Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive79

Personal abuse from IP
Over the past month, this user has made over 20 attempts to delete a piece of sourced information at Phil Lynott, while leaving a number of abusive comments on the article, also on my talk page and now his own   after the article was semi-protected yesterday. A discussion was originally attempted at his first IP's talk page User talk:68.109.117.51 but he didn't respond at all, just continuing to vandalise. The vandalism is solved by the semi-protection, but I'm pretty weary of being ranted at and sworn at, to be honest. Can anything be done? Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * previously using the IP )
 * previously using the IP )
 * I'm going to list them at WP:AIV, nothing else to be done with someone who's making personal attacks like this. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 13:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89 making unfounded accusations and disrupting other editors to illistrate a point
Gerardw (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC) On the 3rd January 2010 User:Purplebackpack89 started a discussion about whether WikiProjects (except for WikiProject:Disambiguation]] should be able to tag Disambiguation pages. The discussion was on Talk:Lincoln and focussed mainly on WikiProject:Lincolnshire, who rated it a Dab/High. An extremely lenghthly discussion followed and in the end a concensus was reached and User:Xeno mediated and concluded that WikiProjects may tag articles. The following day, Purplebackpack89 began a discussion on the same topic at the WikiProject Council.

He began accussing the editor, User:BSTemple, of tagging it as a high to attract readers so that his point would be void. Dispite clearly losing again, he was and still is persistant, one editor is considering applying WP:Snow. He is now being disruptive and his increasingly anti-wikipedian attitude is leading to belive that he is trolling. I have left a kind message on his talk page asking him to move but he just ignored it. I would like someone to intervene. 95jb14 (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC).
 * On top of this, User:xeno added this note to Purplebackpacks talk page on the 04/01/10, which User:Purplebackpack subsequently deleted: this. 95jb14 (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

A few points
 * 1) I've edited for over a year and have a clean block record
 * 2) Discussion was made at WikiProject Council because a disproportionate number of English and Lincolnshire editors
 * 3) Just because something might be leaning SNOW isn't a reason to stop talking
 * 4) 95jb14 has edited quite a few articles in said Lincolnshire project

Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Think you forgot to finish the second bullet point? Gerardw (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you aren't accepting defeat in this case, you are becoming increasingly disruptive to other editors and this can tarnish your reputation. You have been editing for awhile so I'm not questioning your knowlege of Wikipedia but I do have one question: Why do you persistantly continue? Regardless of the instance, part of life and wikipedia is accepting defeat and now I feel it is time to move on away from this matter. The main reason I reported you hear is because you aren't doing that. 95jb14 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

Not seeing a Wikiquette issue here. As the discussion is well underway at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council discussion should probably just continue there. Gerardw (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Simanos and personal attacks
Simanos has continuously attacked myself and other editors. Moreover, he believes that he still hasn't attacked anyone, and done nothing wrong. User talk:Simanos is full of personal attacks from him, as well as my page User talk:Warrior4321. Further attacks are even found on Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate. warrior 4321  19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * User Simanos protected a page from a vandal, a proven sock-puppet IP who was banned and blocked several times and kept evading his blocks by changing IP and using the same insults on various editors (not only me). All I did after reverting the vandalism several times was to provide info on the talk page about the IP-hopper's racial slurs and aggression and also logic behind the reverts (not that it was needed against such an obvious vandal, but I did provide it, along with others like Ministerforbadtimes and Nev1 and others). Then I told the evader to go away and that we editors of wikipedia would remain vigilant against his abuse and to get a life. Warrior4321 went on a crazy spree of warning various editors for inexistant crimes/aggression, not just me. And I called a spade a spade. That is all. He's embarrassing himself by continuing this charade really. Not to mention his past on that kind of pages either... Simanos (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that you repeatedly attacked other editors and myself. Fine, the IP editor is now a banned-sockpuppet, that doesn't explain why you constantly attacked me with insults. You were directed to Wikipedian guidelines such as (WP:NPA) several times, yet you never really understood it or just plainly ignored it. You still don't understand that you -are- attacking editors and you need to stop, that is why I am requesting support from the community, so that further events as such won't occur. So, no I'm not "embarrassing myself" just because I'm asking support from the community. Rather, you are embarrassing yourself when you don't know what being civil and personal attacks are after constant explanations.


 * Furthermore, please do not state what you do not know. I did not go on a "crazy spree" and give various editors warnings that they did not deserve. Every editor which received a warning deserved it. warrior  4321  04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Be the IP user a proven sock, it doesn't justify your inappropriate behavior, like attacking this User:Warrior4321 who at the beginning did nothing apart from placing a warning template on your talk page, believing you are overdoing it. You could do much better than calling him "crazy", IMHO. And you are still using words like "crazy spree" here. Seriously, That's not really very civil. Also, if you disliked the sock(neither do I), you could have reported him @ ANI earlier, instead of flaming at him. Others might not be very pleasant to see you two flamming on each other.Blodance (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not attack the sock-puppet, did you even read the talk-page? I did not call him any names or insults. Warrior4321 is the only one flaming and not leaving this to rest. He shouldn't even have started it. Simanos (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole first paragraph of this section is a joke. Warrior4321 says I continuously attacked him and other editors(plural) when it's only one other editor in this whole matter (the banned sock-puppets, all of them). Even if I had attacked them (which I didn't) he's just using here another impression tactic by using a vague plural "editors" weasel word. Then he goes on to link entire pages instead of specific examples to show off again, but there is no substance in his accusations. That is why other editors like Nev1, MFBT, etc actually supported me in all 3 pages he linked. Warrior4321 jumped the gun in warning me, he shouldn't have. And he's not being a man and admitting he was wrong so we can drop this. That is all. Simanos (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did read the talk page, and I think although that sock is a major dick indeed, calling him a "Iranian POV pusher" and telling him to "get a life" is still not very civil. His wrong does not make you right. As User:Warrior4321 did not seem to be involved in the argument between you and the IP sock, I don't think there's a ground to assume bad faith. So, to be honest, you really look more like the one who's flamming than him. Look, you already started to abf on me, and maintained that he is exclusively responsible for this. This is not very cool. Chill, dude. Blodance (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a POV pusher is common is Wikipedia and not a personal attack or insult, especially when there's ample evidence to prove it as is the case here (and when there's proven banned sock-puppet involved). I'm sorry but you're stretching your credibility. BTW Warrior4321 does have a past with me and with the article that you missed. You're not doing a good job so far mate. Warrior4321 jumped the gun in warning me and should apologise. He should also apologise for wasting our time and for creating this preposterous wiki alert here. I'm only calling a spade a spade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPADE Simanos (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blodance is saying that I am not involved in the discussion of personal attacks between you and the IP editor. This is true, I am not involved in that discussion, so he is "doing a good job so far" [in trying to solve this dispute]. He is not lying. Please read what he is writing carefully. warrior  4321  17:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, Simanos, calling someone a POV pusher is a personal attack, and is not highly looked upon. I would highly recommend that you back off here and either drop the issue or (even better) apologize to Warrior4321 for lashing out against him unnecessarily. NW ( Talk ) 17:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep citing WP:SPADE, yet entirely ignoring WP:NOSPADE which is right there in the See Also section of the WP:SPADE page. And you don't even understand the spirit of WP:SPADE. "One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks."/"there is still a requirement for editors to be reasonably civil to each other." you can point out his inappropriate behavior, but it doesn't automatically grant you the right to be uncivil and/or insult him personally. For example, "This is POV due to... yet you still keep promoting it despite the consensus, therefore you look like a POV pusher" is not an insult; "this Iranian POV pusher" is. And, please make one thing clear: I'm not a lawyer defending Warrior4321, nor an investigator trying to find out "which of you is guilty". I'm an uninvolved editor trying to resolve this dispute. The dispute emerges from the article talk and I've only checked the talk page and both your talkpages, I did not go all the way to check all your previous contribs. This is not that reasonable. If you two did have issues before, please explicitly state what it was. Being excessively aggressive does nothing helpful to make you right. Contrastly, I believe many would, after seeing all your comments here, think you are the wrong side.Blodance (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're misusing the nospade page. It is an advice, it states "It can be tempting when dealing with such individuals to "call a spade a spade" However, doing so is not a necessary part of dealing effectively with them, and it can be a very bad idea." and also "At this point, many of us will be tempted to declare that our opponent is clearly a "POV pusher" or a "vandal" or "has a conflict of interest" or "is trolling". This public accusation is sometimes referred to as "calling a spade a spade", but such name-calling or labeling can be uncivil and can even cross the line into a personal attack.". Note the "can be" in every sentence. It means it isn't always. In my case as the SPADE page says "Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review.". This is sort of the case here. I made no personal attacks against the IP sock, I merely presented facts and the truth (with evidence). And Warrior4321 was the one who cited the erroneous policy. Simanos (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WIN, dude... Anyway, I'm giving up mediating - User:Simanos seems to have a strong intention to "win the war between him and Warrior4321". I don't think Wikiquette alerts can resolve this dispute, therefore I recommend closing it as Stuck. Blodance (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't give up, think of the children :p Seriously though, I agree with you, this has been a complete waste of time for all involved and should be closed. Simanos (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As the guy who first wrote the NOSPADE page, here's my perspective. "Calling a spade a spade" is incredibly misguided, counterproductive behavior, no question. It doesn't make anything better. Doing things that don't make anything better is not an appropriate use of the Wiki. Personal frustration should be vented offline, and calling someone a vandal, troll, or whatever, never helps. Do things that help, and don't do things that don't help. The rule to remember is "comment on the content, not the contributor". If you find yourself making any claims about another editor as a person, and what their nasty motives must be, then you're behaving inappropriately and should stop. Learn to deal with disputes at the content level, and not at the personal level. If you don't know how to do that, ask. Please let me know if any of this is unclear. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But I didn't call anyone a banned sock-puppet POV pusher. I showed evidence that they were. There is a difference. I was merely informing the other editors of that page of facts that they may not be aware of, to put the argument in perspective and that I was not edit-warring, but reverting vandalism. Say "reverting vandalism" in the edit summary is not enough, I like to provide evidence. I also commented on the content of the IP editor and gave logical reasons why he was wrong. The facts about him being banned were added bonus ^.^ Simanos (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you called anyone anything. I tried to keep my remarks very general. If you're correcting POV edits, you can do that based on the edits, whether they're made by a banned POV-pusher or by Jimbo Wales. An edit summary of "reverting POV edits" is enough, especially if you explain on the talk page why the edits are bad. (Hint: it's not because of who made them.) If someone is evading a ban, go to someone who can do something about that - an admin. We'll block them if we can see they're a banned user. Talking to them is beyond pointless. Also, it's really best to reserve the word "vandalism" for blatant cases such as inserting dirty words, page blanking, etc. If it could possibly look like a content dispute to any observer, then it's a content dispute. If you need help dealing with such a situation, I and many other admins are happy to take a look at it. Simply "informing editors" of another editor's identity or block record is not a very good strategy, in the sense that it tends not to do anything useful. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, all I'm saying is that by this logic the "WP:WIN, dude..." that Blodance wrote above to me could also be considered a veiled personal attack. Think about it. You need to grow a thicker skin. That troll of a sock should not have been given the satisfaction of this waste of time of and Warrior4321 is the primary culprit. Simanos (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, maybe Warrior4321 has a past with you, but please explicitly state why would *I* have such a strong intention to "defeat" you and therefore must resort to personal attacks. I don't. Thanks. Blodance (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say you had a strong intention to defeat me. I said that given this reasoning (for my warning) a similar warning could be issued for your statement which was a veiled personal attack of sorts (implying I'm an arrogant fluke who wants to win arguments on the internet). Please do not distort my words and vandalise what I say so clearly. I don't actually think you should be warned (nor me) Simanos (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only past I had with Simanos was a small discussion on Talk:Battle of Thermopylae and his own talk page. I have never been once been uncivil to him, the same cannot be said for him. And when you say Look, all I'm saying is that by this logic the "WP:WIN, dude..." that Blodance wrote above to me could also be considered a veiled personal attack. you are incorrect. Directing editors to guidelines that they are simply advising you should read is not an attack. Did you ask the IP editor to read WP:NPOV? No, you chose to tell him to "get a life" and "get lost" and called him "our iranian IP POV pusher". Those are personal attacks. Furthermore, Warrior4321 is the primary culprit. Excuse me? I have only tried to let you understand what a personal attack is as well as trying to stop you from further insulting me. warrior  4321


