Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive65

Concern about Chuck Hamilton (User:Natty4bumpo)
I became acquainted with this user, who goes by Chuck Hamilton, in a dispute on James Vann, though my concerns are primarily in connection to his comments at Talk:Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory and related discussion at User talk:Natty4bumpo. Diffs and links to conversations follow this summary. I'm concerned because Chuck is exhibiting some very strong viewpoints on this subject area, and that his commentary has proceeded to become somewhat incivil towards outside editors and BITEy towards an inexperienced (yet apparently quite knowledgeable) editor. Chuck is of course well-meaning, but has repeatedly brought in unrelated or personal opinions to a discussion about article content or subject notability, and has begun to argue quite a bit with the anonymous editor to that article. Various other problematic statements can be found at Talk:Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory, and I can provide more specific diffs upon request. However for brevity's sake I'll cut this report off here. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Diffs and conversations evidentiary of this behavior
 * Virtually every comment Chuck made to Articles for deletion/Northern Cherokee Nation of the Old Louisiana Territory is either incivil, disregards guidelines/policies or disparages the subject with unverified claims (I'd further suggest this AfD be WP:CBLANKed considering Chuck's commentary).
 * Chuck has continued to dispute the AfD results at the article talk page and has refused to "get the point" with regards to using unpublished information as a source for the article.
 * Chuck responded to a 3RR warning on his user talk page by arguing that editors who are unfamiliar with a subject should not be editing it, and further disputed the validity of the earlier AfD.
 * When correcting a particularly bad typo on his part, Chuck responded to an accusation that his typo was deliberate with an extremely incivil remark about the other editor's lack of good faith.


 * Ouch. I think Chuck should consider a wikibreak.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

User:LAz17
Use of profanity ("Fucken bullshit sources"), judgmental tone ("Does anyone bother checking what arbitrary gooks put up?! What kind of scum would lie like that?! Misusing sources is such a low down bastardly thing to do."), personal attacks ("It's not the first nor last time that croats try to be sneaky. Ceha's fraud maps are a great example.") and feigned incomprehension. PRODUCER (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously, that is a totally unacceptable way to behave. Say that a source is no good, call it bullshit even, but keep the nationalism, racism, and personal attacks out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am confused by one thing though. The user reporting here is "PRODUCER" and yet I see no editing on that talk page from that name, but a lot of edits, some including other unacceptable content, from "DIREKTOR." Could you clarify what brought this to your attention and what, if any, your relationship is to "DIREKTOR?" Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Passed by the article (added a few refs) and took a look at talk. No relation to DIREKTOR although I have debated him in Bosnian language. PRODUCER (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. You have to admit it looks a bit odd... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In any event, it is painfully obvious from the talk page in question that the current participants are not going to agree. When this occurs, more input from previously uninvolved editors is what should be sought, as opposed to going around and around again and again, getting a little more hostile with each other each time. I strongly suggest that a request for comment be initiated in order to solve the content dispute, and then all of the currently involved editors should take a break and do something else, either here on Wikipedia or (gasp) out in the real world, in order to let tempers calm down. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to agree about. User:LAz has no real case in the discussion, he's just repeating the same refuted argument over and over again. The man is simply not taking other people's sources and arguments into account in his posts :P. Its very annoying. (Not going into details, but he's trying to prove that people who fought Allied forces in collaboration with the Axis were in fact Allies, based only on the fact that they rescued some Allied pilots.) PRODUCER and I have no "common ancestry". If I was to make myself a sock, it certainly wouldn't be that obvious. I've been here for a while. :) I also don't report people for being blunt, though objectively LAz may have taken it overboard with the "gooks"... Feel free to get a checkuser... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked for clarification, and I got it, that's good enough for me, I have no intention of filing a sockpuppet report. As I've said, if you are in disagreement, there is nothing to be gained by endless circular debate, seeking outside opinion is the right move. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please file a sockpuppet report. Please. That would bring great joy to me. A previous deleted/banned croat user did this. Boy did he insist that I was a sockpuppet with someone else. Made such a fool out of himself. This is a good opportunity for more waste of time for these accusations that are really low. I have identified a bullshit source. I got the book, got the page scanned, and voila, the numerous sources that source1 says are totally false. That page in the book says NOTHING about the source1 says on wikipedia. Are we going to accept Green Eggs and Ham as a source too, for ww2 things? I think not! As for the relationship between direktor and producer - they are both very proud croats. Especially producer... the guy outright states in his profile that he supports the destruction of republika srpska, an entity that is legal and thereby he is inciting war and instability, and even hatred - against the serbs. (LAz17 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).
 * As I clearly stated above, I don't think these two are socks, I just wanted to "clear the air." You are the problem here. You need to stop using racist and nationalist language in your remarks. Where people are from is not relevant. Calling other users "gooks" is so far over the line, you are lucky you just got reported here, and not to WP:ANI. Do not engage in such attacks ever again on Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind a sockpuppet report at all, if that will stop the xenophobia presented by laz. As for the RS bit, a "independent RS" userbox exists yet I fail to see opposition from you against that one. I'm fully entitled to a "abolish RS" userbox. Only a hardline nationalist would go so far as to describe a little box as "inciting war" and "hatred against serbs". PRODUCER (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to chime in here: I'm not too happy with the attitude of the user is question. Thus, what's the proposed solution/outcome so an admin could consider taking action. Cheers, Nja 247 22:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note: This diff. Nja 247 22:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In theory, the goal of any alert here is that the users concerned understand and abide by Wikipedia policy on civility and personal attacks. This is a non-binding form of dispute resolution, if it doesn't work, next step is to report to WP:ANI. Please leave a note here if you do so, so that this thread can be closed and participants referred to ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left a only warning here on the user's talk page. I will monitor their edits and anything remotely similar to what I've seen will result in a compulsory extended break from Wikipedia. And if I miss it, I believe a report to any admin (or to WP:ANI) with a link to that warning and this WQA report would result in the same action. Nja 247 07:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * About your second link there, why do you not look at what triggered my anger there? The guy clearly said very provocative lies. He called me a nazi or something, he literally called me a criminal who supports the destruction of civilians. Why did he not get punished for his incivility, but I get warned? He should be warned, I would think. About the recent thing, calling people gooks - I did not call anyone specific a gook. I said, the one who put up the false source is a gook. The person who did that literally put up a lie, and that lie is used extensively throughout the article. Is this acceptable? It is totally unacceptable. Sources must be correct. We can not have a source about subject A be used to talk about subject B, when the source A says nothing at all about source B. What is wrong here? Whoever added that source for those false things should be banned from Wikipedia, as it is only reducing our articles to worthless propaganda. A note to producer - I am not aware of any independent RS info-box. If there is such a box I would not support it all. That is very destabilizing and I do not support it. On the other hand, I would support a third entity, and I would support the croats to break off, as that would reduce three-way tensions to two way tensions, yet most of bosnia would be intact. (LAz17 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)).
 * Refrain from posting personal attacks in discussions like this to purely provoke me. All editors have biases. PRODUCER (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY-violations of NPOV, COI, personal attacks, questionable language
ObserverNY has violated several wikipedia policies, such as COI, NPOV, engaging in editing wars and using personal attacks and questionable language. She posts on the discussion page for IB Diploma Program and has edited on the IB Diploma Program page and other pages dealing with IB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IB_Diploma_Programme

COI violation: By her own admission, she is one of the administrators of the “Truth about IB” http://truthaboutib.com/ yet she continues to try to link it as an external source for pages about IB.

User:ObserverNY I am Lisa McLoughlin and I am one of the administrators and author of several of the articles within the Truth About IB site. …—Preceding unsigned comment added by ObserverNY (talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Other wikipedians have called her on the COI, yet she continues to post on the discussion board and more importantly, edit the IB Diploma Program page. I'm concerned about two things with the TAIB link. •	Firstly, the site is very US-centric (nothing wrong with that, any more than there is the site exercising its 1st amendment rights, but it's of limited relevance to a global worldview. My background is with the UK system; I sat A-levels, and although I'll concede that TAIB does discuss A-levels to a limited degree it is extermely limited (and, frankly, tabloid-level sensationalism - see here). •	Secondly, there's the conflict of interest. Lisa, you acknowledge that you're an administrator on the site. I'm not convinced that someone so intimately involved with TAIB should be editing the article (post here on the talk page by all means, but let non-involved editors edit the article. The same applies to IBO employees and supporters, e.g. editors who maintain or administer pro-IB web sites). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

….And moving back to more serious matters, the next page of your brochure has this: "If interested, please e-mail... for information on fee and availability." Fee? Remember how indignant you were when you found out I taught on the IBDP? Now I find that you make money from promoting the ideas on TAIB. Ewen (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV violation (s): To Lisa/ObserverNY: Please read the Wikipedia policies on Neutral Point of View (NPOV) WP:NPOV and neutrality WP:NEU. Establishing whether TAIB adheres to these policies is the only point to this discussion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Student Suicides - these examples are misleading May I express my concern about the way "IB" student suicide references are being used as "data" to "prove" that the program(me) is harmful or in someway "bad" for students. If you wish to know how reliable this "data" given is then the whole perspective needs to be shown. "Among 15- to 24-year olds, suicide accounts for 12.9% of all deaths annually (CDC 2005)" (which is quite a number), "In 2005, 16.9% of U.S. high school students reported that they had seriously considered attempting suicideduring the 12 months preceding the survey. More than 8% of students reported that they had actuallyattempted suicide one or more times during the same period" : Source www.cdc.gov/injury. It strikes me that compared to the number of IB students supposed to be committing suicide then for each one there are hundreds of other students not in IB programmes committing suicide. Ergo, if you want to include information about IB student suicide rates then surely you must have some data to show it is anomalous with the general student suicide rate of students in equivalent program(mes) throughout the US? If you don't you are pushing POV. --Candy (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case I don't feel that a link to TAIB is an appropriate link to add here, as it appears to be too tabloid, and of limited relevance to most readers. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi ObserverNY, See this statement from WP:V -- "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You changed "some" to "two" but it seems that "two" isn't accurate. I favor using the word "some" which lies between none and many. I'm really more concerned about the statements in the IB DP article that don't show NPOV or that require verification, rather than bulking up the article more at this point. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

'''ObserverNY is not operating on good faith, nor does she assume good faith on the part of other posters/editors. ObserverNY resorts to personal attacks and name-calling:''' How dare you wipe my entire response to red flag. I spent a lot of time going through the Wikipedia policy to politely respond point by point as to why TAIB should be included on Wikipedia. Your arrogant bias and disingenuous attacks calling me an idiot are beyond the pale. You serve as a fine representative for IB, Ewen. What goes around, comes around. I'm done. Peace out. ObserverNY (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the recent (extensive) posts above break the talk page guidelines. Wikipedia states, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." I believe that these guidelines are being broken. In addition, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.". I believe this is also being broken along with an attempt to create original research. I request that all parties abide by the guidelines as from now please. If you wish to continue in this fashion please take the discussion to another forum. Thank you --Candy (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ewen, Where's the explanation for removing the info about the IBO Inspiration Award? Hmmm? I've asked 3 times now. What, ONLY I am subject to these rules and all of the collectivist socialists in the room are allowed to do as they please? ObserverNY (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY Inflammatory allegations and name-calling won't help either side. It would help if Tvor65 explained why the info about the IBO Inspiration Award was removed. You say it's important to include this link as it is about the history of lawsuits and the intentions of the IBO to usurp local control. The Award is only tangentially related to the history of lawsuits, and as I said before it would be better if the details of each case were on the article about the school in question (e.g. UCS). This IBDP article might have a brief summary of the cases and links to each school's article for more details. That way the point is made about the number of disputes without getting bogged down in the details of each one. The allegation that the IBO plans to usurp local control in US schools is one I hope you will drop. If I was forced to labour the point I would concede that the IBO wants to promote its courses in the US (Well, duh! What else would you expect of an international educational organisation? They are active in 134 other countries you know, and we have already established that the only reason the USA has more IBDP schools than any other country is because the USA is a big country) You seem to go from observing that choosing the IBO's courses means choosing a curriculum which is set beyond the USA's borders, and then equate this to alleging that a major aim of the IBO is to take control of US schools? This argument is simply not credible and I can't support its inclusion in wikipedia. Ewen (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) ObserverNY resorts to personal attacks and name-calling: Ok, listen up IB weenieheads. I see what's happening here. You feel I'm attacking your IB manhood because fully half of the IB exams offered are not recognized for college credit the way AP is. I never realized before that SL stood for IB SchLong. But be that as it may, you have a simple choice. You can amend the statement to: 1. Some universities offer college credit for some IB SL exams. (vague but accurate) OR 2. Less than 1% of American universities award credit from SL IB exams. OR 3. 99% of American universities do not recognize IB SL exams for credit. "As for only "some" courses being recognized, this is generally true of any college credit," - sorry, simply untrue. For universities that award credit for AP, you see no such differentiation in subject matter. The problems with IB SL exams are threefold: 1. Although IBO states SL courses are supposed to be 150 hours, particularly with foreign languages, IB SL courses can be 2 years. Such is the case in my district's HS. 2. IBO has never bothered to "vet" its courses with universities to affirm that the content is indeed university level therefore... 3. Universities hear "standard" level and they don't believe it is college level material. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Posted by User:La mome (talk | [[Special:Contributions/La mome|contribs) on 20:02, 7 June 2009


 * Point worth checking - I think ObserverNY/Lisa has stopped trying to link her 'Truth About IB' website and has been trying to establish facts on wikipedia by direct referencing to sources, not linking via 'Truth About IB'. This being the case, I don't see that she has a Conflict of Interests.


