removal of a WP:RM template and threatening editors who removed it! Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (Puts the "time out" sign up) Okay. Lemme take another look at this one's edit history. As both TheSeeker4 and Bwilkins know, I'm a reasonable person, and I'm all about second chances and second looks. So I'll look again. I have to tell you though Welshleprechaun, on the face of this, it looks like Seeker4's assessment of things is on the level... Edit Centric (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The number of edits you (Welsh.) were doing around that time to the template did cause some confusion, but that is minor, and I don't think it is wise to attempt to mount a complaint about me on the basis that I got temporarily confused about a set of interacting disruptive edits you were doing. The facts speak for themselves: on two counts (edit-warring and the addition of a RM template incorrectly) your edits were disruptive (which makes no assumption about intentionality), and I felt I had to make some comment about it, especially since you are already established as an editor. The notice I placed on your page was polite, yet firm, and I intended it to be educational about what to do. I am sad that your responses were so negative and have now gone on for so long. I am also, I might say, sad to read that you have included accusations of "hypocrisy" and other such things in your later messages. I pointed out that you have been in trouble before for edit warring (2 blocks) and for including inappropriate information about other editors on your user page which you were obliged to remove, and that told me that you were in need of some slightly firm guidance. I think you could benefit from reviewing WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA, because you have been on wikipedia for over a year (almost two), and I think it would be of definite use for you, as you seem to have been making effective edits otherwise. I hope you can accept this advice in the spirit it is offered. I apologise for the upset this may have brought to you, and I apologise for the slight confusion that the number of edits you were doing to the template caused me, but I do believe that my actions were justified, and the confusion does not change the main substance of the firm warning I gave you.  DDStretch    (talk)  18:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing exactly what ddstretch is referring to above in the edit histories (there's one of the VERY few words I have trouble pluralizing!) that I'm reviewing. Welsh, what it looks like from my three monitors here is an edit war, regardless of what it was concerning. WP:BRD definitely was tossed aside, as was WP:AGF. While I tend to side with WP:BOLD, I also know the value of having the other policies and guidelines in place, and like to take those into account when performing edits. If you get reverted, go back to the talk page and discuss it again. By all means, do not get yourself involved in an edit war, that becomes detrimental in so many different ways its pitiful! Edit Centric (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ddstretch, I hope you can see why I took your message as impolite but, as I have said before, I understand and approve of you pointing out that I incorrectly added the RM template. Also, I hope you can see that it was a simple misunderstanding and I did not revert it, nor threaten an editor who removed it, nor would revert it if it had been explained that it was incorrectly placed.

I understand the problems of edit warring and apologise for it, however the reverts I made were edits by a user who has continuously not respected the rules of adding/removing a station, also this does not excuse edit warring. In fact I have been working on an FAQ in my sandbox for this template to prevent further edit wars taking place on this page. You were quite right to warn me for the edit war but my intentions were to prevent one (one of the edit summaries), but I still maintain that you could have been less firm with regards to my addition of the RM template. My edit was indeed disruptive, but not intentionally disruptive, and I feel that called for a more politer tone. So if you can where I'm coming from, I'm happy to let the issue rest and we'll say no more about it, but before we can do so, would you mind having a word with the user who has been making these edits, User:Hammersfan, as I feel the uncivil messages of this user have contributed to the dispute. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We're almost there with this one. The "I'll let it rest as long as" is a bit of a reach, but comes from a reasonable place, IMHO. I'm sure that DDStretch would be open to moving into the "mediator seat" in that aspect, am I right DDS? Edit Centric (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict reply to Welshlepechaun) I do, of course, see why you took my message as being impolite, but I just do not think that you were reasonable to do so, and it appears that the others from whom you asked impartial advice here agree with me. Editors who are criticized often react badly as it can be upsetting, and I appreciate that you may be upset, and, as I said, I am sorry for that. I would like to comment that the obligation was on you to explain why you made the edits (under the WP:BRD guidelines), rather reimplement the changes and then demand that the editor who reverted you explain why some action you had done was incorrect: that is how the burden of evidence applies in these cases. Additionally, I consider that saying in an edit summary that an editor will be reported for some violation and in another to the same editor labelling their actions as vandalism is rather inflammatory, especially since at the bottom of this was a content dispute that had descended into an edit-war! As I said, I can understand why you think what you do about these incidents and my messages to you, but I just don't think that your view is reasonable given the problems pointed out by myself and the other commentators here. I appreciate that you are sorry for the problems, though, and I hope that you can continue to be an effective contributor to wikipedia. Let's let it rest now, ok? I have happily given the editor you asked me about some advice about his editing style.  DDStretch    (talk)  19:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Juliancolton