 * It seems that you had even insulted editors on Talk:Battle of Thermopylae. Hahaha that link you gave says: It is based on material from the Wikipedia article "Battle of Thermopylae"., good going dude, you made me laugh. Epic Fail on source finding. Evenyour own link though contradicts your claim of 15000 Persians. - Statements as such are personal attacks. warrior  4321  00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the same IP sock dude. Get better arguments and grow a thicker skin. We can't all be humourless pendants. Maybe it's you who should have gotten the WP:WIN veiled insult oops I mean fair direction to guidelines. Double standard much? Simanos (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, Talk:Miraculous catch of fish

 * History2007 considers an issue-- 153 (number)-- WP:Fringe (it seems) because there is so not any scholarly agreement on the meaning of it (153 in John 21) and in fact any scholarly agreement seems to be that it is not symbolism-- or that any former symbolism of it is lost forever. It is also not discused at all by many or most writers on John 21.
 * Viriditas thinks it is not WP:Fringe because it has been written about in print, and because there is no text that tells him "this is a fringe issue." He wants in inclued, with all the views, in Miraculous catch of fish (Miraculous catch of fish covers passages besides John 21 also) and that article aready links to 153 (number), and could be linked to Bible Numerics. Viriditas is now uncivil, etc. He also began attacking and misinterpting User:7390r0g who has commented as an outside oppion.
 * I basiclly agree with History2007 but feel that even if 153 in John 21 weren't "fringe" (and it is) it would still be more correctly covered in the other article(s). User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 10:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute that belongs on the NPOV/RS board. The incivility actually began with disruptive behavior by Carlaude on the WikiProject Christianity project page and contines on Talk:Miraculous catch of fish, where Carlaude and History2007 have been working together to stonewall discussion.  This all started when I made several mundane procedural cleanup requests at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity.  Carlaude decided to respond to my requests by changing the subject and disruptively blanking my request for help on the project page.  I later started a merge discussion (which turned into an RFC) on the article talk page, and Carlaude continued to make a bizarre series of edits, restoring old, deprecated discussions and non-working links and attempting to disrupt the RFC itself.  History2007 disappeared for four days, then returned to unilaterally merge the disputed pages, while Carlaude unilaterally moved the article.  Both of these changes were made during an active RFC discussion, yet History2007 and Carlaude ignored it and implemented the changes without contributing to the discussion about the changes.  Repeated requests for clarification of their two positions results in continued off-topic discussion, changing the subject, and wikilawyering.  Recently, History2007 has threatened to edit war and revert any edits I make without even bothering to discuss them.  Both Carlaude and History2007 are having trouble understanding the concept of proposing edits before making them, which is my entire purpose in trying to engage them in discussion.  Neither editor is willing to look at the sources or the material that I have offered, instead dismissing it out of hand as "fringe".  When asked for an explanation of how the biblical scholars who published in respected, peer-reviewed journals can be considered fringe, or when asked for the names of scholars who call this material fringe, I am met with silence.  As for User:7390r0g, this account has been around for a while, causing serious problems on the Obama talk pages, and most recently Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, where the user followed me over to hound me on  Talk:Miraculous catch of fish. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Viriditas still seems intent on beating his drum/ dead horse from now until Doomsday. If no one sees fit to comment, please consider recomending a different place to post this concern. Thank you. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 05:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're in the wrong place. If this dispute is still active, and you want someone to help you figure out whether the concept is fringe-y or not according to Wikipedia's definition of that term, then try Fringe theories/Noticeboard.  To figure out whether the idea is important enough to mention in the article, try Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.  Please be prepared to describe any sources that mention the idea (or the steps you've taken to search for high-quality sources, if you haven't been able to find any.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:QueenofBattle
Queen has decided to move on to greener pastures and decided to leave with a few personal attacks. Since Queen followed me to my talk page, I figured I'd just post the offending comments here and have them resolved. See [] and [] are glaring examples. Since Queen is retiring, I see no reason to put up with him anymore. RTRimmel (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If they are actually leaving, then you won't have any more problems with them. Just remove those remarks from your talk page and forget it is my advice. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * QueenofBattle is still editing and has restored personal attacks on their user page [] Gerardw (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