 * Ewen (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's safe to say that ObserverNY and myself have historically not got along, despite the best efforts of both parties. Despite that, ObserverNY has always been as polite as possible, and any breach of etiquette can, in my opinion, be put down to a relative newbie unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and procedures.
 * I don't consider this the best venue to deal with perceived COI breaches, however I would note that ObserverNY has always been completely open about her involvement with TAIB, and has sought consensus prior to adding links to TAIB (indeed, it my disagreement with adding the TAIB link that led to ObserverNY and myself disagreeing). I do not feel that ObserverNY has breached COI policies.
 * I remain convinced that any problems on the IB/IBO/IBDP articles can be dealt with through continuing discussion.
 * Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the points in this complaint relate to a prior disagreement between ObserverNY and myself and Ewen; I can't speak for Ewen (though I suspect his position is not too far removed from mine) but I certainly regard the matter as "water under the bridge" - I consider myself "big enough and ugly enough" to look after myself, and had I felt it necessary to raise a Wikiquette alert regarding ObserverNY's conduct I would have done so at the time. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the original post included issues that the instructions of this board state are not covered in this forum, it suffered fromWP:TLDNR-itis. Perhaps the Original Poster can provide diffs to the violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (note: use of curse words is not necessarily uncivil) and we will be able to proceed. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This Flag Once Was Red is correct: I chose not to complain on this forum about what Lisa/ObserverNY has said about me, (and she hasn't taken action over my comments to her). I'm happy for the robust discussions we had to be ignored in this forum. Ewen (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon my cross eyes (really need to get to the optician, srsly) but who posted the complaint? I can't see anything signed here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It was User:La mome (talk | contribs) on 20:02, 7 June 2009. I've added a note above to that effect. [[User:Ewen|Ewen (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ewen and TFWOR. I have enjoyed my Wikipedia interaction with you as well, and yes, I was completely unaware of Wikipedia's detailed posting procedures. I still consider myself a newbie. As I expressed on the discussion page, I suspect that LaMome is one of my stalkers from the Washington Post forums and merely trying to cause trouble here. As I also stated, once I became aware of her intent, I stopped responding to her postings on the discussion page. This is not to be rude, rather to avoid a deliberate trap. ObserverNY (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
 * One of the core etiquette policies on wikipedia is assume good faith. It's important not to make accusations of other editors without strong evidence. Regardless of whether you believe you may know an editor outside of wikipedia, they have as much right to edit as anyone else and you need to assume they are here to improve the project and resist from bringing along prejudices that may well be proven misplaced. --neon white talk 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise for forgetting to sign the the complaint above. I have no idea who ObserverNY is, other than what she divulged on the IBDP discussion page, which is obviously a very strong negative POV regarding the IB.  I find her posting style to be abrasive and not conducive to an open discussion. La mome (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (No worries about the signature - Ewen caught it, and my philosophy is based around cutting newbies slack!)
 * Well, to be fair, a lot of ObserverNY's abrasiveness can be put down to her receiving a less than warm welcome, not least from myself. I believe ObserverNY probably regards herself as being something of a lone-voice on the articles' talk pages, which is - to a certain extent - true. However, there are a wide-range of views there; Ewen, for example, is probably not as opposed to some of ObserveNY's proposals as ObserveNY may at first have thought.
 * This isn't really the place to address COI issues (WP:COIN is), but my understanding of COI is that if only affects editing articles, and even then only when the edit is related to your interests. In this case ObserverNY hasn't (at least since since being made aware of policy and engaging in discussion with other editors) made any edits directly related to TAIB. She has discussed TAIB on various talk pages, which is fair enough.
 * One useful thing that could come out of this Wikiquette alert is if uninvolved editors were to watchlist the various IB articles' talk pages, and comment if any of the regulars step out of line. For example, I noticed an editor sail very close to WP:3RR recently, and did note the fact (it wasn't ObserverNY, by the way!); however, it would be better if any "policing" was done by uninvolved editors in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Several editors could easily edit-war with ObserverNY, for example, and then template her with a WP:3RR warning while avoiding 3RR themselves. This hasn't happened, but could in theory, and would not - I believe - be helpful or within the spirit of the rules.
 * Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:JoeLoeb
Twice in the past two weeks, this user has created talk pages consisting of one or two words for articles that did not exist at the time the talk pages were created. I happened to come across them both while patrolling recent changes. After leaving a notice regarding the second one I realized I'd seen this before and left a more personalized notice and the user's response was "Bitch, bitch, bitch. WAH, WAH, WAH. ". Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Said, I'm sorry. God, stop being a puppet for one, "Beetlebrox! or whatever your real name is! (JoeLoeb (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC))
 * You're not exactly the shining example of civility with that remark either. I don't know what you mean by "puppet" either, I've been editing a long time under this name. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've left a comment on the editor's page regarding the project and his involvement. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 08:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just the way I am, sorry I'm not a butler. (JoeLoeb (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Sounds like you have bigger problems then me to worry about, you seem to piss of alot of people, man. (JoeLoeb (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Puppet, did'nt mean aything, man. I just don't want any trouble from you or anyone. People do stupid things when they're upset. (JoeLoeb (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC))


 * If you're upset, then walk away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself. Wikipedia is not real life. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 17:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to off myself, but thanks for your consent. (JoeLoeb (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

Attacks on User:Kansas Bear
- On User talk:Kansas Bear (diff); Not adhering to civility, NPOV and NPA, making aggrevated personal attacks calling this editor a terrorist. Gsmgm (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an IP editor: they were warned, and it has been blocked from making additional anonymous edits ... what more can you ask for? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 17:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

re-wording
There was a dispute between myself and another editor about an image. I requested for validation on the image and for admins to comment on it. Then this editor goes and change my words in the request I submitted, I reverted it back but I am appauld that this editor Catiline63 can just go on the noticeboard and switch up my words. Something needs to be done about this sort of behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography&diff=295442005&oldid=295388639 TruHeir (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also reported at WP:ANI. TruHeir, you blanked that section on ANI (although unfortunately someone reverted your blanking, it's been tagged resolved because you blanked it).  Does that mean you want to address it here instead of ANI, or that you want to drop it altogether? If you want to address it here, you really need to notify Catiline63 that he's being discussed here. If not, just delete this whole section (including my comment). --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing left to discuss, I suggest we all let it drop. I'm sure Catiline63 got the message and feels duly warned. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed it from there because I want to discuss it here, I am not taking what the editor did lightly because it is wrong to do that. You do not get up on your own authority and re-word what someone has written and signed. I left the warning on the editors page, but I think something should be done by Administrators, behavior like that should not be tolerated TruHeir (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is taking it lightly; the editor was warned and it won't happen again. There's no need to block someone for altering a comment once; blocks are only used to prevent damage, and if the editor isn't going to alter your comments anymore there's nothing to prevent. Since the editor has been warned, nothing needs to be done unless s/he continues altering your comments in the future. r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 02:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, I understand what you are saying, but you seen pretty sure of yourself. As if you were vouching on the editors behalf and is absolutely certain that he will not do it again, however you don’t know that for sure… ..Anyway I am not going to pursue this any further because after all I have warned to editor about the edit. I will let this go and if it persists seek action against it.TruHeir (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, just like I said: if he does it again, then we can deal with that when it happens. Until then, however, there is nothing more to do. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 04:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Copying barnstars
has copied several other users' barnstars to his userpage (User:MetroStar). This has to be a breach of something; if anything it's misrepresenting the comments of others (since the barnstars have other peoples' signatures on them). KuyaBriBri Talk 13:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Although not a civility issue, it's wrong. I have removed them from his userpage, and advised him on his talkpage.  Please note: you are supposed to advise the other user of this WQA entry. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 17:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He gave himself a couple of unearned editing achievement awards as well and I removed them too. JohnInDC (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just sad... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That he did it, or that anyone really cares? It seems like a waste of time (if anything they should be left, good indicator of the kind of editor you're dealing with). Soxwon (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ebay.Noway
This started when I left a uw-username, because I was afraid his username might be misleading. He then replied with personal attacks. I then replied explaining why I left it and how to resolve the issue. He then left another PA and uncivil response. Now I'm here trying to get help. The discussion can be found on his talk page (he also left duplicate responses on my talk page). Wizard191 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That immature, demeaning manner will only get the user blocked if he persists. I left a message telling him that on his talk page. If he refuses to modify his behavior I suggest bringing this to ANI as it would show he is not here to contribute in a civil manner. The   Seeker 4   Talk  17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Seeker...I was about to say that you had already left a warning! ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, I appreciate it. Wizard191 (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Ebay.Noway can't take a clue. While his current response is quite compelling, this previous version is even better: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ebay.Noway&diff=next&oldid=295494882. Wizard191 (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have UAA's the username - it's either confusable with being related to eBay, or is an attack on eBay. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indefblocked by me. He's obviously not here to help, and doesn't have the maturity to involve himself in the project. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys...funny thing is before I left uw-username, I reported him to UAA, but was told it wasn't blatant advertising. Wizard191 (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cryptonio
allows himself inappropriate kind of remarks: here is the example of our latest clash.

He was recently filed on an incidents board here but to my best knowledge it went unresolved.

It should be noted that just a week ago he was engaged in edit warring against me and other editors that ended in a 72 h block for him. It was the last but not the only time, we had similar fightings before.

It has nothing to do with me but with the tolerating of such behavior, that I think is wrong - as long as it goes unaddressed, a legitimacy (to him or to other users) is given to act in a similar way.

--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The user was warned here; as far as I am concerned, the issue is resolved. --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

CFS article issues
We currently (since the beginning of June, give or take) seem to be having a number of difficulties on several CFS-related articles. The worst of the issues are occurring on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome, which are both protected at the moment due to the problems. Other related articles, such as Malcolm Hooper, Simon Wessely, and Pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome, amongst others, are being impacted to a lesser extent.

There are two sides to every story, of course:

RetroS1mone feels that there is a tag team of editors working in co-ordinate to block her editing efforts, a team who is threatening her, disparaging her, and generally make her CFS-editing life difficult.

The supposed tag-team, which includes myself and several other editors (a quick glance at the Talk pages of the affected articles will make it fairly clear) have issues with RetroS1mone not respecting ongoing consensus discussions, making personal attacks and unfounded accusations of POV editing, COI, and SPA editing, amongst other issues.

You can see the relevant talk pages, as well as all of our user talk pages, for specifics. I would appreciate any commentary on the ongoing disputes and how we might better be able to work together to resolve them. --Rob (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand Rob's concerns, i believe we can learn all more aobut Wikipedia policies.
 * Rob has a POV. He says he is a CFS patient, and his POV on the issue is obvious at comments like where he accuses medical doctors that they blame CFS patients, he thinks doctors say, "we don't understand what's going on, therefore it's all in your head." This is not the view from Reliable Soruces for medical articles, [WP:MEDRS]. It is Rob's personal point of view. I do not say Rob and the other editors that have a problem with me has POV bc I am mean, I say it bc of statements like that.
 * I admit to every body, i have POV and COI on these articles, it is the POV and COI of Wiki, says, Wikipedia medical articles should get stuff from MEDRS. The POV and COI of some people is, they want to censor the information from reliable sources like Lancet reviews bc they do not like what they say. They want to put in stuff that is from low quality and primary sources and activist websites and personal web sites. These people attack any body that tries to stop them. Now I am usually the only person to stop them, so it is easy, they make "digs" at me and provoke me. I am not angel, I respond, i am weak some times and i get angry like other people, when you have five people beating up on you it is difficult, i am sorry for any mean things I say, i think some things I say are just trying to help.
 * The biggest problem editor was User:Guido den Broeder, he is banned by Arbcom now bc he did so many many things, after so many many warnings from editors and administrators, legal threats, he admitted he disrupted Wikipedia for a private experiment also! I never was banned and i do not have one template message on my talk from anybody, i do not have warnings from any uninvolved editors. The editors that oppose me, they worked with Guido and i think were friendly some times bc they agreed w/ each others POV. They say now, I am worse then Guido, worse then any person on Wikipedia ever, the involved editor User:Ward20 says "I've never seen anything like it. The amount of extreme POV, evasion on talk page discussions, and OR is frustrating
 * The editors are saying many things they know will upset me, i complained before, editors make fun of me and my writing. So then User:RobinHood70 digs, "obviously, her English is not very good." They accuse me i do not understand evidence base-medicine or what a medical review is, Ward20 also calls me by the nouns, "it" and "this" "I first encountered this on the Morgellons article and was so disgusted I left the article. This went to the Lyme article and changed the POV there." He says, he is talking about "current problem" every person knows, a current problem does not "go" anywhere actively and does not "change" a thing actively.
 * I edit these articles alot bc they were very bad shape last year, i edit many other articles. I made many good improvements, praise from many editors and administrators, on Morgellons and Lyme disease. I also edit articles about Eastern Europe and some animals and HIV and some people. The articles where I have conflict w/ other editors, is articles about medical conditions w/ unexplained symptoms, MUS, where patients and other people with, my opinion, conflicts, want to censor the medical opinion, psych factors can have a role, at least a role!! in some cases.
 * This group of editors controlled Chronic fatigue syndrome for a very very long time. I explain this at a talk page today about the improvements i made w/ editors that helped. On July 2008, the article had one sentence about psych factors, it said they can make the CFS worse, it did not say even, many MEDRS says it can cause some CFS. There is only two treatments that are accepted in MEDRS, having an effect on some CFS, they are cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise treatment, the article on July 2008 had a sentence where it said just "small" studies claimed it and then they have a totally non-MEDRS, a patient activist group, who says it is harmful.
 * People that believe in a thing and have passion, they can not admit some people, may be not even them, can have a psych problem? That is not a good POV to have when you are editing the MEDRS articles on Wikipedia. I do not convince any body, and they attack me. i am not martyr or masochist, but i am some times only person to go in this cross fire hell where people try to say, consensus vote of POV editors is more important then Wiki policy. RetroS1mone   talk  23:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to carry on this discussion at length, so I will quickly address some of her key points and then leave the rest for other editors to decide for themselves:
 * She has accused people of wanting to put in information from non-RS sources. To my knowledge, nobody has ever knowingly done so.
 * She also adds that "they work with Guido". I don't know who "they" is, but I honestly didn't know Guido from a hole in the ground until yesterday when I finally looked up a little of the history of what all the fuss about his recent re-banning was about.  My edits to the CFS article almost all came some time after his first banning.
 * My actual quote about her English was "While her English obviously isn't great there" (emphasis added), and was specifically in response to one edit summary in which I had to interpret what she was saying and wasn't sure if my interpretation was correct. Her interpretation of that was that I was insulting her English at large and, according to her note to me about it on my talk page, calling her "stupid".  I explained my intent there (and misquoted myself), but she refuses to believe it.  My wording could certainly have been better, in retrospect, and I have apologized in the your threat and "digs" thread on my talk page.
 * (Following bullet edited by author due to unresearched info about a LP. Thank you to the person who pointed out this issue.)
 * I fully support the inclusion of a possible psychiatric basis to CFS, as I believe most or all of the other editors do. My impression is that historical edits by some editors may have left RetroS1mone with the impression that a great many other editors, those who were active either at the time or shortly thereafter, share similar points of view.  I see no evidence that that is the case, but am open to third-party opinions on that issue.
 * As to my bias, I have admitted one openly (though nothing quite like RetroS1mone makes it out to be) by virtue of the fact that I have CFS. For that reason, I have limited my edits to CFS-related articles to minor grammatical issues, reverts of information inserted while a consensus discussion was ongoing, and similar such edits.  Truthfully, this probably describes 99% of my edits even on non-CFS articles!
 * Finally, there are a great many accusations there for which she does not provide diffs. I would like to request that she do so, as I believe most, if not all of those accusations are unfounded or have already been refuted in the discussions where she first brought them up. --Rob (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems my user name has been discussed so I would like to express my view of the situation. The editing of RetroS1mone is often tendentious. The edits on talk pages and in edit summaries by this editor are often accusatory and talk about editors motives. The user frequently insists their POV is correct and there is a conspiracy against them.