I recently joined Wikipedia with the intent to publish an article about the band Behind Yellow Lines. (You can see my first impressions of Wikipedia here)

I was surprised to see that not long after I published the article, it was marked for "speedy deletion." I saw that on my talk page, it apparently wasn't notable enough. I attempted to delay the deletion, to see what was the matter, but the user who deleted it, Juliancolton failed to provide me with the real reason it was deleted. I checked the notability requirements for articles about bands, and my article was up to par. I started to become suspicious, wondering whether maybe the article was deleted out of [| abuse].

To make a long story short, my previous positive impressions of Wikipedia were tarnished by the attitude of Juliancolton, and other moderators.

What infuriated me the most was that when I asked Julian to send me the article he hastily deleted, he refused. I had to go to another user (Hersfold) to get my article back (for my own personal use).

So, hopefully, this article will cause Wikipedia to review the character of their moderators, in an effort to treat new authors with respect and dignity.--Deucemeister (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As Deucemeister has mentioned, I am involved with this, and I don't see that Julian has done anything out of line here. The deletion was appropriate, and I don't see that he's said anything that would be considered rude by most people. On the other hand, I am almost prepared to block Deucemeister for trolling. On several occasions he's directly attacked other users and has taken great offense at seemingly harmless comments - as this report shows. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Juliancolton has a habit of remaining civil just about all the time. I'd say he has a better track record than I do. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did, in fact, provide you with a reason as to why I deleted the article. I apologize if you dislike Wikipedia's speedy-deletion policy, but that's not my fault. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On Hersfold's talk page an editor replied to your "first impressions" explaining that writing an article about yourself is most likely to create a conflict of interest and articles must be neutral. All that Juliancolton did was follow guidelines, so you should have a problem with Wikipedia, not him. You also said Who better to tell the story of a band's history than one of its members? - Wikipedia is not a place to "tell your story", nor is it MySpace. It is an encyclopaedia. Note also the guideline of not biting the newcomer. Editors and administrators should know that newcomers won't know all the rules and guidelines, but it was quite clear that the associated rules were in fact pointed out to you by Hersfold yet you continue. Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So your telling me that the "Formation and first years" section on Radiohead's page doesn't belong becuase it is "telling a story?" It seems to me that less known bands are discriminated against. Also, one question, if the same article had been written by say, a friend of mine, would it have been deleted? --Deucemeister (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And Julian, I do believe it is your fault if you deleted it...--Deucemeister (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like this is just pouting over an article being deleted. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From an editor who can't tell the difference between his band and Radiohead. Dayewalker (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but am I really being abusive as you claim, or are you simply upset over your article being deleted? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe I have the right to fight for my right to publish an article about my band. I also don't appreciate the harassment. I can clearly tell the difference and was simply using the Radiohead page as an example. It was the first band I could think of. Hmmm because EVERY band has a "story" section in their "encyclopaedia" article. But no...Behind Yellow Lines can't have one. Of course not. Let's delete it and harass the new editor. And while we're at, let's set a good example in etiquette for him (Rschen7754, Dayewalker). --Deucemeister (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:BAND? --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Deuce, you don't have a right to publish anything you want on wikipedia. Make a MySpace page or a website for your band and when you're notable enough, someone else will make a wikipedia entry for you. Dayewalker (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dayewalker, I won't even waste my time with you. And yes Rschen, I read WP:BAND. Behind Yellow Lines meets criteria 1 and 9. --Deucemeister (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop with the incivility. Thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This does not belong here. Take it to Deletion review or if you're really riled, WP:ANI, but you aren't going to get anything from here. Meanwhile, you are close to being blocked. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Hammerfist and 18.138.1.34