SkagitRiverQueen making unfounded accusations
I have had to deal with this person continually since before Christmas. Someone posted questionable content to her talk page, whereupon she intitiated an unfounded sock case against me at Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie/Archive. Then she filed a report here about me. Next she popped up at Black Dahlia, an article upon which she had never previously edited, to revert something I removed and has maintained a overly long, ridiculously drawn out discussion with editors there. At one point, Crohnie admonished her for treating her like "an idiot or something". Next she popped up at Charles Manson, also an article upon which she had not previously edited, to throw herself into an issue I was involved in and making unsupported statements, which she has proceeded to edit war over. She then joined WP:CRIME, a project in which I'm active. It is quote obvious she is stalking my edits. Finally tonight, another editor came to Talk:Black Dahlia to enter a content vote, and SkagitRiverQueen made an outright accusation against me of canvassing votes, where she clearly and unequivocably said "It's obvious that some editors have been canvassed specifically to sway the vote (and am I making an accusation here? yes, indeed, I am)." I asked her to withdraw her comment and her response was "And, frankly, regardless of whether or not I can prove it, I don't believe that you *haven't* canvassed for input here." She was clearly challenged on this by LaVidaLoca here and Pinkadelica here. I want this editor to stop following me around, picking tenditious arguments and making specious and unfounded accusations against me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I endorse these comments by Wildhartlivie. I object to the specious claim that my opinion was canvassed in anyway and believe SkagitRiverQueen's intent is tenditious and assaultive in nature. For the record, she has reverted the Manson article 3 times, even after she was asked not to edit war over it. It appears to me that she is wikihounding Wildhartlivie and would take exception to anything she says or does. This is an untenable situation that needs to stop. LaVidaLoca (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As the editor who instigated the preliminary consensus vote (and as such a possible cohort in the WP:CANVASS), I must agree that this claim against Wildhartlivie is specious and unwarranted. I have attempted to instruct SkagitRiverQueen on the proper way to engage in disputes (mainly not attacking other editors based on perceived editing style).  This has not worked as of yet.  I do see a pattern of "wikihounding" here on SkagitRiverQueen's part, as do many other editors, and this has persisted for some time.  This feud must end... Doc9871 (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO, this is purely retaliation by Wildhartlivie for the sock-puppet investigation (exactly why it's the first thing she mentioned in the complaint even though the issue has been over and done for nearly a couple of weeks, now). Not only is she reverting practically everything I have edited recently, she is now reverting entire sections of large articles I have edited.  On top of that, she continues to call me by an inflammatory name ("Skag" - I have noted on my User Page it is *not* an acceptible contraction of my user name; she even mentioned earlier today that she has read that admonition on my user page that is a known slang term for women who have less than savory reputations).  Now, in addition to everything else, she has placed an "edit war" warning on my talk page *after* she filed this report.  I am not in an edit war - and am actually trying to reason with the editor of that article who has been reverting my recent edits.  Wildhartlivie has publically called my mental and emotional health into question here in Wikipedia on more than one occasion.  Additionally, she has a questionable history that includes abuse of her rollback privileges (see User talk:Wildhartlivie for the warning she recently received and User talk:GTBacchus for her responses to the warning), continued incivility to anyone who edits articles she watches, and canvassing her Wikipedia friends to back her up whenever her edits or actions are called into question (above content from LaVidaLoca is proof of this).  And yes, I do believe she canvassed editors by email regarding the issue we have been discussing at Talk:Black Dahlia. Concerning this complaint, you will likely also hear from User:Doc9871, User:Pinkadelica, User:Crohnie, User:Rossrs, User:Vidor, and User:Equazcion - all editors she has canvassed in the past when she feels she needs support in one of her efforts to prove me wrong.  Evidence of this can be found at, , , , .  In those instances, she out-and-out lied that I mentioned four of those editors in any fashion - yet, her message to them gave them the impression I had.  Until yesterday, Wildhartlivie's reverts have usually been improperly used rollbacks without any reason given to the editors who made the edits that were reverted.  On the internet (outside of Wikipedia) she has a reputation for being controlling over Wikipedia articles (to the point of discouraging new editors from contributing) and is seen as someone who feels she owns articles.  On the website, Vox, she referred to herself on September 9, 2009 as "Wildhartlivie a wikipedia celebrity special interests agent".  In describing herself at that website she stated, "Yes I  control all the celebrity content on Wikipedia."  She has a harassing, heavy-handed attitude in editing and reverting edits and, IMO, is - simply put - a bully and the kind of Wikipedia editor who makes Wikipedia an unfriendly place to be.  -- SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * SRQ, you've just named seven (7) editors that agree with Wildhartlivie on this particular issue. If you believe were are just automatons, bound to Livie's "canvassing", no matter what the issue... you are both giving too much credit to Wildhartlivie, and insulting (at least) seven other editors.  This has possibly passed beyond the realm of "wikihounding"... Doc9871 (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. This is not retaliatory for the sock accusation, please spare us the injured party act. This is a complaint about an overt and unabashed accusation of WP:CANVASS. I inadvertently typed her name without "itRiverQueen". That wasn't intentional, but then again why would someone use a username "that is a known slang term for women who have less than savory reputations"? The 3RR warning was absolutely correct, she did revert 3 times. The editor on that talk page said to her "You are now arguing — and editing — in bad faith." She clearly has a vendetta against me and is exercising it at every turn. I do not have a questionable history on Wikipedia, but now that SkagitRiverQueen brings it up, I wonder how User:GTBacchus got wind of the reversions of inappropriate removal of country of birth and death, which I maintain bordered on vandalism? That she knows about it indicates she was the catalyst for it. Do you deny it, SkagitRiverQueen? That is where she got her mention of inappropriate use of rollback, and after the discussion of which GTBacchus decided to not act on it. I would mention that SkagitRiverQueen had her own rollback removed recently when she successfully blamed her cellphone for two separate rollback comments on User:Crohnie's talk page, almost 2 hours apart. And for all that, why is this editor so familiar with how I edit and where that is?? Like I said for her accusations of canvass, prove it when you claim I have a pattern of incivility. I don't know where she scared up her "outside of Wikipedia" comments but I do not belong to Vox and those comments were not made by me. Whoever opened that account doesn't even spell my username correctly all the time. I will disclose to any interested administrators where I suspect that content came from (an editor who kept posting on celebrity talk pages about their salaries and who hacked a twitter account called Wildhartlivie2, and posted an annotated copy of my contributions history which is referenced on that page and which twitter would not remove). All of that crap is contained on that page and I have contacted that website to request its removal as harassment. It's preposterous to think that I would post such nonsense and specious and vindictive to conclude it is me. And even if I did, what does anything off of Wikipedia matter here anyway? I am not interested in SkagitRiverQueen's personal opinion of me, but I do want her to stop stalking my edits and causing problems with me. This is a specious and unwarranted attack upon me which qualifies as violating all behavioral guidelines on Wikipedia. Please look at her recent editing history for confirmation. I'm quite sure the editors she mentioned would object to her claim that they do what I ask and are mindlessly under my control. Perhaps they just happen to more often than not agree with me. Please make SkagitRiverQueen back off and leave me alone and stop stalking me here. And as I stated here before, my comments were characterizations regarding her accusations, not an opinion or diagnosis about her mental health. Methinks thou doth protest too much. And for the record, I did not lie and tell editors they were under discussion, when you blatantly named people who were bullies in your complaint further up the page here. Meanwhile, you're already involving yourself in dispute with another editor at Talk:Charles Manson. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks ever so much for the pronouncement about my endorsement of the complaint against you, SkagitRiverQueen: "above content from LaVidaLoca is proof of this". For your information I can read perfectly well and I am perfectly able to draw my own conclusions. Please stop attacking editors who agree with Wildhartlivie as being mindless puppets who cannot make up their own minds. You're stalking Wildhartlivie around Wikipedia and that is quite obvious to observers. Please stop denigrating my ability to think for myself. Did it ever occur to you that a group of editors who work together congenially may agree on many things? Not from the record of disputes I've seen you in. LaVidaLoca (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x 2) You're damn skippy I'm gonna comment - my name is mentioned! First of all SkagitRiverQueen, please tell me how Wildhartlivie canvassed me to do anything when I've never commented on any article or any other issue involving the two of you outside of The Black Dahlia (which I had watchlisted after making some minor edits to it on December 30)? That diff you provided from my talk page just shows she left me a message expressing her frustration with dealing with your accusations. She has that right. Can you provide a diff where I responded or even commented on the WP:WQA thread she cited? If not, that's not canvassing at all. Second, her internet reputation? Seriously? What is that and where can I find out about my internet rep? Is there some kind of internet bathroom wall that one can find this information on? Off-Wiki behavior (or internet rep if you will) has no bearing on-Wiki unless it involves meatpuppetry or some other violation of policy. Your examples do not cite meatpuppetry or anything of that nature. Wildhartlivie can claim she's the queen of Sheba who rules Wikipedia with an iron fist off-Wiki and it won't amount to a hill of beans here. The fact that SkagitRiverQueen hasn't provided any off-site diffs to these horrible comments along with evidence that Wildhartlivie is driving new contributors away is telling but again, they don't matter here anyway. To be honest, I've no idea what the hell happened between SkagitRiverQueen and Wildhartlivie, but it's quite obvious SkagitRiverQueen's overall attitude towards Wildhartlive (and anyone who is on decent terms with her) could do with a huge improvement. My limited dealings with SkagitRiverQueen has not been what you would call positive or collegial either but I suppose that's more collateral damage than anything else. My advise to SkagitRiverQueen is to leave Wildhartlivie alone once and for all. You've accused her of sockpuppetry and I don't know what else and none of that has panned out. Enough already. We all encounter editors we don't like - avoid them. If you can't bear to tear yourself away from certain articles that Wildhartlivie also edits because you "care about the project" so much, consider an enforced Wikibreak. That will put everything into perspective which is something that is sorely needed here. There's no dispute or slight worth following an editor to various article and kicking up trouble in an effort to bait them and get them banned. That rarely works out the way you intended it to and, to put it plainly, it's psycho behavior.  Pinkadelica ♣ 