 * I noticed a quote from one of my edits seems taken out of context to support RetroS1mone's statement, "They say now, I am worse then Guido, worse then any person on Wikipedia ever". I don't believe my edit supports that, but RetroS1mone's accusation does illustrate some of the typical issues.


 * I am sorry because this is asking a lot. Please read a number of talk page discussions and edits that have taken place recently leading up to this situation. The section titled A little help please will give an overview. My user page at User talk:Ward20 will show specifics from here down. There are also specifics on User talk:Sam Weller's page starting here, and starting here on User talk:RetroS1mone. Some examples of tendentious editing by RetroS1mone are here, here, here, and here. The talk pages of these articles show examples also. I could supply many more diffs if needed. Ward20 (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the labeling of editors by RetroS1mone's edits isn't a new or isolated issue. please see diff from 01/02/2009. Ward20 (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Daniel Case
I was recently blocked for making edits that were controversial. The information I added was true, and there are many sources to back it up, but I didn't include them. I realise this was a mistake. However, when I asked to be unblocked, I apologized, said I would follow all the policies and what not. On my second request I stated "Fine, I'll stop "vandalising" and get sources and do it the right way". This was denied with "Given the long history of abuse from this IP, coupled with your curt reply, I am unconvinced on your sincerity. Jayron32". I replied with "I told you I would stop vandalising and do things the right way. What more do you want from me?", to wich Daniel Case replied with "How about you stop wasting administrators' time and system resources with these puerile series of unblock requests? In fact, since this this is third one just on this block, I'm going to make you do that by semi-protecting the page for the duration of the block."

This is a gross violation of the rules admins are supposed to follow. For one, he was enforcing a punitive block, as I had already stated that I would not continue "vandalising". Second, you aren't supposed to protect the talk page unless there is an abuse of the unblock template. Every time I used the template, it was a sincere, and serious request to be unblocked, not abuse.

What can be done?75.93.119.255 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I suggested to you before, let this go and go back to the productive editing you have said you wanted to be allowed to do. My refusal to unblock you after you said "Fine, I'll stop" does not automatically make the block punitive, whatever you felt it to be. It is within administrative discretion to decide whether a user requesting unblock is truly interested in toeing the line, particularly when this is an anonymous IP that any Clearwire user could use. I felt that your combative attitude was not indicative of a sufficient level of maturity to edit productively and collaboratively with other users. I can see I was right; other than weirdly deciding to replace Nipple with a machine translation of the German version, then self-reverting, all your edits since being unblocked have been to pester me about this and complain. Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been a good block initially, and no problems with semi-protecting the page after the third unblock request in three hours. Dayewalker (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Puerile? That seems mean and uncalled for. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the term "puerile" was probably uncalled for, but I believe the block was good and I see no reason to suggest reverting either the block or the talk page protection at this time. I would also suggest that if the user is serious about stopping his vandalism, that he create a named account and use that to start contributing. --Rob (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The block and the protection have expired. I suggest you read the entire talk page before casting judgement. IMO, puerile is hardly the worst word I could have used. And it's accurate. You'll see that the user, during his first block, posts semi-serious unblock notices. I'm surprised the admins then didn't protect the page too. So he (or they) goes back to vandalism, gets blocked again, and then posts one argumentative unblock request, which gets denied with a note pointing to other vandalism since the last block. In his second, Jayron calls him on his tone. Finally, on his third, he basically repeats himself, which to those of us who routinely review unblock requests is more or less forum shopping, hoping a different admin will take pity on him. I didn't. He used up his third unblock request in an undignified whine and didn't do anything to persuade anybody that he was seriously interested in editing. I called him on his behavior and shut him down. Now, having felt worse for having gotten caught then the behavior that got him blocked, he's trying to game the system to get some measure of revenge against some authority figure who called him on this. I mean, look at how combative this user is: He hasn't done much real productive editing, especially since the block expired and he said he really wanted to contribute. Other than pestering me and starting this thread, his only edit is to argue with a bot on his talk page. I submit that this behavior is neither what is expected of a Wikipedia editor, nor behavior that indicates the possibility of future reflection and moderation of action to conform to that. Not anytime soon. To call it "puerile" is, perhaps, even gentler criticism than it deserves. This user is here to argue, and there are other places for that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was inaccurate...just that it was probably uncalled for. I'm a firm believer that any person in a position of authority on a Wiki should try to use very neutral language on that wiki...even in the face of puerile ...errr...that is to say...very difficult users. ;) --Rob (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hostility and assumptions of bad faith from admin Jerzy
Posting here as the first step in a good-faith dispute resolution attempt. I've been attempting to work with a fellow administrator,, and trying to understand his reasoning for actions he took with two other users. He's been pretty hostile toward me in return, to the point that I feel his behavior is indicative of a pattern of abuse. Since I'm so far the only one in apparent recent history to bring this up with him from a policy perspective, I figure we should give this a shot and see if we can resolve this issue civilly.

In WT:NOR, I noticed Jerzy had deleted a comment from the talk page saying it was a "forgery". (diff.) I didn't see how it qualified as a bad edit of any sort right at first, so I went to the talk page of the user whose comment he deleted and found that he'd indefinitely blocked the user as a vandalism-only account. (block log, block notice). I noticed that the user being blocked had only made one contribution at the time, the comment on the NOR talk page.

I went to Jerzy's talk page to ask him about this block (here's the conversation as of 04:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)), and he replied saying that the user's comment could only have been left in bad faith, it was "absurd", and that the forgery came from having copied and pasted a timestamp from one of Jerzy's own comments. I told him I disagreed that the comment was vandalism, that I didn't feel the block was reasonable (it certainly did not justify a vandal-only block), and that I would undo the block and keep an eye on the user. (I should also note that the user was blocked several days after he left the comment, and has not made any contributions to WP since.)

I unblocked Demcaps and left comments on his talk page explaining the reason for the unblock, invited him to start editing again, and replied to his post on WT:NOR (which I later reinstated and replied to as well).

In the process of all this, I noticed that Jerzy had also given a level-4 (final) warning for vandalism to another user (User:Esn) over what appeared to be a very minor content dispute. Near as I could tell, the final warning was the only warning he gave this user, and there were no previous attempts to talk out the issue. (See User talk:Esn.) I brought this up with Jerzy, and his response was basically, "I don't care to reacquaint myself with that issue, and it has nothing to do with the one from WT:NOR, so I don't have to talk to you about it." I disagree, of course, because I think both of these actions on Jerzy's part were gross violations of the applicable policies, and that he utterly failed to assume good faith on the parts of the affected users.

I know this is lengthy, but I wanted to get it all "on paper" so it'll be useful to anyone reviewing the issue. This is my side - I hope that it really is just me misunderstanding Jerzy and/or his reasoning. Thanks. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Has anyone had a chance to look at this one? Jerzy is still saying that I should not be one to participate in discussions with him, but he is at least welcoming others to comment on the situation with Demcaps specifically.  I did notify him that this WQA had been started. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is it exactly that you want us to do? Seems like you have acted to right whatever abuse you think you found. Good for you. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just as a point of reference, I'm "nobody" on Wikipedia, but I am a Patroller (not something Wikipedia uses...nothing close to an Admin, but definitely a position of responsibility) at another major wiki, as you can see on my user page. So it is from that perspective that I speak.  Also, while I see that the discussion has largely continued on Jerzy's talk page, I believe it's more appropriate to respond here, since multiple incidents are being cited.  If some policy I'm not aware of says it should be moved, by all means do so...just notify me so I can add it to my watchlist.  Thanks!


 * Anyway, I just had a look over the various points in this discussion, and I have to agree with KieferSkunk on this issue. The signature by Demcaps could have easily been a cut & paste simply because new users often don't know how to sign their work.  He may simply have C&P'd it and then forgot to change the details appropriately.  Certainly AGF says that we should assume so in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary (if, for example, he was an obvious sockpuppet).  By the same token, while I understand the concerns about the suggestion that was made, a simple explanation would have sufficed.


 * Looking at Esn's edits, I saw absolutely nothing that resembled bad faith or that deserved an edit warning of any kind. A discussion of the SYNTH issue on the article talk page or perhaps the user's talk page was about all that was warranted in my opinion. --Rob (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In reply to GeorgeLouis: I have to admit to not being sure what can be accomplished on WQA, but I'm as of now the only user actively confronting Jerzy on this issue, and I'm put off by the hostility he's shown me and his unwillingness to discuss the issue. I can't call for an RFC without having a second user to work with me on it, and as of yet I didn't see much value in taking it straight to ANI (though I might do so if I see the behavior continue).  I really would like to have Jerzy at least explain his reasoning in case there was something I missed, and/or acknowledge that he acted too hastily and come away from it reasonably certain that he'll be more cautious in the future.  Don't know if that'll be accomplished here, but this is the first step in WP:DR. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest ANI as a possibility, as one of its stated purposes is for abuse of admin tools. But like you, I would agree that two incidents out of I can only imagine how many a Wiki Admin must deal with might not present a strong enough case. --Rob (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "forgery" is certainly the wrong word, but what would be wrong with just backing off and forgetting about the issue, per WP:No angry mastodons? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I think indef-blocking a user on the basis of such a minor issue is a big problem. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think, after reading the relevant discussions on the talk page, that your (KieferSkunk's) point has been made. What I mean is that you questioned Jerzy's actions he undertook in response to another user's edits, he disagreed with your assessment but directly stated that you were welcome to revert his actions; you expressed why you thought his actions were unjustified and he explained why he did what he did. Because the two incidents you bring up seem isolated (if there are more you should certainly provide links here) I don't see any evidence of a pattern of abuse, so I don't see cause for a RFC or ANI thread. Unless there are other problematic actions taken by Jerzy I can't imagine anyone suggesting sanctions or any other actions against Jerzy. I would say he probably deserves a trout slapping for indeffing a new user for an edit that very well may be a mistake, and ignoring WP:AGF and WP:BITE in the process. Even if the edit was in fact in bad faith, I agree that the user deserved at the very least one warning before a block, and even then the block should not have been very long. The 4im warning was possibly relevant to the issue as a whole, as far as it may indicate a tendancy for Jerzy to be overly aggresive when frustrated (just a guess, I don't know his motivation) and he should not have responded as he did when you brought it up. On these points I agree with you KieferSkunk, but I really don't see a pattern of abuse (the 4im warning was not an admin action after all, so is not indicative of a pattern of abuse of admin tools) and since Jerzy is refusing to participate in this discussion, I don't see any point in dragging it out. The   Seeker 4   Talk  14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Point taken. I'll let it go.  Thanks for your input. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 15:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User: Arverniking
I have been engaged in ongoing discussion with this editor about changes at the New England School of Law page. He was extremely helpful at first, but all of a sudden he started resorting to petty personal attacks. His most recent attack [] against me involved an accusation that I may be suffering from a mental disorder. I know there is another user on the page that has been sparring with him, but I feel like he is unnecessarily directing his anger towards me. I am not looking for any formal sanctions against him. I would just appreciate it if a third editor could get involved here and perhaps gently remind him about the rules of civility. Neslgrad09 (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Well, I'd hope that anyone reading this can see that I said nothing about Neslgrad09, and that Talk:New_England_School_of_Law is far more complex than "helpful at first, but all of a sudden..." I'm more than happy to leave all this up to other editors' judgement so that I can take a break from it all. --King of the Arverni (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nelsgrad, could you please provide a specific diff demonstrating a personal attack? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've now read the entire thread that Neslgrad posted a link to (on Hiberniantears talk page). At the bottom of the thread, he accuses Arvenking of saying he has bipolar disorder.  The text in question (which I have confirmed has not changed) says

''As a heads-up, I wanted to let you know that there might be continuing drama over at New England School of Law. Looks like you might have some experience with both Latenightpizza and Neslgrad09. All their edits look NESL-related, but I think I've kept things fairly contained for now. It so far just seems to be a lot of Wikipedia-ignorance, and I tend to be very by-the-book anyway. There's another user started contributing, too. Anyhow, just wanted to keep you apprised. --King of the Arverni (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)''