These two accounts appear to be the same person (the last comment by the IP was signed "Jimmy Hammersmith"), both engaging in gratuitous personal insults on User talk:Jimmy Hammerfist. See these diffs. --Orlady (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I mistakenly identified the IP user as having made one of the insulting comments. The sole issue here is personal attacks; there is no sockpuppetry. --Orlady (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Dekkappai
For some reason, User:Dekkappai is making a variety of seemingly personal attacks against me regarding an AfD. I can't remember ever having any personal issues with him, so I don't know where this apparent hostility it coming from. There is nothing wrong with the AfD nom that I can see. It certainly isn't a bad faith nomination but for some reason appears to seriously be ticking some people off, particularly Dekkappai. I tried noting to him that he was making personal attacks, but he ignored my response and continued with more. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment None of those are personal attacks, and your nominations of that material are starting to look a little like some sort of personal grudge. §FreeRangeFrog 01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A response from someone not involved in the AfD would be useful, and I don't see how my nomination of that article is any kind of "personal grudge". Previously kept articles have been deleted in subsequent AfDs after consensus and guidelines changed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments about articles / actions -- in this case the Afd -- are generally not considered uncivil or personal attacks. If, as indicated below, this is the second Afd nomination in 2.5 months, that does seems a bit peculiar. Gerardw (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not the second nomination in 2.5 months, as noted below. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment withdrawn, sorry. Gerardw (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My "Personal attacks" are against the AfDs the editor has taken against a series of extremely notable DVDs. I've said nothing personal, and will not comment further at this second waste of editing time. Dekkappai (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've not been involved in any of these discussions or AfDs. I would have thought that the second nomination in 2.5 months by the same editor might get people annoyed, especially when the first nomination received a very large number of opinions that the material should be kept. In 2.5 months, the consensus is unlikely to have changed so radically, though it could have happened, and the burden of evidence would rest with Collectonian to show that it had. So, I do think the decision to try a second nomination in such a comparatively short time may well have contributed to the idea that it was time-wasting if such evidence was not gathered and is not forthcoming. Collectonian states that "Previously kept articles have been deleted in subsequent AfDs after consensus and guidelines changed." so, perhaps this applied here. Would he/she care to provide the evidence that the guidelines for such material has changed in a way that would have affected the retention of the material? Or would he/she let us know what the evidence was that led he/she to think that consensus had changed enough so that a quick second nomination was justified? Being able to do this would certainly change the view I am getting of this matter just now. DDStretch   (talk)  01:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm...please check the date again. That's 1 year, 2.5 months, not 2.5 months. It closed 26 November 2007, this is February 2009 :) I'd never do an AfD on a keep article after only 2 months unless there was a seriously radical change in policy. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I got my years mixed up (its still early in the year, and it is late at night for me). You are correct about the time and date. My mistake. However, you did mention that consensus could change or that guidelines could change that would justify a re-submission to AfD, and so it would help if you could provide us with the information, as I requested in my previous message. It would help us understand the situation better.  DDStretch    (talk)  02:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:N is being more strictly enforced than it was a year ago, and its wording has changed quite a bit in the last year.. The same with WP:NOT., including the addition of the note that Wikipedia is not: "A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". Overall consensus also appeared to change, as many DVD articles have been deleted between that previous AfD and this one, showing that the overall consensus is that DVD releases should not have separate articles apart from their actual series content. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no personal attack, just legitimate criticism. No one has a problem with the article, so let it be, and stop trying to find an excuse to delete every single article you can.  If people voted to keep it before, then why try to delete it yet again?  You said before on your own user page, you nominate something for deletion if you don't believe there are a lot of active editors around to protest.  