My advice is this, all of you apologize to each other for misunderstandings and hurt feelings, and then you go and do some article work, and resolve to avoid future conflicts. Seriously, all of you appear to have complaint, and all of you seem to have been mistreated, the win/lose mentality that seems to be prevalent here (the idea that one has to show that the others are wrong or have behaved worse than you), is non-constructive. Try and look at your own actions rather than the actions of others. To be honest with you I'm not interested in trawling through this debate just so that I can say who is wrong or right (and no doubt all of you are a bit of each). The most constructive way forward from this would be to apologize and attempt to avoid future conflict, if its necessary to avoid each other as a means of avoiding future conflict then so be it. This is only my advice/opinion, and others may think differently. Kindest regards to each of you, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very.. non-committal! Thanks for the "piercing" insight into the heart of the debate, without the bother of "trawling" through it.  Seriously, it's good to get outside opinions here, though... Doc9871 (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I remind you that everyone here volunteers their own time in an effort to improve the project, try to be more appreciative of that. The reason that I was non-committal is because I realise that the world isn't black-and-white, its not always necessary to be on a side. If you were interested in resolving this debate via reconciliation and co-operation then you would simply have apologized. However, since you seem to want to have it resolved by either wining or losing I will now trawl through this pig-sty of a "debate" and form an opinion upon it, which I will share with you in due course. Since this thread is so littered with unfounded accusations it may take me some time to try and find evidence, please be patient. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Schweet! I just love a party... Doc9871 (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * you know, I am inspired to create a 'tea party' template, which reminds everyone that sometimes you just need to sit down, sip some tea, and talk about sophisticated things (the works of Baudelaire, the philosophy of Kant, the current chances of the Knicks). A good cup of tea puts everything into perspective, and makes all the tawdry little conflicts of life seem like distant clouds on the horizon.  life without tea would be dreary indeed...
 * So, you're all grumpy as hell, everyone is feeling hurt, and everyone is trying to make sure that everyone else feels just as hurt as they do (if not more). If it weren't so funny it would be sad; or maybe that's the other way around.  either way, stop it.  everyone already feels like crap, and trying to squeeze a little bit more crap out of each other isn't going to produce much in the way of results.  You've all lost the argument, because even if you get a little thrill out of putting down one of the others it's not going to help you get what you all really want, which is a bit of respect and a bit of consideration.  So get over it, and get back to working on content, and don't think you're impressing the rest of us with this display, because you're not.
 * I recommend Darjeeling, though (of course) that is a matter of personal taste. -- Ludwigs 2  09:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I could use a Earl Grey right now, Ludwigs.
 * Personally I believe that your above comment contains two-fold the amount of wisdom than all of my rambling below, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A-freakin'-men. The winner will be the first person to drop this, and everyone else who drops it also wins. You guys clearly don't like each other; stop talking about each other. Start ignoring accusations - nobody's going to actually be injured by them. You've all got mud on you now; break it up, go home, do laundry. I've seen lots of people try to seek "justice" on Wikipedia: 99% of them end up very sad and upset as a result. Please let it go; the current trajectory leads nowhere pretty. Please let it go, SkagitRiverQueen and Wildhartlivie. You're on a path that leads nowhere good. Please come off that path, please. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What I'm going to do is provide a "piercing" piece of advice for each of you, although you are welcome to read my comments on everyone, I ask that you focus more on my comments on you. My comments regarding you will probably be rather harsh, but I ask that they are accepting in the spirit in which they are made; in an attempt to help you to improve your editing. As I have said above in my "piercing insight into the heart of the debate" its important to focus on your own behaviour rather than that of others, as is often said here; "do not look at the speck in your brother/sister's eye, but instead consider the plank in your own eye" (hypocritical of me to say that straight before rushing in to tell you all where and how to improve, but hey! ) SkagitRiverQueen: The main concern against you is that you are wiki-stalking Wildhartlivie. I am aware of the fact that its very easy to stumble across editors that we know simply by coincidence, especially since the editors that we know are most often those who work in similar area's to us, for instance, if I patrol the new pages regularly, then it is likely that I come across other users who do the same, and these are not always users who I agree with or get along with. I can thoroughly appreciate the need to correct their edits, however, its important to ask yourself before doing so: "is it actually going to be constructive for me to get involved here?" A lot of the time the answer to this will be no, if becoming involved in the issue is going to make the situation even worse then simply walk away. If you really feel that its necessary to become involved in the matter then make sure you do so in a polite and constructive way. For instance, at Charles Manson you appear to have made your edits without discussing them first, although its unfair to expect you to discuss every edit before you make it, you continued to attempt to introduce your edits without proper discus in an attempt to form consensus. My advice to you is to attempt to stay away from editing articles that users who you have had previous disagreements with are involved in, if you really feel it necessary then attempt to communicate with them in a polite and civil way (not to say that you haven't been civil in the past) and discuss the changes. Wildhartlivie: Although you don't appear to have been wiki-stalking SkagitRiverQueen, your conduct in discussions with them is of more concern, I can perfectly understand that its difficult to maintain a civil demeanour towards all editors, especially if you feel that your edits are being stalked. However, its important to be polite well mannered at all times. For this reason you should not have persisted in calling SkagitRiverQueen "Skag", particular as you did so after she had asked you to stop. You are not excused from this simply because the word "Skag" is located in SkagitRiverQueen's user name, technically I can do the following with your username: wil dhart l iv ie, however, that does not make it acceptable for me to call you a "willie", nor would I. Furthermore to this, simply because someone else does something does not make it acceptable for you to do it. In short; try and maintain a civil demeanour at all times, even if others do not. Pinkadelica: calling other user's behavior "psycho" is rude and in-civil, please don't do it. Doc9871, Pinkadelica and LaVidaLoca (on the subject of canvassing): you should be aware that SkagitRiverQueen's accusation of canvassing against Wildhartlivie is in no way a personal attack against you, nor should you interpret it as such. It was an accusation against Wildhartlivie, and she didn't refer to you as mindless puppets or automatons. Further comments about canvassing @ SkagitRiverQueen: SkagitRiverQueen, its a bad idea to accuse editors of things which cannot be proven, its against the principal of assuming good faith and it generally encourages a mistrustful and tense editing space. To all of you: now seriously, please apologize to each other, leave this behind you, and attempt to avoid future conflict. That's the best was to resolve a conflict like this. (Well, outside of a cup of tea anyway, as noted by Ludwigs above) Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have to say something but there is something that is seriously concerning to me and that is SkagitRiverQueen bothering to even look for Wildhartlivie on the net. She accused me of WP:Hounding and other things that I ignored and deleted from my talk page.  I warned Wildhartlivie to back off because I was worried that SRQ would look her up and look, she's done just that. But I guess this is now closed and we are all supposed to apologize.  Well I may have missed this report but I think this needs attentions of an administrator.  We can't have editors looking for people on the net that they feel hurt by or angry with.  Sorry I couldn't have said my piece about this since I am the one being accused of being a meatpuppet.  Thanks anyways for trying User:Spitfire and User:Ludwigs2 (hi there, hope you are well. :))  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * well enough for 4am, thank you very much. And I hope the same for you.  no worries, no one in their right mind would mistake you for a meatpuppet.    -- Ludwigs 2  11:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Crohnie, you're right that trying to discover and reveal the identity of another editor is a problem. SkagitRiverQueen, if you're reading here, you probably will want to know that attempted "outing" is considered a rather severe violation of community standards. If you disagree with someone's edits, it's because of their edits, and not because of who they are. If you just focus on the edits, and leave off with all personal remarks, you'll find the drama dissipating like the morning mist. Just find a way to remove comments about other editors from your vocabulary entirely. No decision on this site is based on personal matters; we only care about edits. If you can manage to only talk about edits, the road will rise up to meet you. If you keep talking about other editors, it's gonna get ugly. That's a guarantee, because I've seen it happen so many times. Please, just leave off all possible personal remarks, and restrict your comments to edits. Please, don't make this boil over and get messy, please. Rise above it all, like a dove on the wind. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize some might say I don't have much credibility here amongst other long term editors, but I wanted to add that SRQ seems to act in a manner that she owns wikipedia and the rest of us are visiting. This is based on the sockpuppet deal she began where she accused up to 4-5 people all being socks of one another. In the end, it was proven not to be true. Additionally, this editor will complain to admins over the smallest, nit-picky issues you can imagine as opposed to simply communicating with other editors. When you do make changes she doesn't like, she will promptly label you a vandal in an attempt to discredit you. Or more recently, a sockpuppet. She also seems to edit against others in a vindictive manner. MisterSoup (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh, MisterSoup. Your credibility is weakened (at least with me) not because of your new status, but because of your proven vandalism to SRQ's page.  We know you don't like SRQ, but vandalizing a user's page is so not the way to go about it demonstrating your dislike.   Happy editing! :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse my tardiness. I've been out of town all week. Per WP:TLDR, I haven't read through this extensively, but I have some general things to say. SRQ in my opinion does tend to make unfounded accusations. It's her default response to most disagreements, in lieu of having to heed any degree of criticism. I realize some people (GTBacchus, namely) see this as a "trouts all around" situation, as I probably also would if I came in at this point, but that's not what this is; and as CrohnieGal suggested once, those who doubt this should pay attention to the pages (especially the discussion pages) that SRQ frequents, to see for yourself. All I can say is that I entered this situation as an onlooker myself. I had no dogs in the fight and only sought to mediate. I defended SRQ on several occasions when I felt she was right, or at least worthy of leniency. I never had any reason to bully her or conspire with others against her. But when I started disagreeing with her, she started flinging accusations, and yes I did get pissed off. That doesn't mean, however, that everyone here is an equal contributor to this dispute. SRQ's demeanor is a problem. I've got a list of diffs and explanation (meant originally to be a response to another exchange, but saved for later if it becomes necessary), but I don't think it would be very useful here. WQA is a place where all you can really hope for is for everyone to acquiesce, and I believe from experience that SRQ will never admit that her behavior was ever a problem. So we'll have to wait until this becomes more of a direct policy violation issue (I see that has already begun somewhat) before anything can really be done about it.  Equazcion ( talk ) 06:43, 9 Jan 2010 (UTC)


 * ""But I can't and won't say that I know I was edit-warring and that I think this block is just because (a) I know I wasn't edit warring, I was just plain editing, and (b) I won't compromise my integrity by saying I did something I know I didn't do. I really wish you would look into the other editor(s) involved here..". From the horse's mouth on the second denied "unblock" request, as I posted on the "hounded" editors talk page.  "...I believe from experience that SRQ will never admit that her behavior was ever a problem."  I fully agree: see above... Doc9871 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've communicated with SkagitRiverQueen by email, and I'm going to repeat (or paraphrase) here what I've written off-wiki. From SkagitRiverQueen's perspective, pursuing this as a behavior issue is unlikely to go well. I am more than willing to join the participants in any article editing situation and work in context. I don't like treating behavior issues in the abstract, because Wikipedia is not Night Court. If there's not a specific edit to talk about, then we're misusing the wiki to be talking about anything at all. I am confident that we can get through whatever issues exist here by leaving this board, moving to some article, and working together on it. I would like if someone here would pick a particular about which there is disagreement, and we can start there. If Equazcion is right, that will become apparent. If SRQ is right, that will become apparent. If Wildhartlivie is right, that will become apparent. If I'm wrong, that will become apparent. Right now, all I'm getting is "he said, she said, they did, I might...." I have no reason to believe or disbelieve any of it until I see it happening, in real-time. SRQ's block expires soon. Which article shall we reconvene at, to work this out? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, give it a go at Black Dahlia. I think we would appreciate you there.  See you there! :)  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Request
Could someone assess the civility and good faith at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling? 208.120.153.110 (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened to new section?
Just yesterday I posted a new section requesting advice regarding an uncivil user. It seems to have disappeared, with no trace left in the history. Could anyone enlighten me as to what happened? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're misremembering the page you posted on; it was WP:EAR. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thank you. I hadn't realized just how deeply I had burrowed in.  Yes, a cup of coffee helps, and heavy on the sugar.  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Phoenix7777 and invalid warnings
Please see. Phoenix7777's threat to block Bendono and a vandalism3 warning to me (also, his diff shows I did indeed provide an edit summary) seem to be a bullying tactic. I acknowledge I was a bit blunt in my response. Can other editors have a word with him? -- Neil N   talk to me  05:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I request NeilN to be warned of a false accusation to me. NeilN said "Do not threaten editors with blocks as you are not an admin". So I explained the warning of block is not limited to admin saying "Is this template for admin only?" with vandalism3 template. Then NeilN accused me of "a vandalism3 warning to me". And NeilN accused me "you are the one repeatedly removing sourced content". However I reverted only once his/her edit. Although NeilN is an involved person who reverted the edit, he/she never participated in the discussion and abruptly came to warn me of civility and brought this case here. His/her "sourced content" was proved to be inappropriate to be placed in the article. Please see Talk:Onigiri ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Y'all need to take this here instead. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 09:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a wikiquette issue here, I think. Phoenix7777 came to my attention by deleting a sentence in which I had just repaired an ambiguous link, because it lacked a source. This editor's contribution history shows a pattern of similar deletions of content. Evidently, as NeilN complains, Phoenix7777 routinely deals in this way with content that seems doubtful to Phoenix7777. Of course, this behavior by Phoenix7777 antagonizes other contributors.

NeilN, editors may warn one another about blocks. Sometimes the warnings are appropriate, sometimes not. Inexperienced editors are prone to make mistakes.