If you can find a reference to a mental health disorder in there, you've got better eyes than I have.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads, I think Neslgrad09 was referring to this comment in which I said: "Hiberniantears, I'd love for you to follow up on this one, so that my brain can focus on real-world matters, and there's enough bipolar disorder and illogic here that I'm going to wait until the dust settles before I try once more to make sure the article meets WP:UNIGUIDE." It was certainly never my intent to imply that any editor had bipolar disorder; I was simply referring to the fact that everything going at New England School of Law was all over the place made no logical sense to me, and I think the rest of the comment (that is, the part I haven't quoted) puts that in-context. Perhaps I should've said "erratic" instead of "bipolar", but I'm not a psychologist and certainly didn't mean it in any personal or medical sense. I hope this helps. Since Nesgrad09 has been accusing me of personal attacks since June 8th, I can't say that I'm surprised, even if I can't quite comprehend. I still don't know what personal attack that comment refers to at all. You might even try seeing Talk:New England School of Law and letting me know what I did between Nelsgrad09's first comment and my last comment to Neslgrad09 in that thread to merit those accusations of a personal attack. If Hiberniantears' concerns about WP:SOCK are true, perhaps Neslgrad09 took offence at my comments to Latenightpizza, but I don't personally see a lot of evidence for that and am just really at a loss, which is why I sought the advice of an administrator and some input from WP:UNI in the first place. --King of the Arverni (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Only the worst assumption of bad faith would have you reading that section as Arverniking saying you specifically had a mental illness. I see no breach of civility guidelines here by Arverniking unless someone can point out a specific diff of something he has said that I missed. The   Seeker 4   Talk  19:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you for supplying that. I can't see that one can use the phrase 'bipolar disorder' in any sense except the medical one.  Had you said 'loony', 'nutty' or 'crazy' I would agree that it shouldn't be taken as a specific comment on mental health, but at the very least I think you were extremely unwise to use a medical phrase in this context.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally valid criticism. It was certainly unwise if someone was already gunning for me. Speaking of which, can anyone shed some like on earlier claims of a personal attack? My behaviour is obviously a concern for this editor, but I can't seem to understand precisely why. --King of the Arverni (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With all the respect in the world, Averni, it was not unwise because "someone was already gunning for [you]." It was unwise because you should not carelessly throw around language about serious mental conditions, especially when such language is directed at others. I may be in the minority here, but I find it completely ridiculous that we're now discussing whether the bipolar comment was directed at me, or perhaps the page itself. Things and objects do not have bipolar disorder. People do. In my opinion, you used the phrase as a derogatory term to refer to an editor on the NESL page. Whether you intended it as a slap at me me or Latenightpizza is beside the point. I took offense to it and I would appreciate an apology, or at the very least a recognition that the language you used was poorly chosen, and that you will be mindful of how your words may come across to others in the future. Neslgrad09 (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:DEADHORSE It is extremely common in a group situaton to use the term "bipolar" in regards to that group, as consensus often sways, and even doubles back on its own decisions. Talkpages, as written records of group discussions, can therefore be labelled as such.  The editor has ALREADY been slapped with a WP:TROUT for the potentially unwise use of the word, it is there horribly improper to insert this warning ABOVE everyone else's warnings.  Please drop the stick.  Apologies cannot be forced, and none are actually needed.  Move along please.  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any deliberate personal attacks here at all, perhaps a poor choice of words with the bipolar thing, but nothing actually intended to insult or disparage a specific editor. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I can't see anything in the last comms you had directly with Neslgrad09 before he requested the 3rd party. You said to Latenightpizza
 * 1) No one, to my knowledge, has professed a lack of knowledge re: LSAC. I certainly know what it is, so you can't be talking to me, Latenightpizza. Perhaps you've missed something
 * I cannot think why Neslgrad09 should take that as an insult, but ...... You utterly offended Latenightpizza by referring to graduate employment rates being a marketing ploy - perhaps he/she graduated from an institute of lower ranking but inflated employment figures, and cannot get a job in the present economic climate.  Otherwise, his attack really doesn't make any sense.
 * I would recommend that unless Neslgrad09 comes up with some diffs/quotes, we close this, and leave it to the talk page and a checkuser request as outlined there and on Hiberniantears talk page.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:S. Ugarte: noncompliance with Wiki-guidelines Talk Pages
User has used an article's discussion page in a manner which I believe violates Wikiguidlines for Talk pages (as a platform for their personal views) and I know violates Wiki BLP guidelines (calls Living subject of biography a "kook"). I have quoted the guidelines to user on user's Talk page and responce is that user thinks guideline applicability is a "stretch" and that I can delete whatever I find offensive. By Wiki BLP guidelines, I know I can delete the violations, but feel that user:S. Ugarte should have to clean up the violations and learn to be a good editor. Recommendations?Cronos1 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given what it says in BLP, and the fact that those comments could be construed as libelous, I think that would have been better left unsaid. I've gone ahead and removed the comments (since it does say to do so immediately if there's even a suspicion of that).  Honestly, though, I don't think that'd even come close to holding up in court, but "better safe than sorry".  As for the rest of his comments, I see commentary that was made in good faith, and is otherwise geared towards furthering the article. --Rob (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's better than a poke in the eye with a rusty nail, anyone else?Cronos1 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tiresome soapboxing!
Do we have to endure these unsolicited rants,, , and they are only some. I am not making any direct complaints about individual users, but are there any admins left at Wikipedia? It just gets exceedingly tiresome after a while. I think we need a Marshall on patrol for a while, at least. Tfz    12:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you are complaining about individual users who are disruptive or uncivil, I think it's called Freedom of speech. Yes, its probably borderline in breach of what an article talkpage is for, but I can't see any action that can be taken.  If a comment is deliberately offensive, you have the option to remove it and warn the author (provided you have an NPOV yourself) or report at ANI.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, er "the stupid, pin-headed, Republican-Irish wack-jobs that run the Republic of Ireland" might not quite be a-propos. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad for only reading the first one, which was just a rant. That second one definitely falls into the "comment deliberately offensive....category"--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that he's just come off a block, if it really is that disruptive then ANI would be the place to report it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:JdeJ
This started when I updated the map and left a comment on the article Algeria, showing the different professional styles of the Algeria maps and previously added on the article where's a administrator allowed it after my edit. But was reverting all my contributions....

Article Conflicts; saying "here have been long discussions on which maps to use" here, but I read all the historial before, and there's nothing about, but yes with some european articles maps, so I reverted it saying "In this country not, Africa has not European countries consensus" here, but again reverted me saying "Your edits start to look increasingly like vandalism" here. So I reverted saying "don't accuse me of vandalism, there's a consensus about the map" here, and finally an admin came there here, and the user didn't revert again.

Article's Talk Page Conflicts; As I said I wrote about the map here but insult my english and accused me to convince others about quality of my maps or dragging in other contributors' nationalities here, then I told him don't accuses me because can be reported here.

Warnings deleted; Now deleted my warnings that I wrote him when he's accusing me of vandalism and dragging in other contributors' nationalities or even of personal attacks as unfounded warnings here,  is of course well-meaning, but has repeatedly brought in unrelated or personal opinions to a discussion about article content or subject notability.--TownDown How's it going? 19:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kaldari
I was notified that an image (Image Place Holder.png) I created and began using was nominated for deletion at Files for deletion/2009 June 12 by User:Kaldari. While the message left on my talk page was civil and acceptable the comments made by User:Kaldari on the deletion nomination page I feel are out of line. Here is the posting with my response.


 * Horribly tacky image that violates WP:SELF. When will this madness cease? Kaldari (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it necessary violates WP:SELF, but we already have enough placeholder images in Commons:Category:Image placeholders that we need another.  howcheng  {chat} 17:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Horribly tacky image" & "madness" - Hmm, whatever happened to Civility and Attack? If the image isn't required, please delete. Shinerunner (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Upon further research I found that User:Kaldari had removed this image from use prior to nominating it for deletion with the comments listed below.


 * 16:33, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Dalcha ‎ (removing tacky image which violates WP:SELF) (top)
 * 16:33, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Max's Famous Hotdogs ‎ (removing tacky image which violates WP:SELF) (top)
 * 16:33, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Eggs Neptune ‎ (removing tacky image which violates WP:SELF) (top)
 * 16:32, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Serendipity 3 ‎ (removing tacky image which violates WP:SELF) (top)
 * 16:32, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Lumière (restaurant) ‎ (removing tacky image which violates WP:SELF)
 * 16:31, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Moosewood Restaurant ‎ (removing horribly tacky image) (top)
 * 16:30, 12 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Seven-layer salad ‎ (Good god, that this a tacky image) (top)

I would just like to have this looked over to make sure that I'm not overreacting. I understand that if the image was of inferior quality or not needed then it should be deleted. The additional comments are what I'm having a problem with. My only other contact was on User:Kaldari's talk page with no response there or on the deletion page. Thank you Shinerunner (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA says to comment on edits, and not editors. He is commenting on an EDIT (albeit, an image), and is not calling you tacky. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. However, one point listed in engaging in incivility is "Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")" at Civility. If I'm mistaken on this point then perhaps I can use similar summaries in my edits. Shinerunner (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is possible to say "that image is tacky" without implying that the user is tacky - it's a valid reason why you the viewer don't like it - unlike your other examples where "stupidest thing ever" may be thought to imply the author is stupid ...and I think Kaldari's reference to madness was to do with the number of images of perceived tackiness that he was coming across, and no reflection on yourself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been a better course to mark the image as redundant and left it at that? I'm sure that many items created/uploaded by editors could be called into question by another editors personal taste. It does come across as judgemental. Plus there was a mission to remove the image from all pages used as opposed to repeatedly stumbling upon it. Shinerunner (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, personally I will admit that having looked at the image, I thought that it looked tacky, and unprofessional-looking. Nothing against you, so it was both redundant and unprofessional-looking. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, since this is resolved please mark it as such and I'll go spent my time elsewhere in non-Wikipedia pursuits. I hope that you will have a site full of "Professionals" in the near future. Shinerunner (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to do a little better job at taking constructive criticism. Your attempts to improve Wikipedia are completely welcome - a previous user AfD'd your picture, others agreed on the reasoning, including myself.  You then move forward and keep at it, not go off in a huff.  An article I spent years on got AfD'd too...I didn't threaten to leave Wikipedia because of it. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 19:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I've had other items AFD'd in the past. The tone and manner used in this instance is what provoked me. I'm sure that you realize that if an image is nominated for deletion it is tagged and a bot completes the removal upon a decision. I've never had an item removed during the process. By removing the image from all articles it can then be renominated for AFD due to the fact that the item is not used in any articles. Even if the original AFD decision is to "Keep". As to constructive criticism what would be the purpose of reusing the offending statments (in my opinion) by you? Rubbing salt in a wound or pouring gasoline on a fire isn't the best way to get results. I already admitted that if the image isn't up to par it should be deleted. I am touchy about having my "nose rubbed in it" by the comments. Possibly a simple "yeah, the edit summaries could have been worded better" might have been all I was looking for. Shinerunner (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree with Shinerunner on this in that I feel it does violate WP:Civility in the same way that the "snipped rambling crap" does. Nothing in either really has any bearing on the editor themselves (though in both cases, you could argue it:  one takes tacky pictures and the other rambles).  That said, I don't think anything more than a slight nudge towards more neutral language is really required here. --Rob (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in civility or etiquette policy that says negative opinions or criticism should be censored. THe "snipped rambling crap" example is a completely different case. Using words like 'crap', 'rubbish', 'garbage' are not civil because they imply that an edit is worthless. However in this case the editor did not imply the edit was worthless but simply voiced a negative opinion of an image which is not incivility. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 14:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * However, the civility policy does address rudeness. Unless the image was "sticky to the touch" I would be hard pressed to find an example when the terms tacky or tackiness is used as a positive. To my knowledge ascribing tackiness to a persons clothing, home, etc. is precieved as an impolite, or uncivil, statement on the person themself. Is it the fact that this is an image created by me rather than a written addition to an article that changes the response? Shinerunner (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I take it that in your neck of the woods 'tacky' has some extremely pejorative meaning that you wouldn't at all care to be associated with(perhaps 'resembling Cupid Stunt'? To me, tacky just means 'amateur dramatics production values' - ie something that looks on closer inspection to have been put together cheaply or quickly to fill a short term need.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, even here on Wikipedia these are the definitions.
 * Of a substance, slightly sticky.
 * Of low quality.
 * In poor taste.
 * gaudy, flashy, showy, garish
 * dowdy, shabbily dressed
 * shabby, dowdy (in one's appearance) As you see most of these definitions have a highly charged negative connotation. Shinerunner (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and NONE of this was applied to YOU as an editor; they were applied to an IMAGE. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User:William Allen Simpson
You may remember a Wikiquette alert now archived at Wikiquette_alerts/archive64. The issues with WAS have not ended. We regularly intersect and often disagree at Categories_for_discussion. WAS seems uninclined to disagree with me without adding some personal attacks. He has become a bit more careful in these attacks. I'd like to show some examples from after the 3rd-level warning he received :

"you were chastized at WP:ANI and elsewhere" (which I was not, rather he was) and "A foolish consistency.." (which was part of the wp:wqa discussion resulting in his 3rd-level warning) in the text and the edit summary

"You were roundly excoriated at WP:ANI, WT:CFD, and elsewhere" (which I was not, rather he was) and "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...." in the text (bold from the original and a similar edit summary

"Obviously, you are having some English as a second language issues here" and "That is currently in the process of being rejected" (referring to another proposal of mine)

"Your failure to understand is not the responsibility of others. Read the policies. Look at recent discussion. Pay attention" to my request "Perhaps you could specify which naming convention you are referring to and why"

These remarks, when viewed each in their own right, might seem minor or even partially justified (which I assure you they are not). Taken together, they form a pattern of a personal attack aimed at making any intersection with WAS a miserable experience, with the likely purpose of removing my opposition to various of his edits and proposals.