You have made 368 attempts so far, to have articles deleted so far. http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php?user=Collectonian And while some of those may have deserved deletion, the majority of them would've probably helped wikipedia, and couldn't have hurt it by just leaving them alone.  Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you should find an excuse to delete it, if no one is around to vote to stop you. Dream Focus (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have been warned repeated by an admin to stop putting false words in my mouth and to stop throwing yourself into conversations just to take snipes at me. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I have not. I have had you constantly accuse me of nonsense, to the same administrator, who then comes to my talk page, and discusses it with me. Dream Focus (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I see both parties as being a bit, shall we say, snarky. Frankly the level of hostility is evident all around. I think, in time, both parties will look back at their comments and regret some of their statements. This isn't a battleground and words aren't ours to use as weapons here. Before the AfD closes it may be helpful to go over previous statements and strike anything that may seem overtly hostile. These are just articles but editors are actual people and we need you both. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#FF0066">b oi  03:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: As far as I can tell the editor in question is just frustrated that an article previously kept and that clearly can be improved using secondary sources has been renominated instead of improved. Should he be more measured in his comments, maybe, but I can understand the frustration there and can somewhat see where he is coming from in his concern here as well.  In any event, editors should remember both to maintain civility, but also that deletion is a last resort and that obviously improveable content should be improved and that renominations of kept articles can and will be viewed as problematic, especially as there is sufficient past consensus that these sorts of DVD articles are notable as seen at Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer DVDs (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/The Simpsons DVDs.  Finally, it seems that there is overly aggresive delete comments as well, such as this, which dismisses the keep arguments and applies hyperbole to the article.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It is pretty bad form for the same editor to re-nominate the same article for AfD after the community accepted the article the first time - it shows a grudge. Indeed, I always recommend that the same editor should not CSD then AfD the same article, so 2 nom's for AfD is not according to Hoyle in that light. I would also remind all parties of the AfD etiquette section. Collectionian, I generally appreciate your editing, but I see an issue in your 2 most recent visits here to WQA: when challenged by a 3rd party, you challenge them on something (usually wrongly) in an apparent attempt to discredit their contribution. That said (and oddly enough), one of the most uncivil statements I have seen in this whole process was Dekkappai's statement above about wasting editing time: it's likely just the way it reads (I hope) but it's dripping in a tone of absolute disgust towards an editor - however, I'm not suggesting this is in any way worth additional discussion. Remember, an editor's responsibility is to try to improve an article before trying to delete it. As nobody's wrists are truly being slapped at this point in time, let's get back to editing/improving articles. ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 10:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there is absolutely nothing stated anywhere in any guideline or policy saying that you can not or should not re-nominate an article for AfD just because you did the first AfD, nor is there any issue with an article CSDing then AfDing an article (indeed, that's beyond common). The article showed no improvement in over a year, it showed no notability in over a year, and notability requirements, to me, had seemed to become stronger, there by making it worth a new discussion. Consensus can and does change, hence a new discussion. It has nothing to do with a grudge (grudge against who, I might ask? Half the editors from the first don't even seem to be around anymore). Also, it really isn't just me I think Dekkappai is being uncivil towards. I'm the first to admit I can lose my temper sometimes, but really whether you agree the article should be deleted or not, there is no valid reason to attack me for wanting to revisit the issue well beyond the allowed time to renominate the article for deletion, and after giving ample time for the issues to be fixed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Careful ... don't go biting the folks who generally support you. I said that "I recommend..." a course of action.  In the absence of a guideline one uses common sense.  In other words, if you can ever be accused of "having a grudge" then it's possibly not a good course of action.  Don't accuse me of attacking, I'm the one trying to resolve a civility issue here. ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean you attacking, I meant Dekkappai and the others. I certainly didn't intend to "bite" you (I no cannibal) :) Sorry I wasn't clearer there. And I still don't see how it can be seen as a grudge? Its not like I sat around for over a year going "oh man, I really want this crap deleted...how long before I AfD it again." I just came across it again and noticed it had the same issues, checked the talk page, was reminded of the AfD, and felt like a new discussion should be started to see if it was still considered notable under the current guidelines. I just don't get all of the hostile responses in the AfD from one or two editors, though seeing the start of this, I wonder if others in the AfD mistakenly believe its only been 2 months instead of over a year? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (late response) If you read my reply when it was pointed out that I made an error over the date of the prior AfD, you will note that it was very late at night, and that I was tired. That coupled with the early time in the year contributed to the error I made. I think I am not typical in that regard, and so one cannot expect to make an informed guess about other editors likely similar errors based solely on me making that mistake (I'm probably out of the typical age-range of people who may take a special interest in the topic, and so my increasing age may well add to the chance of me making errors.)  DDStretch    (talk)  19:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may butt in, Bwilkins. I am confused... You say that you find my statement about this action being a waste of editing time to be be highly incivil, and then you encourage us to get back to work editing articles... You have just restated my position in different words. I would like to point out that I was in the midst of doing just that-- adding sources to these articles in preparation for their expansion-- at the exact time that the nominator brought this action against me. Again, it is apparently "incivil" to state the obvious, but the nominator shows every indication of intending to re-nominate these articles if they are not improved... Driving well-intentioned contributors away from these articles is hardly a way to improve them. I'll think about adding to the articles later, but I am finished with this (as you and I both seem to characterize it) edit-time-wasting drama. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the fact that Collectonian's actions driving away new editors. The history of Lake Placid 2 shows she kept reverting what the creator of the article did, and then posting threats to have him banned on his talk page, instead of actually explaining to the first time editor what he was doing wrong.  She then blanked his User Page, which he had used as a sandbox for working on his article.  I undid this, saying she had no right to do such a thing to someone's user page.  Her attitude is always to delete things without discussion, and threatening to have people banned, instead of actual speaking to them and explaining what is wrong.  And if anyone disagrees with her, she accuses them of attacking her, and complains to someone to have them banned, distorting the issue so it sounds like the conflict was about something totally unrelated. Dream Focus (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for a historical perspective, Dream Focus has a history of personal attacks against Collectonian. Dayewalker (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually, I do not. That message was out of context.  The first part of it was something else, then I answered the question someone asked about why the article was nominated.  When you look at the edit history, then you get the wrong impression.  Please look at the whole thing, and pretend I had sense to put a space between my answers, so people didn't get confused. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asklepios_(manga)&oldid=266960589 Dream Focus (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He also apparently has issues with factuality. The first time editor did NOT create that article at all, its been around since January. He was adding his personal review to the article, given ample warnings, and a personal note, all of which were ignored. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Well, whatever.  I see you reverted 6 of his edits in a row.  And your personal note is more like a threat.  I still think you could've communicated a lot better. Dream Focus (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Butting in again. While working on one of the articles in this AfD nomination bundle, I came across This edit. So, if it matters, it's actually this nominator's third attempt to delete this. Dekkappai (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

user:aaronjhill
user:aaronjhill needs someone to help him understand wp:etiquette, especially wp:npa. He has been around since August 2008, and contributed valueable content. Yet he has trouble understanding how wikipedia works, eg how one talks to other editors, how one signs his posts, how to upload a new version of or move images, how to source etc. On his talkpage, there is a record of other editors trying to help him, yet I am convinced that much more help is needed.

He however refused to take criticism and advise from me, and instead attacked me personally multiple times in one thread. I decided not to bite him, have the issue I had with him resolved (an unsourced map, for which he provided sources in the meantime), and now I am backing out. However his rants I do not take that easy, and his behaviour will certainly bring him in trouble when he encounters someone not as patient as me. I therefore think he needs someone not yet involved to explain to him where he can get technical help, what the important guidelines are and what behaviour is not tolerated.