Phoenix7777, as I explained on your talk page, the courteous way of dealing with such content is to tag it fact or dubious or similar, and explain your concern on the talk page. Even better, because it is far more efficient and constructive, would be for you to learn to search for a reliable source and, if you find one, properly format it and add it to the article. If you do not find one, then tag the content. That you did not find a source suggests but does not prove the content is wrong. Only when you are absolutely sure that the content is wrong should you delete it. Build Wikipedia yourself, rather than tear down others' efforts to build it. I do understand the appeal of only deleting content; it is so much easier. But it is the lazy, discourteous way.

All of you, please try to be gracious and forgiving of others' mistakes. Behave toward others as you may wish others to behave toward you, when you make mistakes.

That said, there is a content dispute between Phoenix7777 and other editors concerning Onigiri. That content dispute belongs elsewhere, not here, but I expect that after all these editors calm down a little, they will be able to resolve the dispute themselves on Onigiri rather than a noticeboard.

Best wishes. --Una Smith (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Talk page warnings are not a Wikiquette violation or bullying. Per WP:BOLD I see nothing wrong with the initial Phoenix7777 revert -- I've seen way too many pages with months olds fact tags -- but after that it was time to stop and hash out on article talk page. Gerardw (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the content dispute; I care about Phoenix7777's behaviour. Bendono and I are experienced editors so we know Phoenix7777's (also an experienced editor) warnings can be taken with a large grain of salt. But imagine if you are a new editor. You add back a piece of sourced info. It is removed and you are sternly warned that if you add it again you will be blocked. I think that's bullying. Furthermore, it was not clear at all that Phoenix7777 was using the uw-vandalism3 as an example. I was going by my past interaction with him on User_talk:NeilN where he doesn't exactly come clean about "resolution" and "consensus". Basically, if Phoenix7777 wants to use Wikipedia guidelines and policies to defend his reversion then he should accurately interpret them. -- Neil N   talk to me  17:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, it can be a bullying tactic. Overall I would say I support your views in this matter. Simanos (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence of Phoenix7777 posting a warning on a new user's page? Gerardw (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I proposed a hypothetical situation. It seems the general feeling is that Phoenix7777's behaviour does not need to be modified so I will drop the matter. -- Neil N   talk to me  18:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, there is a very wide WP:Gray Area. As noted above, I provided my opinion Phoenix7777 went too far in making multiple reversions. Una Smith also suggested an alternative option for future behavior. As of yet Phoenix7777 has not had the opportunity to respond to these suggestions, so let's wait and see what they have to say. Please don't consider a lack of demand for sanctions at this point as a lack of support. Gerardw (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Una, I responded to you on my talk page. I sometimes remove a dubious content after posting to talk page, and sometimes without posting to talk page when I am confident about it with an edit summary "Please restore with a reliable source" and usually it is never restored. Anyway this is not the subject of this discussion.


 * As for this case, I am not sure what is the point of the accusation. I showed vandalism3 template to explain that warning of block is not limited to admin tool, I have no intension to warn NeilN with it at all. Isn't it a very intuitive example? You can never find the policy "a warning of block is not limited to admin" from Wikipedia policy. I wonder why NeilN abruptly came to the discussion and warned me. Is my warning to Bendono "If you revert it again, it will become edit warring and you will be blocked from editing" to be blamed so harshly? Is NeilN's abrupt comment "Do not threaten editors with blocks as you are not an admin" appropriate in this situation? He/she never participated in the discussion at all at this point. I think his/her intruding warning in this situation is much more to be blamed against civility. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Phoenix7777, your edit patterns and statements here and on my talk page reflect a habit of gatekeeping, a behavior that may be appropriate for handling vandalism. Applied to good faith edits, this behavior tends to offend other contributors.  You do spend some time handling vandalism and I would say you are having difficulty with the transition from reverting vandalism to collaborative editing. --Una Smith (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Given your past questionable assertions, it was not intuitive at all nor was it an appropriate example. This is a content dispute not a case of vandalism. Content disputes lead to 3RR warnings which may lead to blocks (check the careful wording of the message). Your example involved vandalism which will lead to blocks. Bendono made his first edit to the article since last September, you reverted, and told Bendono he would be blocked if he reverted again without more sources than the two already provided (two more than any other filling has). Frankly, this is lame content dispute and could have been handled better by a neutrally worded comment to remember 3RR (if necessary) rather than threats. -- Neil N   talk to me  22:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * NeilN, you brought this here and thus may be presumed to have an interest in learning how to deal gracefully with others. I would say the most constructive thing you can do is try to ignore the bad manners and poor judgment of other editors, and focus on the content dispute itself.  In a situation where one editor refuses to accept multiple references as sufficient, you may find it helpful to submit a request for comment on the content dispute.  Not on the other user's behavior, unless it is seriously disruptive behavior.  Like you, I find Phoenix7777's habit of deleting content to be disruptive, but only slightly disruptive.  It is tedious to engage in content disputes with Phoenix7777, but Phoenix7777 is far from the worst editor in this regard.  It is my impression that editors who resort to gatekeeping in this fashion generally lack research skills and thus are unable to find out for themselves if the content is accurate.  Try to tolerate them, provide sources, and help others develop research skills by noting on the article talk page how and where you found your sources. --Una Smith (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... he's calling your edits vandalism now . Ignore or try to educate? -- Neil N   talk to me  21:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see. On Talk:Onigiri (here) Phoenix7777 addresses me with Una, your revert is quite inappropriate because you never participate in the ongoing discussion. It is considered as vandalism. Moreover you are misunderstanding above discussion.  I am inclined to ignore it.  However, others reading this may feel differently. --Una Smith (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A bit naughty
This foul-language outburst was unnecessary whatever the problem, not my talk page but I think the editor should be warned at the least. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   01:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User talk:Bro5990 has been alerted to the existence of this report. See this diff.  Dolphin51 (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Abusive contributions by IP 71.230.67.178
After being warned here the user

Has continued to abuse other editors here and here. -- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 10:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And again -- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This one is a bit of an eye-opener, for which he got the warning. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the whole "don't be a dick" thing is probably just a misunderstanding of the meaning of WP:DICK. It's not a blunt object to be used to shut down any person you disagree with, and as is noted on that page, calling someone else a dick is kind of dick-move in and of itself, and is something that should only be done in cases of pure dickery, not just a run-of-the-mill AFD discussion. Telling everyone to "piss off" is a bit harder to blink past, as that shows a battleground mentality. I advise the IP not to take things so personally, and to focus on commenting on content, and not calling other users dicks and telling them to piss off. It does not advance your cause, and does much to harm it if you cannot interact in a civil, adult manner with other users. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

personal attack
Please, consider this: "Mladifilozof" are just here to contribute to the expantion of hateriot towards Serbia and Serbs.

I have respond by removal of text, but User:FkpCascais undid it, with explanation: ''This nis not a personal attack. Don´t be so sensitive.''

I found it offensive, so please, help to solve this out.--Mladifilozof (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * personal attacks and treats continues: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Serbia&action=historysubmit&diff=337081444&oldid=337080578 "Naćiću te ja" on serbian language means "I will find you."--Mladifilozof (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The "I will find you" threat is obviously not acceptable. Repetition of that kind of behavior will lead to a block. All articles related to Eastern Europe are covered by this ArbCom case, but I don't think we're quite at the point of needing to block anyone yet if we can get them to discuss the matter here. What I don't understand is if they truly belive the article should not exist, why not simply take it to WP:AFD? If there are genuine POV problems, then list it at WP:NPOVN. Edit warring and making accusations only make things worse, not better. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While going to one of the editor's in questions talk page to urge them to comment here I found this . Guys, this is getting ugly, and you may find you are mistaken in the end about just who is going to get blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanx for letting me know about this debate. I´ve already asked for protections of the page (kingdom of Serbia) and other user (if he didn´t, I would) already asked to block User:Mladifilozof. About my words, they mean just that I will be "finding" him whereever he edits disruptivly as he does. Nothing else, he´s constantly victimizing, as I´m gonna kill him, or something... He did get the message. FkpCascais (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All i can say is here:


 * User:Mladifilozof was warned numerous times in a past few days that his edits are not NPOV. Also, i dont know why are people attacking each other on wikipedia, it is a bit pointless. We are all here to contribute, are we? I will talk to User:FkpCascais regarding his "I will find you" edit, and with User:Mladifilozof regarding his editing stile. --Tadija (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please, what I meant in User:tadija talk page was that we should end the edit war and try something more serious, like reporting him, and in case we succede in blocking him (wich I find should happend, because Mladifilozof disruptive, non NPOV edits are clear, he´ll suffer in the future, because it´s obvious he adores editing here. FkpCascais (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, pull the other one. "He'll suffer in the future" shows a clear battleground mentality. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want this edit war to end. I wan´t understand if Mladifilozof is not blocked, since he doesn´t show any respect towards the warnings he receved (2), and continues (wright now) editing the article in the same way. The debate was opened in the talk page of the article, and he doesn´t respect that. His edits are very offensive, since he insist in changing facts using highly offensive words like ocupation, changing maps, please see by youselfs. Those are not "innocent" edits. I´ll stop all edits there and wait to see the outcome. FkpCascais (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Those two users continually deleting all my work. Now they did it again. Just see history of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Serbia&action=history. --Mladifilozof (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Change of venue: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Una Smith (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Trackinfo
I've been threatened by this user with a demand to quit or face sanctions over my deletion of a stub article on a non-notable private school. This guy has been around the block enough to know what should and should not go into an article; there are no third-party references, no claim to notability, no history, nothing. I had blocked him for 48 hours for incivility and created a subpage with the original content, but instead I unblocked him (I might really have been misusing the admin privileges) and restored the article.