Character witnesses against WAS as an editor with a longstanding tradition of making personal attacks I have gathered previously in this edit. Please also note a very recent block for violating the wp:3rr rule in edit warring.

Likewise his edits have raised concerns for pushing points in unacceptable ways (that is, without consensus), as expressed by various editors in the following edits, ,.

The following quote might be illustrative "Just because you are technically correct does not justify your attitude. You don't own this project, we are all working together. Misunderstandings can be handled in a civilized manner, with both parties being treated respectfully. You don't seem to have much respect for anyone other than yourself." Nothing has changed for the better since 2006...

In general, I think this user is an unbalancing factor in Wikipedia. In short term I would like to ask for some measures ensuring WAS will stop attacking me personally with all kinds of baseless accusations and derogatory comments. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: while I sympathise, I think this may have outgrown this venue, given that this is an editor-led, rather than an admin-led process.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Although that is saying he is beyond help. Do you have any advise? I've been told an Rfc is "horrendous". Debresser (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User conduct RFCs do require evidence that at least two editors have tried to resolve the situation and failed, and they also require multiple diffs demonstrating the problem. It is a rather involved process, however, I'm afraid I agree with Elen. WQA is very limited in what it can do, the user must be willing to engage in the process, and agree to abide by the advice given, there is no means here to take any other type of action. I think RFC or WP:ANI are your best bets if you wish to pursue this matter further. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advise. I have opened a thread at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I hope that will help somehow resolve this matter. I'll consider this thread here closed unless somebody will notify me of continued discussion. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Verbal
This editor has been engaging in tendentious editing on the Astrology page. I have complained of NPOV and Systemic Bias there, but it is hard to get the few anti-astrology oriented editors to agree. Recently, this user has followed my edits on other pages and is intervening there. Today, when confronted, he said had been monitoring this page for some weeks. It doesn´t change a thing. Today, he then entered a false warning on my Talk page. His behavior falls within a pattern described as Wikihounding. I would like to request assistance from Administrators to stop it.Odin 85th gen (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is a non-binding voluntary form of dispute resolution, and there aren't really any admins here. If you feel strongly that a block is needed, you should report this at WP:ANI. Please indicate whether you would prefer to do that or continue discussion here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At a glance, I would say there is nothing here that warrants a block, or even a thread here. There aren't any personal attacks or over the top incivil remarks, just a dispute over the accuracy of an article. If you are unable to reach agreement, I suggest you initiate a request for comment on the subject in order to involve more editors and reach a consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a sad state of affairs. Rather than waste my time in such battles, I´ve decided to leave Wikipedia.Odin 85th gen (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that, but good luck in the future if you decide to return. Dayewalker (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevenmitchell
This user keeps blanking a redirect that has been in place for four years, claiming that at some point in the unexplained future, he's going to put content there. When I suggested that that is probably not the best action to take, this was his reply. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not the first person to be the target of Stevenmitchell's lack of self-editing. See, User_talk:Adamfinmo, , and. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

WTWAG just alerted me to this after I'd paid him a compliment. I've had run-ins with users like this in the past. The last one was enough to drive me away from the site for nearly two years. Reasoning and apologies didn't work and I absolutely, positively do not want to see this happen to a fine user like Who Then. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The remark you linked certainly fits the description of a personal attack, what with the implication that you have a psychological problem, and is obviously not acceptable. Neither is blanking a page because you're planning to do something else with it later, for that matter. The other diffs provided show that this user does not grasp that sarcasm is rarely helpful in solving content disputes. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

incivilty and personal attack
This editor has escalated uncivil comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Fitzgerald#your_incivilty_and_personal_attack We have been involved in a discussion at [] and [] as well as at []. I have tried to let things drop and stick to the discussion. I have also learned a lot about reliable sources, copyrights and plagiarism so that in the future much of the conflict can be avoided. I do not however feel that I deserve the insults and rude comments that have been directed at me. -Crunchy Numbers (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's put those in sequential order, and add one to get the complete picture:, , , and .  Oh, and in line with that last discussion, you'll want these diffs where CN followed me around to delete perfectly reasonable edits from other articles totally unrelated to our dispute, apparently because he was annoyed at me: ,  and . If you look at these discussions, I think you'll find a certain amount of sarcasm on my part, prompted by CN's inability to let go of his quest to delete links to a perfectly innocent and helpful little website.  As he continues and refuses to hear what people are telling him, my sarcasm gets more pointed, but I don't think it ever crosses the boundary into incivility. I've repeatedly told CN that all he needs to do is stop and there's no problem between us (I don't know him from Adam's off ox), but he apparently has trouble letting go, and saw fit to take this additional step. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just read through the discussions, in order, and I take back one thing: there was no sarcasm of any kind until well at the end of the discussion, when CN's apparent inability to let go of his idee fixe started to get to me. Until then, the discussion was prefectly reasonable. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick glance at 's talk page shows complaints about behavior coming in at a rate of about one a day, from a variety of editors. That's way high, and suggests that a toning down of provocation might be in order. And to be clear, sarcasm does qualify as incivility -- it is often more provoking that outright insults. Anything that carries an implicit "you're stupid" message is uncivil. Looie496 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you mind please showing what remark was an implicit "You're stupid"? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, what was it that your quick glance picked up from my talk page? The notice of a GAR review? A discussion about whether a link is spam or not? A talk with a friend about another editor who got blocked? A discussion with another friend about image placement in an article? A discussion about an editor who later turned out to be a sockpuppet, due to my SPI report? More discussion with the same two friends about images? The notice that an image of mine was up for deletion? Because, with the exception of the complaint from Crunchy Numbers, that's what's on my talk page right now, and has been since I last archived it.  So how you can "at a glance" characterize it as being chockful of civility complaints is beyond me. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, Looie496, since complaints have been coming in at "about the rate of one a day", please list the 28 complaints that have come in about me since May 15th. I understand that your rate is an average, so I would say that anything above 22 or so would justify your remark.  If you can't provide those 22 complaints, I'll be happy to accept your withdrawal of your statement. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looie496 might be busy -- interestingly, he and Crunchy Numbers have both recently edited the articles Autism, Electric_motor and Eucharist, a rather esoteric concatenation of subjects (and even more interesting considering that while Looie has 2335 article edits, CN only has 539) -- so I'l help out. Perhaps he is referring to the complaint about my editing from User:LatinoAussie, who turned out to be a block-evading sockpuppet of User:Cazique?  Or perhaps he was confused, and thought that this, where another editor called me a "stupid asshole" was a legitimate complaint about my editing. That's two down - only 20 more to go! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Step away from the sarcasm and the defensive attacks. Nobody here is out to get you. Hold all of your "defence" to one post. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment was based on User talk:Ed Fitzgerald/archives 12 June 2009, where I counted 10 complaints for a period of 10 days, based, as I wrote, on a quick viewing. If you feel that I've wildly overestimated the rate at which people complain about your actions, I won't push the point. Looie496 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at a few things: WP:BRD is important, as is WP:RS. The WP:RSN is an important tool on Wikipedia - if you have a concern about reliability, and you are BOLD and remove something and then it gets reverted, for Pete's sake, don't go back to removing it - it's a once-round cycle, that leads to discussion and eventually WP:CONSENSUS. Randomly deleting things across Wikipedia is not acceptable without consensus! This appears to have been the genesis of commentary by Ed Fitzgerald. Ed - you need to know that sarcasm is generally bad, as per WP:SARCASM. It is almost always uncivil. Bad actions by one user may explain your incivility, but it never excuses it. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You ought to go a little easy about relying on WP:Sarcasm which, despite its sarcastic claim at the top, is merely an essay, not Wikipedia policy. I know it's been around for quite a while, and numerous people have contributed to it and cited it, but if it's so all-fire righteous, you'd think it would be policy by now.  It ain't, though, and I rather think that ArbCom's view of what does and doesn't constitute civility may differ distinctly from yours. Happy motoring! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed, I'm not relying on an essay: I'm relying on a consensus that sarcasm can at times be uncivil. You've been around long enough (and read WP:ANI enough) to know that. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering who nominated Bwilkins as the Civility Police? Seriously though, I'd recommend not contributing your condescending remarks, as they don't help in the least. As for sarcasm, I'd say that your grasp on how that particular brand of humor works is quite astounding. Unitanode  13:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikiquette Alerts, Unitanode...the volunteers here are all trying to assist in the enforcement of WP:CIVIL andWP:NPA, or as a minimum try and diffuse situations before they need to go to WP:ANI. Every editor of Wikipedia is the "civility police".  I have not stooped to condescending remarks, and I find your suggestion of such (and your belief that sarcasm being used against another editor is ok) to be a little odd.  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, I don't care what you find "odd." And I find it kind of sad that you think everyone should be the civility police. Aren't there better things to do with your time? Like, say, work on articles?
 * Lastly, you'll never know how deeply it wounds me that you find my acceptance of sarcasm in communication unacceptable. I will most likely weep the hot tears of despair as I vainly attempt to sleep tonight. Unitanode  02:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:IvoShandor
I nominated one of his article, Sidelight for speedy deletion because to me it didn't seem important to be its own article and should be apart of window. Anyway he started to use vulgar language "this is total bullshit" (his edit summary on sidelight). Then called me an a-hole "rmv trolling nonsense from asshole" (his edit summary on his talk page). I then told him to keep it civil or I'd report you. Then went to my talk page and said "Report me, you're still an ass. And still condescending. Find something constructive to do around here instead of monitoring material for deletion because you don't think it's tagged right. Fuck you." With the edit summary of fuck you dick. I understand that you can get pissed off, but not like this. I've gotten pissed once and only called him an ass, once, nothing worse and repeatedly calling him it.--Fire 55 (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously you want some kind of apology or shoulder rub to make you feel better. You're not getting it from me. I will accept the consequences of my actions. But, frankly, it is pretty much a total dick move to tag an article created by an experienced editor for speedy deletion (deletion means deletion, not merger - as you seem to think it does) mere minutes after its creation, especially in a topic area that has literally dozens of articles on similar topics, all with devoted pages. Did I go a little overboard with the incivility? You bet. And honestly, if my vulgar language and uncivil behavior discourages destructive editors like yourself, then it is by far worth any consequences. --IvoShandor (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have provided a level 4 warning for NPA, and taken this to WP:ANI. ANY attempts to dissuade editors in this manner is a disruption to the project. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on posted apology, I'm changing this to resolved ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can a Admin call a user a asshole?
This is not a good image for Wikipedia . Honestly I am not mad because the insult its behind a computer but what should I do? Thank you --Taulant23 (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No admin should call anyone an asshole, and they need to say sorry. They were not using their admin tools but they are representative of authority here and as Jimbo explained.. they are expected to be above the guidlines ...and this asshole comment fails WP:CIVIL which is a core principle of Wikipedia . (Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Thank you Off2riorob for trying to help.

We are debating about Illyrian-Albanian continuity. Most of the users are bringing a lot of sources and we can still not use them. That’s wrong (in my opinion) but honestly I don't feel I did anything inappropriate to be called like that.We need to find a common languange when we edit articles in here. He wants to use Genetics and I am saying let's use linguistic, books and other sources.--Taulant23 (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC


 * The usage of this and that and sources are another thing. You are not an Asshole . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC))


 * As I said before, he hides behind a computer to insult me, because he is not capable in face to face, so he chooses to try to make up for it by being a bully in Wikipedia.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * More ad hominem attacks.


 * Granted, my language was inappropriate, but Taulant's behavior is pretty close to a working definition of the word. Misrepresenting that I said something unsupported as a straw man, and then responding basically with 'Lol! God you're an idiot', is the kind of behavior I expect from UFO nuts and conspiracy theorists when they have no substantial argument for their POV. I certainly don't appreciate personal attacks like that on my talk page.


 * As for the topic at hand, I know basically nothing about it, and was trying to stop an edit war over apparently unfounded claims that Albanians are the "direct" descendants of the Illyrians. AFAIK, as reasonable as that idea may be, the evidence is so poor as to make any claim subjective, and we can hardly make definitive claims, as several editors have been insisting we do. The only evidence I know of is linguistic and geographical, which AFAIK are ambiguous and insubstantive, resp. We should probably say something in the lede, as the idea was (once) popular, and redirect the reader to the article that covers the topic in detail (origins of the Albanians), but shouldn't assume a conclusion to that debate in the Illyrian article, especially when it is largely peripheral to the topic. kwami (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the dispute just between the two of you? Would a third opinion be helpful? Or is there a uninvolved veteran editor that you would both trust to mediate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of saying I am sorry Taulant you keep insulting me. Maybe you got tired yesterday and I was feeling bad I reported you (don't forget I said I love you man/I respect you and your work) but when you keep still insulting me than I am mad. So plz since you are in California, let’s meet somewhere I am in LA.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] If your words were sincere, then I do owe you an apology. I took "I love you man" to be sarcastic—a continuation of 'Lol, you've made my day by being such an idiot.' From my POV, you've continued the insult by calling me a bully above, when it was you who made the personal attack, or at least what sounded like a personal attack, on my talk page. But perhaps I've completely misread you? If that's the case, I feel like a fool, and, as I said, owe you an apology. The only times I've heard people use words like that on wikipedia were edit warriors when they wanted to insult someone but were afraid of getting in trouble if they said anything directly. kwami (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * After various edit conflicts
 * Taulant did you actually called him idiot(which user rejects), you shouldn't do that much too.(not if he didn't say of course) But idiot (by a new user) is better than swearing (by an admin)
 * If you are much insistent another admin will talk about him not to repeat such behaviour. But I doubt the forced apology part (he actually admitted he was wrong in the meantime I am writing by some indirect way), and since no editor has any right to do that, you shouldn't worry about that part, most possibly he can't swear you again. But you may also not focus on the 1 time swearing much, if it is not repeated, since discussions may waste a lot of your editing time, if you are more focused on developing the article context.
 * The user asked for some guidance for dispute resolution that requires expertise. Can anyone help him further on the issue. Kasaalan (talk)

I did not call him names plz check here []. He is insulting me again.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As regards the unnecessary rude name calling.. we are almost there,kwami has said.. my language was inappropriate..so if Taulant23 is happy with that simple statement then its a better feeling and we can move on.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC))


 * See above (edit conflict). If Taulant has been sincere, then I evidently misread him, and I apologize. But I have not continued to insult him here. (BTW, I don't understand why one insult is "swearing" and bad, but another is "insulting" and okay.) kwami (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

plus, really who insults you behind a pc?? OK let's move on and let's block Taulant in 3 days so he can shut his mouth. Thank you guys.--Taulant23 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No apologies and move on?? What kind of admin calls editors asshole?? What kind of admin does not even say I am sorry man??