I notified aaronjhill of this thread here. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left a note about signing posts. I agree that the user needs to read the Welcome Message that was left on his Talkpage a long time ago. Reliable sources, assume good faith.  I note he has completely misread your attempts to help, and believed them to be attacks.  This is not community-based thinking.  I am going to wait and see how he reads this WQA entry, and his response here before further comment.  ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 11:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Skäpperöd decided to remove a map without giving the courtesy of contacting me first with his issues. He then made several unverifiable claims on Poles and DNA. I have asked for references for his "conclusions" but have not received any beyond general Wiki pages on the expulsion of Germans from Pomerania. 1. Not all Germans were expelled. There is a very small German minority in Poland to this day. 2. Some Polish men are I1. What is his deal with Poles who happen to be I1? --AJH (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I happen to think that user:Skäpperöd is quite rude and arrogant. He seems to think I know nothing of German history, especially Pomerania. He has preconceived notions on where people with certain genetics should be living. I am merely basing my map and edits on papers I read. --AJH (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Aaron, but nobody has to contact you directly to discuss the issues. You may want to check the WP:BRD cycle.  You were bold, it was reverted, and then discussion ensued.  This does not give you the right to then be rude, or accuse others of wrongdoing when other editors follow the main rules of Wikipedia.  You have a whole range of these policies and procedures listed in a big, colourful welcome message on your Talkpage.  I suggest you read them, and if you continue to feel slighted then let me know.  Otherwise, rather than provide additional warnings, I will be satisfied that a little bit of friendly recommendation will suffice in this matter.  (You will note that I am ignoring your attempt to raise content issues here, as this is not the correct forum for that)  ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 11:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It should just be common courtesy in my opinion, which is apparently part of Wiki's standards at the moment. This, however, is a secondary issue. The manner in which he went about it wasn't very diplomatic. I seriously think he may have an anti-Polish bias, whether he is aware of it or not. Any cursory knowledge of I1 and its history knows that several studies have shown the gradient in northern Poland, then tailing off. --AJH (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think my comments there were bad, you should see what I really wanted to write. Perhaps you should take a look at what he wrote again. --AJH (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am curious why this suddenly became an issue as the image had been on that page for nearly a year since March 2008. --AJH (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All of this "chastisement" seems to be going one way. Perhaps those on patrol should reconsider how they are doing things. --AJH (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete one's account? How does someone leave? --AJH (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the entire interaction quite closely. Have a look at my userpage as to how I investigate WQA issues.  You then might to rethink, then strike some of your comments above.  Attacking neutral parties such as myself is not what one would call "community-based thinking".  I specifically did not chastise, I gave you a chance to read policy, show me that you have.   Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth now, and get used to constructive criticism.   Threatening to leave because you won't take the time to read those policies is a little ... well, you can fill in the blanks.  ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 12:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am serious. I want to know how to delete my account. I have better things to do. The application of the Wiki standards is so haphazard that this place is a joke. Here are two images that have no sources, but remain on the site. I am sure there thousands of examples.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:I_Distribution_Europe.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_Haplogroup_I_Y-DNA.svg

--AJH (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Per the | right to vanish I would like my subpages deleted, account deleted and username changed to something generic. I don't want anything to do with Wiki. --AJH (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Aaron, you feel hurt because I did not notify you when I removed your map, and you really don't need to be. The image description of the map was already tagged as unsourced by someone else. It is not regarded a personal offense here if unsourced material is pointed out and subsequently removed, in contrast WP:V and WP:RS rather require one to do so. Also, I did not delete the map, but only removed it from a prominent position in an article. I gave you the reason why the map seemed odd to me. That I contested the strong inner-Polish gradient in the map and pointed to articles that let one conclude it should be rather homogeneous is no "anti-Polish bias" and no "rudeness" nor "arrogancy". It is just someone challenging an unsourced information with a reason to do so and in accordance with standard wikipedia policies, and no personal attack against you whatsoever. I am sorry you took it the wrong way, and I am also sorry that you want to leave the project just because someone once contested one unsourced information you added. Skäpperöd (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Aaron: try WP:VANISH. Read.  Follow.  If you have issues, let me know on my talkpage.  This is no longer a civility issue, and this WQA is closed. ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 15:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)