In all the years I've ever edited this site, I've only run into one other user with an attitude like this and I wanted to make it known here what had happened. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * PMDrive, nobody here is asking you to meekly give into inappropriately high-handed demands for your resignation over the deletion of a three-sentence stub. I'm sorry you lost your cool, because this really wasn't a big deal.  You had an editor who knew so little about Wikipedia that he didn't know that AfD is not the sole method of dealing with undersourced articles about non-notable schools.  Yes, he was rude, but this was presumably the result of ignorance about Wikipedia's WP:Deletion policy.
 * I'm glad that you reversed your actions and are now leaving the article to others. Please remember in the future, if a similar situation ever occurs, that none of your fellow admins or experienced editors are going to believe silly claims that a single, simple, and highly reversible error (if, in fact, deleting a stub about a very probably non-notable school is really an error) should be a 'capital offense' for an admin.
 * I've prod'd the article with an explanation of the need for independent sources; if the editor decides to contest it, then we'll take it to AfD. Is there anything else that you need here?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, thanks. I think this will be OK. If the other user continues to bring it up, I'll deal with it; in the meantime, I think that the problem is resolved to everyone's satisfaction less my handing in my mop and bucket. Thanks for the encouragement. NPP is often quite thankless. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No big deal. I found [] amusingly over the top and silly. In general I think it's a good idea for admins to separate their edit and sysop functions just to avoid the appearance of COI but PMDrive self corrected the block. Gerardw (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rehman
A difficult situation arose at List of onshore wind farms when Rehman "Reconstructed the entire article" without any prior discussion, see. I reverted him and gave three good reasons for doing so, see. I have done my best to AGF and have consistently worked to move things forward in a positive way with the article, compromise where possible, and discuss things on the Talk page as I went, see. However, Rehman has launched into a 12-line personal attack about my behaviour, see. Johnfos (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One may need to read the entire conversation (Talk:List of onshore wind farms) to be sure who need to be submitting Wikiquette alerts. As you may find, the difficult situation is already solved. Regards. Rehman(+) 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like issue has been successfully hashed out on talk page and don't see anything over the top. I'd encourage everyone to move on. Gerardw (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. As a matter of fact, this notice was placed here by after the conflict ended (i backed out). Regards. Rehman(+) 04:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that this dicussion has been hashed in great detail on the subject talk page, and that the best thing to do is to move on. Both editors in the dispute are good contributors to Wikipedia, and both editors have done a bit of personal (about-the-editor, rather than about-the-article, behavior) in dealing with the article issues.  I do not believe that it will be useful to conduct an inquest on who engaged in such behavior first.  In short, I don't think it will serve any useful purpose to go back into it now after the article issues have been resolved. N2e (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)  (Full disclosure:  I have previously commented on that talk page).
 * I agree 100% with N2e's comments. (I too have commented on that talk page.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Philcha
See this diff:. Instead of being welcoming and helpful with a newcomer, he is being very hostile, not even explaining what the problem is, noting that they are deliberately not making it easier, setting an artificial deadline of three hours, and showing a clear misunderstanding of why we warn/block users by threatening "punishment" if whatever the un-named problem is is not fixed during the time frame he dictates. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Users informed of this thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Beeblebrox's actions do not the thoroughly or objectivity required of a WP admin. I notice that you said nothing about the user and conduct that led to this. While my approach to that user was severe, I could have raise the user's action at WP:AI directly - but instead left for the user an opportunity to clear up the problem (?)he had created. I will not response further until the incident has been investigated and document thoroughly. --Philcha (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of you is behaving very civilly, and quite frankly neither of you are very good at communicating either. The way you two are interacting with each other is going to get both of you into a jam if you don't dial back the hostility and edit warring. If you are having a content dispute, pursue either a third opinion or a request for comment instead of insulting each other, creating fake deadlines, and edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have worked with Philcha in the past and while communication was somewhat difficult, Philcha was not an angry mastodon like today. Wondering could be wrong, I looked and found this.  Philcha, a reason is no excuse.  Please log out and go watch some television or something.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth (if anything) the other user in the diff at the top has been involved in an edit war at Bartłomiej Macieja. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 19:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Philcha is among the best content contributors Wikipedia has, and in my interactions has always been civil and collegial. I believe this was an attempt in good faith to give an editor a last chance that is worded in a way that is jarring (i.e., "tough love"), and I suggest just going to AIV or ANI next time instead of fooling around. Looie496 (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After combing around a bit, this does seem an isolated incident as opposed to a pattern, and the other user has not exactly been civil himself, but I don't think such an inflammatory message could possibly have helped the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. In general, Philcha is an exemplary editor. This is an isolated incided. — mattisse  (Talk) 23:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:BigK HeX
At Talk:Austrian School — SlamDiego <font size="-2">&#8592;T 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speculatively accusing me of engaging in “original synthesis” without consulting previously provided links to reliable sources being used:,.
 * Attacking another user as having “clearly” made a mistake, when other interpretations are possible: ,
 * Telling me to “lay off of the caffeine” (and admitting “that might be an attack”) when told to stop such attacks:
 * Everything but that last one seems like normal discussion in a content dispute, not a violation of WP:NPA. Perhaps you should consider pursuing a request for comment in order to resolve the content dispute, since it seems clear you two are not close to reaching any sort of agreement. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the prior discussion had plainly violated WP:NPA, then I wouldn't be trying this forum first. If the prior behavior truly were normal and nothing short of a personal attack were relevant to Wikiquette alerts, then Wikiquette alerts would be redundant.
 * While there may some content dispute later, right now there is no active content dispute, and I wouldn't be seeking resolution of one here. — SlamDiego <sub style=" text-shadow: grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;"><font size="-2">&#8592;T 23:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I missed something, if you guys aren't arguing about the article, then what exactly are you arguing about and why is it on that article's talk page? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Months ago, there were content disputes. At this stage, BigK HeX is arguing that Doubledork clearly doesn't understand utility functions, that I have engaged in “original synthesis”, and that I'm reäcting as if on drugs to these claims.  Possibly BigK HeX may later revive the content dispute, based upon the claim of “original synthesis”; right now, it's just an aspersion about me. (The original claim by me and that by Doubledork were made when content disputes were active.) — SlamDiego <sub style=" text-shadow: grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;"><font size="-2">&#8592;T 23:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Months ago" .... you re-raised the point on the talk page two days ago (and used a discussion from 2 months ago as a platform). Anyways, I merely placed my response under the old discussion, in order to avoid further forking the same issue all over the place. BigK HeX (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The remarks that I made two days ago weren't during an active content dispute, nor an attempt to revive one. They simply didn't speak to whether the material that Doubledork had said should be removed should in fact be removed.  And before you returned to level your charges against me, I had made explicit in an exchange with Lawrencekhoo that I felt the material in question should remain in the article (as it has since that content dispute faded).  My remark in reply to you addressed your attack on Doubledork's competence, explaining why Caplan was wrong to think that the mainstream approach is purely ordinal, while at the same time trying to get partisans on the Austrian School side to see that much of what the mainstream said about utility could still be seen as useful.
 * There were, BTW, two content disputes in the past. That in which I was involved did not entail the question over whether Caplan would continue to be cited, and that in which Doubledork was involved was not about whether McCulloch should be cited. — SlamDiego <sub style=" text-shadow: grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;"><font size="-2">&#8592;T 00:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bottom line on the placement of my responses: I addressed the Doubledork issue in his discussion thread, and moved my response to YOUR re-opening of the Caplan/McCulloch issue over to YOUR original discussion thread on the matter (instead of your latest one). The question of why we're even discussing the placement of my responses boggles my mind.  BigK HeX (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've not made an issue of the sections in which you've placed your responses (although you seem to have confuse two separate content disputes). I've made an issue of the facts
 * that you claimed that one editor clearly didn't know what he was talking about, based upon a questionable inference,
 * that you repeatedly charged me with “original research” without checking the material to which I'd previously provided links, and
 * that you made a more blatant personal attack when told to stop such incivility. — SlamDiego <sub style=" text-shadow: grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;"><font size="-2">&#8592;T 03:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