 * I've apologized three times now, on various pages. But now you're insulting everyone here by suggesting they'd block you for complaining, while claiming I'm still insulting you. This is the kind of behaviour that made me think you were being insincere in the first place. kwami (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with kwami over this. He has retracted his comment and that is fine, so please step away from the dead horse Taulant23 . (Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Kwami, please erase your insult and please understand, nor me or you would like to be called asswhole specially as a act of bullying in Wikipedia.


 * Off2riorob, got the message I am taking a break. Wiki needs people like you. Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with admin for some parts. First "Granted, my language was inappropriate, but Taulant's behavior is pretty close to a working definition of the word." is not an actual apology. First half is yes, second half is actually solidifying the previous insult. Second, admin claims user called him an idiot, which user denies and apparently an interpretation or misread of the user's "Doesn't all of mankind originate from Africa? Kwami Love you man lol" comment since admin didn't proved user called him an idiot yet. I don't like sarcasm much either like the admin, but if no "idiot" word is added to that sarcasm by the user, it is fully acceptable. Also user acts a bit over emotional, yet has a point I cannot ignore. If an apology will be made, it should be full hearted, not "my language was inappropriate (I shouldn't say it) but you actually acted like one" or "if I was misread then I feel like a fool". "If"s and "but"s in apologies weakens them a lot. This is no good orientation for a new user. New users get easily frustrated over such disputes, while admins have to deal with lots of hard cases each day, so may got angry easily. The user may even be a teenager, so we shouldn't go hard on him or over the admin. Both parties has some point and if both parties take a step to each other, the case may be fully closed. Kasaalan (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am an outsider on kwami-Taulant dispute (although I have been editing the page itself and banned for it), but really, calling someone asshole, is not just a clear case of insult, but a behavior that should be used by no editor (of course admins should be more carefull then other editors). An apology would be enough if the editor did not know WP:Wikiquette, but it is unnaceptable for an administrator, for this website.Balkanian`s word (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone may get off rule time to time. The most important part is making them aware they are doing mistake, and avoid future ones. You have a point, but a full public apology from the user may possibly solve the case, we shouldn't go hard on admin either for a single mistake (even it is serious). Yet a sincere full public and talk page apology under every related discussion is preferable for a full solution. Of course they can still harshly debate over their unsolved conflict over text dispute. Kasaalan (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not appropriate for anyone to call anyone an "asshole", as it's a violation of WP:CIVIL. However, let me quote: "hmmm where that came from?? well since it is behind a computer I will let it go.--Taulant23 (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)".  You "let it go" and then filed both an ANI and WQA report, which does not quite sound like "letting it go".  You also need to get off the whole swearing thing - Wikipedia is not censored, and articles like WP:DICK and WP:FUCK clearly use swearing.  This does not mean it's ok to call someone a rude name, but the use of swearing is (whether right or not) somewhat acceptable.  Kwami has been admonished, he knows he's done wrong - he's not going to lose admin over it, so what else do you want other than a little more WP:DEADHORSE??  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * uninvolved here, but i took his "let it go" to mean he wasn't going to engage in a back and forth insult match with the admin on that talk page. taking it to the noticeboards should be encouraged in cases like this.  i also agree that there has only been a backhanded apology by the admin involved, as well as not being able to find an instance where kwami was called an idiot first (pls provide a diff or retract this).  i also agree that admins should model policy for other users.  he should be formally warned and apologize unreservedly (without saying, in effect, 'it was inappropriate but you really are an asshole') as would be required of any non-admin editor in a similar situation. untwirl (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been resolved and if no one objects then I will mark it as such. The admin has more or less apologised and the complainant has more or less accepted. In my opinion adhering to WP:CIVIL is the only chance for any kind of Debate on wikipedia. Comment on the article and not the editor. Swearing is allowed and we are (almost) all adults, but personal insults are not allowed. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Accusing a new user will not help, accusing admin will not help either. However the admin just said, "Granted, my language was inappropriate, but Taulant's behavior is pretty close to a working definition of the word" we cannot kid ourselves that was nowhere near an apology (not even more or less). I don't even know who both user are or their edits except their discussion. But if the admin will not apologize, at least he should first strike all of his insulting comments before the case closed. User was right on one thing, admin double insulted him here, at least strike of the relevant texts are necessary, and if admin does not I won't take any action about the admin, but I will be offended as an editor too, since it indicates injustice. Also I won't like to discuss this case any further since my point is very clear. Kasaalan (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, kwami did what he thought the power of only an admin can do…I am sure he knew he cannot get in trouble that’s why I got that pathetic insult. I did not do anything wrong but in reality I was giving a simple friendly advice,keep genetics away from Balkan people,we never find the common languange that way.-BWilkins, I have been in many arguments even with vandals but I would never call someone behind a pc an asshole (it shows a weak character, my honest opinion). I am willing to let it go, plus what else can I do?  Besides, it’s not my reputation in line here or to the average user who helps in here but to the admins who abuse with their power.

My questions to the other admins would be, if I was to call an admin asshole what will have been my consequences?Thank you --Taulant23 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Let me just remind Adminship is not a big deal and that they are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. In this case the admin not just did insult Taulant, but he also did not remove the insultion from his talk page and he did not apologize by saying that "Granted, my language was inappropriate, but Taulant's behavior is pretty close to a working definition of the word." (which means that I should not say Taulant is an asshole, but he is an asshole), a second insult in just few minuts difference. So, if Taulant, would even say WP:DICK to an admin he would be banned for incivility (because he is not an admin - who for some in here is a big deal - ), but kwami is an admin (big deal?) and so he shall be aloud to sayt whatever he likes here? Kwami has still done nothing to apologize, even when he "says that has done", he has continued insulting (as per above), which is just another non-admin-wise action by kwami (see WP:ADMIN: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed.") So, is it a big deal to be an admin?Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in that topic, but amdins can be humans to and react like himans sometimes too. However, on such situations, a block or ban by the admin. would be more appropriate than just a 'bad word' that can trigger major wiki-conflict. On the other hand, Taulant's discussion page lead is characteristic for its unencyclopedity (Achilles Albanian hut? what;s that timetravel?). In my opinion it;s better to block someone than to call him asshole.Alexikoua (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua, ban or blocked by the admin, apparently you don't know what we are talking about.There was no reason to ban no one. As for Achilles costume and picture this is not the right place, way off topic.You are more than welcome to leave a message in my talk page.--Taulant23 (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yes, yes, calling someone a nasty name is a violation of WP:CIVIL and is to be regretted. However, editors do not get to hide behind WP:CIVIL in passive-aggressive displays, which is the case here with. If someone waltzes over to an editor's talk page and posts a deliberate piece of snide sarcasm, they should not be surprised if they get a reaction. If you, Taulant, cannot be civil yourself - and your comment is unequivocally neither civil nor helpful - then expect to be called out on it. Frankly, this page too often attracts variations on "I poked the bear and then it attacked me" from self-styled, wide-eyed faux-ingenus. We need to take a stronger line against this kind of stuff. So bottom line: if you behave like a dick, don't be surprised when other editors observe as much. Eusebeus (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Fhue and User:NRen2k5
On the Sea Shepherd article, this editor has assumed bad faith and mirespresented/disregarded ongoing discussion when it wasn't going his way, proceeded to edit the article without consensus, edit warred, personally attacked me, and then continued to misrepresent things on the Editor Assistance page and elsewhere. "violent direct action" is misleading,, — NRen2k5 (TALK), 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * do you even know what WP:bad faith is? or are you just parroting what you heard someone say, once. Fhue (talk)


 * Bad faith, to me, is failure to assume good faith, which you are a shining example of. Has there even been a single message here where you haven't antagonized me? — NRen2k5 (TALK), 10:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * yep, when I simply disagree with you. Equating the two shows your lack of respect for other viewpoints -- and I don't mean WP:POV, I'm talking about rhetorical style. Tiresome allegations of bad faith are, in fact, your own failure to assume good faith. Carbonite's Law tells us, "the more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith." It's also worth noting that you owe me a dollar. Fhue (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also given boilerplate warnings on his talkpage, but he promptly disregarded and deleted them.  — NRen2k5 (TALK), 02:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * NRen2k5 continues to mischaracterize his role in this dispute as the victim. It is he in fact who heightened the conflict with arrogant dismissals and petty replies in the talk pages.  I called him out on his bullying at first "with a grain of salt."  Later I dared to disagree with him so he practically called me a liar. That is when I said he is "just lamely trolling." He replied in kind, so to cry foul about that now is disingenuous. Fhue (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Case in point (personal attacks): "arrogant", "petty", "bullying".
 * As for the trolling and projecting, I don't know what else to call accusing someone else of trolling while emoting a yawn. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 03:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * you forgot to say 'bad faith' again. lol Fhue (talk)


 * Yep, we're here because you brought it here first. You can try all you want to appear unbiased and victimized, but the record speaks for itself. Fhue (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That it does. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see above. And here: [] As anyone with an objective eye can see, this particular dispute has slowly boiled over from his repeated attempts to bully other contributors who dont agree with him. Even in the current Editor assistance request link above, he patronizes and dismisses. Fhue (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Case in point: further personal attacks, projection and general bad faith. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * lol there it is. Fhue (talk)

I have combined the tit-for-tat filings into one, and those never do turn out well. This does appear to be a long-running dispute between 2 editors. An 3rd party attempted to mediate one aspect of an article, and one party refused to change their stance...that is not collegial editing, and is contrary to Wikipedia's policies and indeed its raison d'etre. I would like to see the two of you stay off that article (and its talkpage) for a week - and stay away from each other for the same length of time. Reflect on what it means to work together, and to respect others' point of view. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, — NRen2k5 (TALK), 07:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For anyone else interested in a good read and/or summary, see my Talk page. Fhue (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * heh, are you still stalking this. jeez dude, get over it.


 * *Sigh*
 * I am staying away - I'm not touching any pages you're working on with a ten foot pole. I'm checking if you're keeping your word. Don't get indignant because I caught you breaking it.
 * I am not playing at trying to get the last word in. I'm trying to get my point across, but time and again you show me you still don't get it.
 * Stalking? Seriously, what?
 * I can't seem to respect anybody who disagrees with me? I'm not the one struggling to characterize everything I disagree with or fail to understand as a personal affront.
 * “I gave up trying to discuss the matter in talk pages and reverted your improper edit (based on POV)” - See #4. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 09:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The other links you give are minor edits. Your other points are just as unfounded. I'll bet $1 you can't stay away from this page or any other with or without "a ten foot pole." Fhue (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Caught?" seriously, get over yourself. i agreed & thanked Mr.Bw but then I changed my mind. that's why your first "record" is a deleted response . so i didnt break my word. If anyone did, it's you. "I am staying away - I'm not touching any pages.." -- can you see how wrong you are? because here you are.


 * *Throws hands up in resignation.* — NRen2k5 (TALK), 11:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I’ve notified a few editors who I’ve worked with and asked them to weigh in on the issue. I believe the way I did so is within the rules (WP:CANVAS). Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 00:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So, rather than admit to having a role in this issue, then trying to resolve it together, you're going to invite some people to focus on you being right? That's quite contrary to the process here.  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Dolfrog - personal attacks
This user is making repeated disparaging and bad faith statements about my and other editors' capacity to judge a disputed issue. . He has continued despite personal attack warnings up to level 4 (see User talk:Dolfrog/Archives/2009 1 and User_talk:Dolfrog). Thoughts? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If the other editors would take the time to read the supporing documented research that support my case rahter than just air their own uniformed opinions then all would be fine.
 * The research can befound on the Research articles of ther dyslexia project, which all of these editors have so far chose to ignore, or refuse to discuss.
 * Dyslexia research
 * Dyslexia: Orthography
 * History of developmental dyslexia
 * Theories of dyslexia
 * Genetic research into dyslexia
 * Brain scan research into dyslexia
 * So they are infact making parsonal attacks against my integrety and research abilities by ignoring the documented research in favour of their ill informed opinions.
 * I also have a communication disability Auditory Processing Disorder which some are aware of and seem to wish to take advantage.
 * dolfrog (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Eight, maybe nine editors, have told you now that we do not put Category:Dyslexia on articles not directly about dyslexia. The research is completely irrelevant to that decision, so quit dissing us for not being au fait with it.
 * which some are aware of and seem to wish to take advantage
 * Assume good faith, please. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto, Gordonofcartoon. I see Dolfrog as a hard working and useful contributor that should be commended for their efforts. Everyone is new here at some stage and don't bite the newbies comes to mind. AF\\GF, AFG\\\AGF, please. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The research is key to forming opinions and only fools ignore it. So you are choosing to ignosre scientific fact in favour of your own andn the opinos of others who are ignorate of all the relvent facts. Until ypou can begin to have a constructive debate you are arte only acting in bad faith. You do not call views different to your own personal atacks, when you do the same to others and say that you mist always be right. dolfrog (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As discussion is taking place where it first should have, I'm putting this as stale, for now. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the stale after this user continued same tendentious trend on my talk page and after reviewing the editor's recent edit summaries. There is a tendentious and NPA problem here that should be addressed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Dolfrog, insulting other editors is a losing approach. Even if you are right, it won't work.  You have to make a decision about whether it is better to be righteous and banned or to suppress your urge to tell everybody how stupid they are for the sake of accomplishing something here. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And "being right" is less important than supplying reliable sources for claims you make or categories you add. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to explain how he can make his content case in a less contentious manner, but I'm not sure he understands the policies involved. I still think that most -- if not all -- of his "attacks" have been fairly innocuous, and not worthy of a big snit or anything, but if others disagree, I'll certainly bow out here. I personally think that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are being interpreted FAR too broadly on this page, but again, I'll not fight for my interpretation of them to be applied in this case. Unitanode  15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not fussed about his lack of civility and sarcastic edit summaries, but the tendentiousness of his editing should be nipped in the bud, as it affects articles. The trend shown in his edit summaries should be addressed.  He's adding dyslexia cats all over the place without basing the addition on reliable sources, and then gets snitty when they're removed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just left a comment to that effect at the related RfC. If he doesn't get the message soon, he may well be blocked for WP:3RR, if nothing else. Unitanode  15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)I agree that he is not being blatantly incivil, but his attitude regarding "if you are not an expert you have no right to discuss the issue with me" is not acceptable. Likewise, his "the consensus is wrong" attitude directly stated in one of his recent edit summaries will lead to further disruption unless he recognizes that Wikipedia is not limited to experts in a given subject area, whether that is a good thing or not. He simply needs to accept that Wikipedia guidelines and policies trump the opinion of a minority of editors, even if those editors are experts in the field. As has been requested of Dolfrog on talk pages, if he provides citations the information he wants to include is welcome, but no one is obligated to bow down to his "I'm an expert and you are not so I don't have to listed to anyone else" attitude. The   Seeker 4   Talk  15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And the "expert" issue is spurious anyway. From his talk page:  "Dolfrog is the internet name used by an individual who has a great interest in Auditory Processing Disorder. Dolfrog has been trying to promote a greater understanding of APD to help his children who have this condition."  This editor needs to understand WP:V, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, tone done the tendentiousness, and take a deep breath.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * the dolfrog on the internet and the dolfrog here one in the same. To get a bettter understanding of APD I have had to clarify the issues which surround dyslexia, much to my own dismay, as there appears to be a dyslexia industry out there intnet on blocking research and prevent progress so that they can continue to sell there products.

There must be other editors out there I know more about dyslexia then me and if so I wish they would help re-orginse the Dyslexia prjoct and realted issues so that i can get back to working on my APD interests. All I amtrying to do is to make the dyslexia artilcles reflect the scientific research and not the skewed oponions of program providors, all the program can help at least one group, but no program can help all dyslexics and the same applies to APD.


 * I find WIKI the most frustrating of place to work in a very alien environment with it strnage code, and wierd ways of behaving. If some one want to help me work aroun d my communication problems fine, but so far not many have bothered. dolfrog (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See this is exactly the type of frustration that WP needs to avoid. Dolfrog clearly is trying to help, and just needs to understand that they need to focus on content, not on who is adding the content, as well as the appropriate location for discussion, which is on the relevant article talk pages, not on a user talk page. I would suggest seeing if someone is willing to mentor User:dolfrog to assist them with learning the ropes. I am told they have been editing since 2005, but I can see that they only received a welcome message on their talk page today. Several edits have indicated frustration in trying to find out how to "spin the spider web" of Wikipedia. Note: I see that User:GTBacchus has offered to help them. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

One for everyone to perhaps be aware of. If someone has dyslexia or a similar condition, our habit of leaving a slew of letters scattered through our communication will be absolutely baffling, because WP:NPA WP:V WP:RS WP:CIVIL and all the rest of them may just not compute - they may all look similar, and of course they don't mean anything, they are just codes and the kind of thought processes that people with a dyslexia type condition can have makes it hard to decipher codes (this is based on personal experience, not research, so may not apply in all cases, but hey guys, sometimes you have to spell things out not just use the shorthand).Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ed Fitzgerald
This user has made the following comment at User_talk:SarekOfVulcan which I find rather offensive. "She, he doesn't matter. An asshole is an asshole." Jenuk1985 |  Talk  01:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, the user has been blocked for 3 hours. Thanks anyway! Jenuk1985  |  Talk  01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are wikistalking the contributions of Ed Fitzgerald, and have admitted as much. Somehow, you got a block-happy admin to block him, but that doesn't relieve you from the burden of your own unclean hands. Unitanode  15:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Errr, do you wish to get your facts straight regarding wikistalking? Please could you point to a specific part of WP:STALK which I have violated? Using an editors contributions history to revert controversial edits is in no way wikistalking, and I strongly suggest you think before making such serious allegations. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  16:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The facts are what they are. You admitted to going through his contribs and mass-reverting them. I strongly suggest you wash your own hands before lecturing others. Unitanode  16:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the policy on hounding, checking another person's edits to see if they have made the same type of "bad" or "non-consensus" edits elsewhere is NOT hounding. Unitanode, please familiarize yourself with policies before commenting on them, and be careful with your comments as some of them, such as the ones above and the comment here earlier toward Bwilkins could be considered trolling. The   Seeker 4   Talk  18:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't troll. I looked at the contributions of both editors, and I considered what Jenuk was doing to EF to be hounding/stalking/whatever-the-wiki-term-is. Offering a viewpoint is not trolling. And in my view at least, what Jenuk did was at least as poor in form as EF saying "an asshole is an asshole." Of course, my view on what constitutes a blockable personal attack, incivility, etc. is far from the views of most people that frequent this ... unique noticeboard, which I fully acknowledge. That, however -- and fortunately -- does not preclude me from offering my $0.02 on various issues that are brought here. Unitanode  18:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again you have failed to specifiy exactly which part of WP:STALK I have violated? If you are going to make accusations, please at least back it up with policy. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  19:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Unitanode) You absolutely have the right to comment here, and my statement above was in no way trying to discourage you from doing so. I simply think comments like the first one to Jenuk above and this comment to Bwilkins earlier could be worded better to be less inflamatory. For example, you could have said to BW "Saying "you have been around long enough to know that" seemed to me as condescending, and I don't see how his use of sarcasm constituted incivility" which would probably be viewed as a lot less inflammatory than what you said in that diff. This is just a suggestion, and if you want to ignore me I certainly won't take offense, but I would not be surprised if your language causes more conflict than it helps to stop (which is the purpose of this board) if it is not toned down. Also, I have no opinion on Ed's edits or Jenuk's reversions, but it is simply not wikihounding to examine an editor's contributions to see if they have performed questionable actions on other pages, just as examining an editor's contributions after reverting vandalism by them or seeing a personal attack by them is also not wikihounding. Again, I am not taking a side either way regarding the actual edits made by Ed and Jenuk, but what Jenuk has done does not constitute wikihounding. I'll say once more I am not trying to stop you from contributing to this forum, I just think your comments would be more appropriate, and you would have better results, if your tone did not sound so accusatory and confrontational. The   Seeker 4   Talk  20:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay: "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." Claiming you have an "overriding reason" doesn't make your "reason" legitimate. Clearly, you and EF differ on the issue, so that would not qualify as an "overriding reason." Thus, you were hounding his edits for no good reason. Unitanode  19:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverting non consensus edits is hounding now is it? Yeah, right. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  19:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You weren't "reverting non consensus edits", you were having a content dispute about "Notes" versus "References", so you went through his contributions and mass-reverted quite a few of his changes, based upon your view in the matter. That's "hounding", and this is my last post to you. I would respectfully request that you not sift through my contributions for some mass reversions to perform. Unitanode  19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there is no content dispute, the user made a whole list of mass changes without adequate consensus, I have reverted them and invited him to start a discussion before making such edits again. Plain and simple, I ask in future when other people bring issues up on Wikiquette alerts, you properlly research the issue, and read up on Wikipedia policies before passing comment and making accusation, as what you say is bad for the community. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  19:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with your take on something doesn't make my contributions here "bad for the community." It's condescending -- and quite insulting -- of you to say so, which makes this whole exchange more than a bit ironic, as it was you who opened it by complaining that Ed had insulted you. Now, I'll give you the last word, as this really is my last post to you. Insult away. Unitanode  19:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jenuk1985, hi. At this point, it would seem that the justification for the reverts has been called into question. When that happens, it is entirely appropriate to stop reverting, and engage in discussion, widening scope as necessary, to determine the consensus view of what should be done. If you find yourself engaging in any conflict alone, it's always a good idea to seek outside opinions, and to defer to the consensus that emerges. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no more reverting, the reverting stopped long before I raised this thread. I reverted the appropriate edits, he has been left an appropriate message on his talk page on what to do now, where to get the outside opinions if he wants to make the changes on the scale he is etc. The only issue now is Unitanode making false accusations, which I feel may deserve a Wikiquette thread of its own. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe they do, but I can't imagine that it would lead to any really positive result. Disengaging is probably a better idea. I'm glad the reverting is all stopped. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where the idea that there is an edit war or content dispute came from to be honest, there has never been an edit war between me and Ed Fitzgerald, I think it is a case of some people not understanding the full facts. I'm just annoyed that I bring a civility issue here (which was solved shortly after I made the post), and as a result, accusations are made against me, not based on any sort of policy, just a users personal opinion. I'm sure this isn't how Wikiquette alerts is supposed to work? If I *had* done something wrong, then I'd have no issues in accepting the situation. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably just that you encountered someone having a bad day. I agree that the initial post in response to you here was inappropriate, and I think that Unitanode will calm down, and probably take something valuable from this experience. That would be the best, right? As for Unitanode's position being based on policy or not, it seems clear that he thinks it is. That's also usually the case; a disagreement over precisely what policy means turns into a bitter conflict along the lines of "I'm right"/"No, you're wrong". Once we see it happening, I think the best solution is to disengage, and possibly seek outside opinion. Which is what you were doing to come here in the first place, and we appreciate that. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of taking this any further, and my original reason for coming here has already been solved, so as far as I'm concerned the case is closed. All I do is defend myself if false accusations are made. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jenuk, he was bold over a period of time, you reverted him in one shot, he reverted you, and then you reverted him again. That's an edit war, even though you didn't approach 3RR. I'm taking no position on this: one guideline says one of you is right, another one says both of you were right (though not right to edit war about it). Find a happy medium, or stay away from each other, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional complaint regardng User:Ed Fitzgerald
Ed has a lot of things besides Jenuk1985's References/Notes issue that he changes. These are inconsistent with the Manual of Style, or otherwise mass changing articles to his preferred layout. He's been asked to stop making mass changes to image sizes, manual insertion of whitespace, and now section renaming. Anyone who dares to question his layout is accused of stalking. This needs to end.

If anyone has any doubt about it, please read his last few thousand edit summaries looking for my username, where he is "calling me out" inviting me to an edit war, while at the same time, he has followed my edit contribution history inserting his style just to irk me - but this is not stalking from Ed. Why can Ed have this double standard where people change his contrarian layouts are stalkers, but him following someone else is not? Miami33139 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the closure of this thread, as the comments raised by Miami33139 remain unresolved. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  15:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:by78
This user left a rather hateful comment on my talk page: "Sorry if that hurts your I-am-really-an-Aryan-German-despite-the-fact-I-am-from-India ego." I did not provoke him nor did I say anything about Indians being Aryans or anything of the sort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GSMR

Though he did not sign this comment you can see he added it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GSMR&diff=297288448&oldid=297282603 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSMR (talk • contribs) 03:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You actually replied to the editor about the post, and then you laughed it off, then disproved it having a racial connotation. Laughing at an attempted violation of WP:NPA is a great way to react. So, it wasn't a racist attack ... what action would you like (I have warned them about failure to use ~ ) ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He intended for me to interpret that as having a racial connotation (because he compared Indians with Germans). He has previously been warned for personal attacks, seen here:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_power/Archive_11#Great_Power_status_is_determined_only_by_the_United_Nations
 * "So, tell me now, do you wake up every morning and look at yourself in the mirror and keep repeating, "Eendiah, de laahgest deemahkrasi een de vehrald! Pawah to Eendiah! Eendiah vill be de Sooopa-Pawah in tdwantie-tdwantie"? If so, your power of self-suggestion is strong indeed, as are the resulting delusions of granduer. By78 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)"