BigK Hex, could you strike out the comment about the caffeine and the whether you like it or not? That would resolve the incivility. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done.
 * .....Though, I don't really feel that resolves the incivility issue. If anything, this only worsens the matter, from my perspective.  I didn't feel the need to formally convey my civility complaint, but the not-so-subtle subtext in my caffeine remark is that I was rather perplexed at being accused of "attacking" anyone.  Striking my response seems only to vindicate the actions taken by SlamDiego before my "caffeine" remark. In short, I doubt that many people consider my responses to him (before the caffeine remark) as any sort of personal attack, and I think he certainly could be more discerning. If any Wikipedia representative here agrees, it might be a small improvement to the community to state as much. BigK HeX (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite right that it doesn't resolve the civility issue. You're quite wrong that it is within the bounds of civility to make the sorts of assertions about other editors that you've made without a much better basis for doing so. — SlamDiego <sub style=" text-shadow: grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;"><font size="-2">&#8592;T 03:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, I don't believe your earlier remarks were personal attacks, or incivil in other ways, and I think this report is a bit overblown and the best course of action is to forget it, especially since you've so graciously agreed to strike the one remark that could be construed as an attack. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Consider any issues I may have had, as being resolved!
 * My appreciation to all of you who volunteer your time to keep this huge project moving forward. BigK HeX (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a great fan of compromises in which lines are crosses and then half of the trespass is retracted. I certainly don't see grace in such behavior. — SlamDiego <sub style=" text-shadow: grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;"><font size="-2">&#8592;T 03:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
 * Ignoring it and retracting the one questionable remark makes you come across as the more mature, reasonable editor and really removes any grounds for the discussion to continue. Encouraging one editor to be civil is not a vindication of someone else's Gray Area edits. Gerardw (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Slam, I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be the only user who sees any personal attacks in the statements before the "caffeine" remark. You may want to consider the possibility that the community does not support your interpretation of this matter. I agree with Gerardw that this discussion seems to have come to it's natural conclusion. If you still feel wronged and you think there is a pattern of unacceptable behavior here, you are free to pursue a user conduct RFC, but I think a much more productive use of your time would be to let this go and move on. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It truly is belaboring the point, though, because (as I've noted) “ [I] f the prior discussion had plainly violated WP:NPA, then I wouldn't be trying this forum first” and if incivility began at the point of personal attacks, then this forum would be irrelevant.  We don't need a fork for the reporting of personal attacks; we could use a place where people worked to reduce incivility of other sorts. — SlamDiego <sub style=" text-shadow: grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;"><font size="-2">&#8592;T 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In case it has been overlooked, issues besides personal attacks have been covered here....
 * "As I stated above, I don't believe your earlier remarks were personal attacks, <BLINK!> or incivil in other ways </BLINK!>" --- Beeblebrox
 * More seriously, I am sorry that the editing process seems to be frustrating you. I'm confident that we'll hash things out with less argumentation ..... or I promise to just let the matter on that talk page rest for now, rather than upset you further. BigK HeX (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied to the comment that you suggest that I overlooked when it was made; as it was not reïterated, I didn't reïterate the reply.
 * The problem with what you are here calling “the” editing process is that it has involved criticisms of other editors (and not merely of propositions) based upon inferential leaps and speculation. Neither of those is part of a proper editing process. — SlamDiego <sub style=" text-shadow: grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;"><font size="-2">&#8592;T 06:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this difference in understanding is likely to incense SlamDiego, so, per my promise, and I've posted a notification that I've removed myself from the talk page discussion at this time. Ultimately, I hope that all concerned parties obtain some measure of satisfaction. BigK HeX (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs
I have an issue with the behavior and editing of one of the administrators (Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs). In the talk page for the article Star Trek (film series) there has been discussion as to whether or not reviews from Rotten Tomatoes and other sites should be included. Rather than engaging in rational discussion, this Admin has been needlessly and unapologetically confrontational and condecending of other editors opinions. One of the first places newbies are directed to is WP:CIVIL so that editors can discuss things rationally and with a minimum of bloodshed. Admins are not exempt from this, and if anything should be held more accountable. The statement "You have not brought up a single rebuttal to any point I have made; instead you complain as to my methods", is a perfect example, as it is not my policy to discuss particulars with people that are being uncivil. It rarely is constructive. Rapier1 (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want any assistance, you're going to need a better example. Citing that one makes it look like you're going to view any disagreement with you as incivility. Looie496 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. Calling an editor garbage is incivil, calling an content garbage is at best a less than optimal choice of words. Gerardw (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I have never had any problem with debate and individuals that offer constructive arguments, and I'm always willing to be persuaded that I am mistaken in my opinion. My first edit states that I felt his comment about garbage was uncalled for (that calling good-faith edits "garbage" is inflammitory and needlessly confrontational), and then I explained my rationale for leaving the edit, which was not mine originally.  His subsequent comment was essentially "I don't care if you think I'm being rude, I can be rude and by the way, whoop-de-doo with your opinion as well", and gave no evidence to back his opinion that the sourse was "useless", instead assuming de facto that the site had no value.  My responses were courteous but rather than invite discussion it was assumed that this was the final word with no further need for consensus.  When I am accused of incivility, and I am not intending to be uncivil, it is my practice to apologize to the person offended and attempt to reword my argument.  Instead, this individual redoubled his efforts.  In my opinion, that is not appropriate behavior for any editor, much less an admin.  Perhaps this isn't the most aggregious example ever found on Wikipedia, but I wasn't under the impression that only the worst examples needed attention.  I attempted to engage the other editor in a polite way, and was rudely rebuffed twice. If the consensus is that this is not uncivil behavior, then that is the will of the Project and I'll  simply drop the issue and avoid the other editor. Rapier1 (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not the best wording, I agree. However, perhaps you can focus on his argument (that Rotten Tomatoes didn't exist at the time), rather than his wording. He is being a bit abrupt but his argument is valid. Wikipedia requires a thick skin at times. Regards, — mattisse  (Talk) 00:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first response begins by calling Fuchs out on forgetting to sign his post and accusing him of incivility. He stated pretty clearly why he thinks Rotten Tomatos isn't relevant. He didn't indicate no need for consensus, simply no need to repeat his explanation to you. Therefore I cannot agree with your characterization of the dialog. My opinion is that there is no evidence of any incivility on David Fuchs' part requiring any further action. Gerardw (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well, the consensus has decided. Question.  When someone is not signing their posts, what is a polite way to ask them to do so that is not "calling them out".  I thought saying "please do" was the way to do so, but I am evidently mistaken.  Second: When you feel a person is being impolite, what is the proper way of pointing it out to him?  I again said "please don't" and pointed to the proper section of Wiki policy (remember, there was no user talk page to go to because he hadn't signed his comment).  I'd appreciate any advice so that this process doesn't occur again. Rapier1 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can sign for them. Or you can wait for a bot to come along and do it.  Or you can ignore it.  --Una Smith (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To see who it was, just check the edit history. For what it's worth, everyone forgets to sign now and then. --Una Smith (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapier1, without in any way suggesting you are in the wrong, I can see two things you could do to improve the situation. --Una Smith (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First is to post a thoughtful reply on the article talk page concerning whether or not to use that website as a source. You could argue that even though its rating is after the fact, and thus reflects the opinions of a skewed audience (Trekkies, video and DVD viewers), the rating might still be of some value in the article.  You could agree with David Fuchs that this context would need to be explained, and no inappropriate comparisons drawn from it.
 * Second is to post on David Fuchs' talk page an apology for personalizing the content dispute. You could also say that you took personally and got mad about his calling "garbage" certain content that you contributed, and that in future you will try not to take it personally.  You could also ask David Fuchs to strike the "garbage" and replace it with a more neutral word.

I have to add just one comment. The fact that the editor is an admin is irrelevant to this case. He doesn't seem to have misuesd the admin tools. We forget that the only differance between most users and admins are tools that they use, not there ability to edit pages and join in discussions.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User at IP 76.231.247.6
User at IP 76.231.247.6 twice in two days cluttered my talk page with Bullshit warnings, having declined to address the underlying issues at the talk page The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. User at IP 76.231.247.6 insists, rejecting the existing discussion on that talk page, that one very long list of academics whom one book author called dangerous five years ago must be included in this article. I say it violates WP:BLP. Instead of addressing that issue, User at IP 76.231.247.6 pollutes my talk page with warnings which I perceive as personal attacks. User at IP 76.231.247.6 is unnecessarily aggressive against fellow editors and unresponsive to repeated requests to address content issues. User at IP 76.231.247.6 has reverted the same list twice in two days and slapped warnings on my talk page twice in two days. No other discussion other than to whine on this etiquette page about how User at IP 76.231.247.6 is feeling.

These were the two warnings, since reverted, that User at IP 76.231.247.6 aggressively placed on my talk page. 18:30, January 9, 2010 76.231.247.6 (talk) (109,908 bytes) (+- ?Warning) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:05, January 11, 2010 76.231.247.6 (talk) (111,088 bytes) (+- →2nd warning) (undo)

Whether or not User at IP 76.231.247.6 is a sockpuppet, no, I don't know. I can't know with certainty. What I do know is that there is absolutely no talk on User at IP 76.231.247.6's talk page until I created it and gave User at IP 76.231.247.6 back the warnings with which User at IP 76.231.247.6 aggressively slapped me. If User at IP 76.231.247.6 wants to be treated with respect, User at IP 76.231.247.6 should show respect instead of whining to others about how mistreated and sensitive User at IP 76.231.247.6 is feeling at the moment. That is where etiquette begins. User at IP 76.231.247.6 is aggressive and treats others aggressively. User at IP 76.231.247.6 is now getting as good as User at IP 76.231.247.6 gives. Skywriter (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're repeating phrases a lot. I find it a little off-putting. What's going on? I'm on your side, okay, Skywriter? However, if you think that two wrongs make a right, I'm going to find it very difficult to support you. The only appropriate response to bad behavior is to rise above it and lead by example. Are you doing that? I hope so. The idea of giving people bad treatment back is... terrible. Let's rise above it. Etiquette begins with each of us, including you, treating EVERYONE with respect, no matter what you've received from them. Otherwise, admins such as myself CAN'T help you. Think about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This entry is full of exaggeration and distortion not to mention ad hominem attacks. I would ask that some admin investigate it and then delete it if found to be baseless. Thanks. - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Skywriter, for the record, there's no BLP violation in stating (on X person's article) "X person has stated that they think Y person is an asshole". Well, as long as X person has actually stated that. It BECOMES a blp violation if the article states "Y person is an asshole". -- King Öomie  20:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Abusive and racist remarks made against User:Mister Flash by User:Þjóðólfr
Please see this diff -, the two immediately preceding it, and my original comment above these remarks. Mister Flash (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely uncool. Gerardw (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the initiative - by AGF, I'm going to assume that this was a one-of sequence of angry posts, as I have not seen a continuation. It's far to long past the original date to take any additional action. User:Mister Flash, the first step in resolving issues is actually discussing with the user directly, and then WQA if that does not work.  You should also use the WQA-notice to advise someone that you have filed here, as it's better than saying "Reported" in a curt manner.  I hope all works out. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Breach of WP:NPA by User:Andy Dingley, User:Foetusized
Regarding User:Andy Dingley, edit summaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trellick_Tower&diff=prev&oldid=336818298, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_Invicta_(London_Pirate_Station)&diff=prev&oldid=336818093 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric%27s_Club&diff=prev&oldid=336817799 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ozark_Mountain_Daredevils&diff=prev&oldid=336817698 - this is despite a recent previous request for them not to WP:AOBF. Regarding User:Foetusized, edit summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio_Invicta_(London_Pirate_Station)&diff=prev&oldid=336908096 - I protested the insult I received, but it was totally ignored on their subsequent reply. Rapido (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Those aren't personal attacks. The other users have pointed out that you are engaged in POV-pushing and edit warring. Please discuss your concerns about article content on the article talk pages. --Orlady (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - the other users have expressed their opinion (however incorrect it may be), but they have done so in a way that is not civil, and in any case is irrevelent to the article in question. Andy Dingley accuses me of bulk stealthy deletions, attempting to delete and trying to push an agenda - none of which is true. Simply I deleted text that is either unsourced or fails WP:SPS. These are personal attacks as per WP:NPA Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, along with WP:AOBF. Foetusized decided to call me a jerk. Now that's the sort of language I don't expect from someone I completely don't know. Again this meets WP:NPA as Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack. I have no idea how you consider all the above to be "not personal attacks" Rapido (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rapido, the edit summaries on the diffs for Andy Dingley you gave above are not personal attacks. They do fail to assume good faith.  I missed the "jerk" on the last diff.  Calling you a jerk (no need to be a jerk) is a personal attack.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * True, those are not personal attacks, and they do reflect valid concerns. However, Rapido does not call them personal attacks.  Rapido calls them insults, meaning he is insulted (offended) by them.  Remarks addressing any person do not belong in the edit summary, and probably do not belong on the article talk page either.  Andy Dingley and Foetusized would cause less offense if they refrained from such remarks in edit summaries.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that Rapido did refer to WP:NPA; what other policy or guideline should Rapido have referred to instead?  There is the help page Edit summary.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapido, you are correct that these other editors' remarks are personal and insulting to you. Both editors need to stop addressing the person (you) and instead address the content dispute without imputing motives to you. However, your behavior is a problem also. Your deleting content is making these editors angry. To see the same dynamic played out between others, look on this noticeboard at User:Phoenix7777 and invalid warnings. Instead of deleting paragraphs, add fact tags and on the talk page say exactly what content needs to be sourced. --Una Smith (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - last time I used citation needed, I received abuse, and the tags were removed! As regards the talk page, I don't see why I should be forced to communicate with such people who use offensive language towards other editors; and I have just seen that the same person continues to assume bad faith about me in the talk pages. Rapido (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Response: I am sorry for calling Rapido a jerk. To be honest, I originally had a much stronger term in that edit summary but dialed it back before submitting it. It seems that he took diff as a demand for an apology, and I regret not responding to his concerns. I was much more focused on inviting him to a discussion on the edit war that he is engaged in. I still find this edit, where he added the "Citation needed" template after every sentence in an article, to be a poorly-thought-out knee-jerk thing, and I have no regrets in calling him on it, but I should not have made it personal -- Foetusized (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Change of venue: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Una Smith (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - are personal attacks outside the remit of the Wikiquette section? If so, could you please point out the section that I should have posted to. Many thanks in advance. Rapido (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the venue for them would be Administrators' noticeboard (AN). But this was an isolated remark, and Foetusized has apologized to you.  I don't get why Foetusized also filed on you at AN.  I do get that Foetusized was very annoyed by your heavy use of cn.  When every sentence in a paragraph needs a source (as often is the case), I find it more constructive to put just one tag on the paragraph and add a note that it applies to the paragraph as a whole.  You may get on better with other editors if you would take the time to find some of the needed sources.  That way, instead of copious tagging readers will see copious sources, and all parties are satisfied.  Yes, the burden of providing a source is on the editor who contributes the content, but I think it is good form to share the burden.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WQA is quite clearly the forum for violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL...the intent is to get a third opinion after already trying to discuss the issue with the editor in question. Of the violations are severe enough, WP:ANI becomes the next level, and ideally a WQA patroller would recommend that to you at the time.  Many cases of WP:NPA require dispute resolution: WP:AN and WP:ANI are not DR locations, whereas WQA is. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