 * As he has been warned of this before, I suggest some form of temporary punishment? I am not fully aware of what Wikipedia's policies are but would blocking him temporarily from editing be sufficient? GSMR (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As you already know from the top of this page, editors in this forum are not generally able to provide blocks - our goal is to diffuse situations of civility before blocks become necessary. Links to previous incivility are always useful.  You should also know that warnings are usually escalating in nature - eventually they may lead to a block.  Racist commentary is always one of the worst forms of incivility.  As you noted, he was previously warned for the "Eendiah..." phrase.  I will go back through those warnings, and escalate accordingly.  On top of that, blocks are never punishment, they are to prevent disruptions (see WP:BLOCK).( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for warning him. GSMR (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas
Viriditas accused me at Talk:Barack_Obama's_speech_at_Cairo_University,_2009 of being a meatpuppet co-coordinating edits ahead of time. The editor is completely unresponsive and refuses to use civility. They commented "we had no problems until you showed up", and ended the discussion. The Squicks (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikihounding is probably not the best thing to do right after you file a Wikiquette alert. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how the diff you provided is hounding, in your view? I'm not seeing it, at least at first blush. I'm not saying it's definitively not, just that I don't understand how it is at this point. Unitanode  16:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's easy, as he was not just wikihounding but deliberately trolling as well: The Squicks filed this report and then followed me over to Human rights in the United States, an article I was actively editing . The Squicks had never edited this article before but he showed up to make an incredibly bizarre edit involving the addition of a poorly-formatted URL to a see also link that in turn, links to a red-linked entry for Moynihan's law over at List of eponymous laws.  This eponymous law turns out to be a snarky, off-topic entry that reads, "The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country."  Obviously, he wanted me to revert him, but I simply ignored him.  It's got nothing to do with the article, and he did it just to try and get a rise out of me. Viriditas (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm beginning to understand what you were talking about now. It's interestng to me how many unclean hands we see amongst the filers here. Unitanode  16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how you can claim that two wrongs make a right. The Squicks (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not my claim. What I'm saying is that when you're as guilty (or perhaps more) than the person you accuse, it damages your credibility. Unitanode  17:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point that Viriditas has accused me, without evidence, both of trolling, meatpuppeting, and deliberately sabatoging articles. Have I done the same thing or worse to them? Nope. The Squicks (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are in a content dispute with him. You used this noticeboard to threaten him during that dispute. You happened to show up at the same time as another user, and ganged up on him. While I wouldn't have responded as he did, in my view this is essentially a content dispute. It appears that you are using this noticeboard as a means of continuing that dispute, which isn't acceptable either. Unitanode  17:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a threat. This is a request for an editor who assumes bad faith to quit doing so, since that would make resolving a content dispute easier. The Squicks (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you now accusing me of something? If so, you should know, this does not put you in any better light. I simply offered my take on the situation, and did so in a way that was both polite and to the point. You brought this complaint here. If you didn't want outside opinions, you shouldn't have asked for them. Unitanode  17:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you now accusing me of something? No. Where are you getting that? I commented that "This is not a threat"- I did not start this alert to threaten anyone- and that I sincerely want to find a compromise solution with Viriditas, which will not happen unless Viriditas abandons his assumptions of bad faith. The Squicks (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I appricate your outside opinion, BTW. These are why I posted here in the first place. The Squicks (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * <undent
 * You clearly threatened him with bringing the issue here. This noticeboard is not for the mediation of content disputes. You should consider an RfC if that's what you're looking for. Unitanode  18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since both you and Hans are agreeing with Viriditas' assumption of bad faith; I'm going to go ahead and drop this. The Squicks (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My view on this is that it's a pure content dispute. Additionally, while Viriditas may well have run afoul of WP:AGF in some ways, I see no need for intervention regarding alleged personal attacks or civility issues. Things get heated sometimes during content disputes. Sometimes it's best to just let it go when the discussion gets a bit hot. Unitanode  16:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to let it go. But Viriditas is now making the stupid claim that I'm "hounding" him, once again- "Evidence?!"- I've been editing pages about Human rights in Iran and related topics and checked in from there to the United States' page, which is blindingly obvious to anyone looking at my edit history. The Squicks (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Viriditas here. Editing patterns indicate the two users are probably not related by sockpuppetry. Yet the circumstances of their simultaneous appearance are suspicious, and the shell game they played at Talk:Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University, 2009 is the cherry on top. This is not a case for WQA; we'll just have to wait until it's ripe for ANI or SPI. Hans Adler 17:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence for your claims? I see none. I also plainly see no shell game either. The Squicks (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the time and place to argue about what is or is not behind the suspicion that is hard to avoid when looking at the edit history. – The shell game:
 * Korny O'Near: "[...]"
 * Viriditas: "[points out that Korny has burden of evidence]"
 * The Squicks: "I strongly disagree with Viriditas. [...]"
 * Viriditas: "[...] I asked Korny a question, and for some reason you are replying for him, but avoiding the question. [...] What is also strange, is that according to your respective edit histories, neither you nor Korny have ever edited an Obama article before, but your first edit here is to add a controversy and community article probation tag? Can you explain this?"
 * Korny O'Near: "You want me to "explain" the actions of some other user? Sorry, can't help you there. [...]"
 * Viriditas: "That's a fun little game! I ask you a question, and The Squicks replies. Then, I ask The Squicks a question and you reply! Amazing! [...]"
 * Korny O'Near: "Oh, I didn't realize that question was just directed to him/her. Wow, you must have really proven something there, good for you. [...]"
 * These were transparent attempts to detract from
 * the fact that Korny had the burden of evidence for including commentary from self-published sources; and
 * the fact that there was not going to be an explanation from The Squicks for adding controversy and article probation tags as the very first edit to a talk page, right before making a splash.
 * Hans Adler 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And why would I need to explain myself like that? I can't believe that you are assuming bad faith as well! I made no splash. I took one editors side in a content dispute. There's no law against that is there? And I never, ever stated that the burden of proof is not on the side asking for inclusion. Do not put words into my mouth. neither you nor Korny have ever edited an Obama article before, but your first edit here is to add a controversy and community article probation tag Is a false statement on two grounds. (a)I've edited Obama articles numerous times and (b)I add controversy and community article prohibition tages all the time whenever I see a talk page that needs them and does not have them. The Squicks (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(OUTDENT) Ok, let's all back up for a second. The Squicks ... can you please provide diff's to any edits that you claim are backing up your concern. A link to a section of a page does not help. If you have issues with diffs, please view WP:DIFF. I want to ensure that we all understand your concern. I will then ask Viriditas to do the same thing. This way we all have the same picture, and the concerns gets validly understood. Please note, The Squicks, that we will indeed look backward at issues that may have caused this discussion, based on the ABC method... ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you simply read the discussion referenced, you will understand the problem better. It's a relatively clear-cut content dispute, as I see it. Unitanode  18:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you here to help, or harass others who are trying to help. I've read, Squick has not laid out his concern well, so I want to ensure that he has his say properly.  Otherwise, we're doing the editor a major disservice.  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I don't know what part of my one line post to you was "harrassing", but I was simply attempting to let you know that simply reading the discussion they referenced gives a pretty clear picture of what is going on. I'm not certain why you feel antagonized by my pointing that out, but it was not intended to be in any way "harrassing." Unitanode  19:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please keep discussions that are not directly related to assisting the problem off this page. Bickering between volunteers on this board is not helpful to facilitating communication between the parties in the uncivil exchanges. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 19:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict...Hi, nothing has really happened here... take a step back guys. What is it about Obama.. It is Politics ..half of the people POV push left and half POV push right.. with a couple in the middle...At wiki the worst articles are religious and political, In the uk we have a rule .. do not talk about these things in a bar...Anyway...The squicks and Viriditas are polar opposites on this.. and the best thing the both of them can do is take a few days away from this article..I saw the speech and it was not really worth it's own page anyway.. are we to have a silly page about every pov pushing speech obama makes.. I hope not...don't bother falling out about it.. close youe eyes and think about something that you really like and go edit that article for a few days. best regards. these comment are also available to help the helpers.(Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Since Viriditas has a long and deep history of making venemous personal attacks about people ; I'm retracting this notice if possible and asking that it be closed. The Squicks (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would strike that, as based on the talkpage, no "long and deep history" of attacks exists on that page. It's recommended you not take parting potshots like this. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree and I do clearly see that history. I also hardly see it as a 'potshot' rather than a statement of fact.
 * But you are correct about end comments, based on what they are meant to convey, not including statements in that vein. So, I struck that. This dispute here is done. The Squicks (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done, for taking that back Squicks. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

civility issues for User:Rebecca
continues to call me either "twit" or "troll" on the basis of this discussion: Articles for deletion/New Conservative Group. Whilst we may disagree on notability of the subject, there is no reason to continue name calling as per, ,. despite notifying this user twice of incivil behavior:. I am placing this report to at least put on record for others to comment on. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I say drag her back onto the wp:AC. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * what's AC? LibStar (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Click on the link to find out.  Majorly  talk  14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it surprising that someone who has been on AC acts like this. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we have a link to the previous arb com case? --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 14:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no previous ArbCom case. I think the point being made is that Rebecca was formerly a member of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Jack Merridew was joking that the behaviour being complained of was something ArbCom badly needed on board. (This is neither a comment on the alleged behaviour nor an endorsement of the comment) Orderinchaos 16:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice, and incorrect, original research. See Brad's more insightful comment. Jack Merridew 03:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 diffs that show incivility over the course of a single discussion does not make the civility issue "persistent" unless you can demonstrate that she has acted in this manner other times in the recent past. I agree that the three diffs you provide are demonstrative of incivility, but since she has already been minnow-slapped I am not sure what else should be done as she has not engaged in behavior worthy of a block. I will add here, users should avoid calling names regardless of whether they become frustrated in the course of a discussion, and obviously continued and habitual incivility becomes a blockable offense if users persist after warnings, but this case is hardly an egregious example of incivility. The   Seeker 4   Talk  15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that someone of that experience has been incivil several times but a friendly warning from other experiences editors would probably be a good idea. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 12:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The minnow reference at the foot of her talk page was not directed at her; see WP:INDENT. Jack Merridew 03:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not seeking a block but posted here to prevent further escalation. I am further disappointed that this behavior came from a respected committee such as AC. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may get one the way you're going. Sheesh, Jack Merridew 03:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please resist from unhelpful comments such as the above. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 12:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * why? LibStar (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure NeonWhite was talking to Jack, not to you LibStar, though correct me if I am wrong. The   Seeker 4   Talk  13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct i was referring to Jack Merridew's comments. Not very helpful. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 15:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * merely your opinion ;) and the 'why' was directed at me, not you; you cut-in. Jack Merridew 15:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Doctor (title) page - Personal attack
Below is the relevent discussion from the talk page. Please note Fuzbaby has accused me of being unethical and has snipes in his comments.DoctorDW (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Most physical therapists in the US are not trained at the doctorate level. Most new programs now refer to themselves as doctorate (though they are only 3 years...thats another argument) so this will change in time. In any case, it is not appropriate for them to put themselves forward as a physician, so the title may be used as long as there is no confusion as to what their role is. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The degree awarded by virtually all physical therapy programs in the USA is Doctor of Physical Therapy. Additionally thousands of physical therapists have returned to university and obtained the DPT degree. Those who have earned the degree DPT use it in clinical, social, academic, and professional situations. Fuzbaby can you provide citations for your opinions? DoctorDW (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to, if you want to include it, you need to cite it. I must admit, my only experience is several years as an NP, a decade of medical training for a MD, and my current work, where a physical therapist refers to themself as "shock" a physical therapist, and any one that said they were a physician would be fired and referred to their governing body for disiplinary action; at least in the united states its illegal to claim to practice medicine without a medical license. As for numbers, you are correct that most programs are now doctorate of pt (even though calling them a doctorate is part of the new trend in quasi doctorate degrees), however, the majority of PTs in practice have not trained in that model. As I already mentioned, this will change with time as more people go through these programs. Regardless, only physicians refer to themselves in ways that imply they are a physician in a clinical situation, something that is hard to explain if a person has not been in said situation and knows what I am speaking of. Fuzbaby (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting your comments as fact.DoctorDW (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

'''Lol. (eyesroll)''' Fuzbaby (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

From your own source "In order to provide accurate information to consumers, physical therapists who have earned a Doctor of Physical Therapy Degree (DPT) and those who have earned other doctoral degrees and use the title "Doctor" in practice settings shall indicate they are physical therapists. Use of the title shall be in accordance with jurisdictional law." Exactly as I said; they must clearly indicate to the patients that they are not physicians. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) No. What you deleted was DPT's cannot call themselves doctor. Please refraim from the sarcasm and attitude the physicians I practice with are colleagial.DoctorDW (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"and only ones that are (DPT) can use doctor, and in patient setting making clear not a physician" The PTs I work with read before spouting off. Fuzbaby (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

summary statement is not referenced. If you want it back in cite a reference.DoctorDW (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Whats the point? You seem to remove it w/o reading references anyways so that you can push a pov. Fuzbaby (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Inserting a reference from a society for NPs & PAs who are not doctors does not apply to the topic at hand. Their position holds no bearing on anyone who is not an NP or PA. Use an appropriate reference.DoctorDW (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, many NPs and PAs have doctorate lvl degrees. I'm sorry to deflate your balloon. Fuzbaby (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The title of the section is use of the title doctor. Your reference does not go to the topic. You are reaching by using references to distort fact. Try being respectful for a change i'm pretty sure the AMA has a policy on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorDW (talk • contribs) 18:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC) By that logic then neither does any mention of PT as a doctor. Sorry, but the new trend is for allied health professions and mid levels to use quasi doctorate level training (and by that I simply mean not a PhD or MD lvl of training), and there is growing concern about role confusion in hospitals and clinics (some inadvertant, some intentionally unethical, as evidenced by your attitude here). The paragraph in question refers to all practitioners, not just ones you want it to refer to, so the reference is applicable. I've been giving you as much respect as I can muster for your obvious POV pushing. Perhaps you should take that advice, too. Fuzbaby (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a page soley about PTs. Please don't assume ownership of articles to push a certain pov. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing of the kind is occuring. You are pushing your POV that physicians are somehow superior and only other professions need to identify their role. All health care providers need to identify themselves properly. If a MD were to only say to a patient they are Dr. Fuzbaby and not indicate their specialty or in what capacity they were involved in the care of the patient it would be misleading. To not act in a colliegial manner has been identified as dusruptive behavior and a significant source of medical errors.DoctorDW (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello I was just having a little look at this dispute. Looking at the last edit by DoctorDW which has been reverted by WebHamster as uncited, this one [] Would you please comment on that edit DoctorDW. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC))


 * What is confounding to me is the edit by WebHamster is uncited. The language WebHamster removed was cited. What are your thoughts?DoctorDW (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a great deal of personal attack here, in fact considering you are at opposite ends of opinion over this doctor stuff you have both quite kept your cool quite well. You both seem intelligent, and are only clashing over your opposing opinions. Personal insults are always destructive, comment on the content and never the editor. Continuing to quarrel will only escalate the dispute. I would suggest if you want to edit an article be sure that you have a strong cite to back it up, otherwise do not add it until you have one. Use the talk page and be polite and respectful with each other.There is room in Wikipedia for both sides of the story, you can add ...so and so thinks this but so and so thinks the opposite. So shake hands and agree to differ. That is my advice.


 * Thanks for the advice. I will continue to use citations to support my work. I think the resolution to this is to point out the differences with appropriate citations.DoctorDW (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)