and curt attitude
I recently noticed Tanthalas39, an admin, make this comment on an AN thread. I've seen him make similar comments before. I posted (perfectly civilly, as far as I'm aware) a suggestion on his talkpage that it might well be better if he were to inform the user himself in such cases, as it would save time and be helpful to other editors; this elicited an un-necessarily curt and unhelpful response.

I'm concerned not only about Tan's unwillingness to take a constructive approach in relation to the original request, but also about his attitude, which is not setting the example expected of those who have been trusted with the admin tools. I'd welcome outside input on this issue. Thanks for reading. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► Lord Speaker ─╢ 19:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no comment to this, and certainly won't be watchlisting the page. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  19:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The message right above seems to continue this concerning trend of incivility, as does the edit-summary and actual comment here – <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► stannary parliament ─╢ 19:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * While I suppose the comments on AN and his talkpage are a little 'curt', (Tan is, I take it, a man of few words...) it'd be a bit of a stretch to call them incivil - even more so to call the edit summary 'no comment' or the succinct post above problematic. Additionally, Tan does have a valid point that it's really better for the initial poster to post talkpage notices of AN/ANI threads than a third party, and as such he's well within his rights to decline your request that he post the notifications himself rather than trying to get AN threadstarters to do it.  I'm not saying he's the friendliest guy on the project or anything, but a Wikiquette alert seems a bit much.  -- Vary &#124; (Talk) 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just to clarify, my problem was primarily with this in response to a perfectly civil enquiry. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag► senator ─╢ 19:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox, I did not see anything in the supplied diffs that even remotely warrants a WQA report. I would have said that Tan's posts were brief, perhaps as Beeblebox puts it, curt, but that is all. The comments are not impolite, just to the point. Given the wall of words that some editors use, I would suggest that Tan's approach may not be so bad a thing! - Nick Thorne  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  21:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Treasury, you are making a mountain out of a molehill, there is nothing in those remarks warranting a report here, being curt is not incivil, and those initiating an ANI thread are in fact required to inform all involved parties. Asking them to do it instead of doing it for them increases the chance that they will remember the next time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "educational" point is a good one I hadn't thought about. I notice that you instinctively phrased your explanation politely, and clearly (as in, you didn't just say, "Of course he shouldn't have done it himself,"), and now I understand. What I don't understand is why Tan couldn't have done that. <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► stannary parliament ─╢ 19:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Many vandals and borderline users and few admins make a lot of work: Special:Contributions/Tanthalas39. Terse yes, ideal friendly, maybe not, incivil, no. Gerardw (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, you seem to want Tan to spend time teaching you what (I assume) you are perfectly capable of learning by yourself. Are we done? --Una Smith (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to concur with Nick, Beeblebrox, and Van here. There's nothing here that requires a WQA report - WP:BOLD doesn't require that one clean up after someone else's mess (and as Beeblebrox says, there's reasons not to in this case). Given the pile-on, I'm marking this as done. B figura  (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur also. Tan is not a problematic editor. And using few words can be seen as a plus. — mattisse  (Talk) 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I hate to belabour the issue here: editors do need to learn to notify the other party. When I monitored WQA, I would not even begin to investigate unless the other party had been notified.  I even created a template: that you can see here for just that reason, and I still use it.  Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day...teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Piano non troppo's biasness and edit attacks
The issue started with the article "Paparazz". The above user had removed the External links section which had the official website of the artist. I had reverted it back stating that the official website is not a spam link. The user commented about this at WP:ELN and I understood that the link actually didnot have anything to do with the song. Fair enough, that dispute was resolved. After that when I nominated the article for GA, the user came and started reviewing it, although he was associated with its editing. Myself and other users, requested him to step down because before even starting the review he clearly stated that he is going to fail the article as it is a fancruft and a PR piece to promote the artist, which is counter-acted by others. He went on to add such comments as to contact the artist's management company to gain their consensus regarding the article, which is frankly absurd. Counteless requests have turned to deaf ears, with the user being extremely rude and attacking other's contributions, saying they are unprofessional and basically what we edit is "a horse piece of shit". Just now he commented about the article Madonna videography saying that "'The writing for which you pat yourself on the back (videos) is fair at best, and in the article in question is weak, and shows a superficial understanding of the topic that is gleaned from fan and public relation sources. When my many acquaintances in the academic community scorn Wikipedia content, rest assured, they are referring to unprofessional work such as yours which admits of no professional criticism.'" I believe this is extremely rude and a joke of good faith. Not to sound WP:WAX, there are countless editors in Wikipedia who look up to the way I develop music related articles for GA and FAs and they would beg to differ. Under the veil of being professional, the user is directing such personal insults to others. I have requested comments from editors of teh artist's page, regarding do I really add crap to articles? --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 11:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Legolas, you have worked very hard over these past few months to get the article up to the fantastic standard of which it is. If it were not for your contributions, I really doubt the quality would be anywhere near as good. Per WP:GAN, articles can be nominated by anyone, and reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article. From what I gather, if this particular user has contributed to the article, whilst also engaging in a content dispute, they are therefore not valid to compose a review. • вяαdcяo  chat  12:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As an unbiased, casual, "non-admin" editor watching this page, I must comment that I see absolutely no "joke of good faith" on User:Piano non troppo's part. He is editing WP, which is a dynamic process, and sometimes feelings get hurt as a result (awww...).  Being "extremely rude" is open to interpretation; but violating WP policies is not, and I personally see no evidence of User:Piano non troppo doing that.  I see no reason for this alert; a minor "squabble" at best... Doc9871 (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So according to you, calling others contribution as fancruft and unprofessional and promoter of an artist's PR is not a joke of good faith? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 12:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I don't think so. Unprofessional is an irrelevant tautology -- this is Wikipedia. Anyone can edit. Gerardw (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Legolas2186 has been hostile and uncooperative from the outset, beginning with a minor correction.
 * Legolas2186 himself is introducing the words "bias", "vandalism", and "piece of shit" into the discussion. These are nothing I intended. He's adopting hyperbole to put an emotional spin where there was none. I.e., he wants to treat this on an emotional level, rather than a factual one.
 * Calling something "fancruft" seems to be a relatively to-the-point description of "She pretended to play an enormous keytar to end the song while standing on a revolving platform that span round to reveal her buttocks to the crowd."
 * Understand the history, here. Legolas2186 pays little attention to constructive comments, and treats a variety of observations as personal attacks. If I understand, Legolas2186's perception of bias started at the moment I removed a single external link (!) Then I identified potential problems with other three external links. I explained my reasoning, for example here . He did not respond directly to some justifications for edits (that one external link was possibly a copyright violation, that another went to an empty page, or that the third did not mention the article topic), but chose to see this as "bias" and "vandalism". Looking at the edit history for Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song), notice I changed the article exactly twice — with two neutral comments — and then never touched it again — hardly an edit war.
 * Legolas2186 feels he's done a good job on Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song) and that it should be GA. I don't feel that way. Rather than address the issues, Legolas2186 has chosen to see this as "bias". Rather than deal with problems with his edits, and a range of constructive suggestions on how to improve an article, he chooses to shoot the messenger. I would say calling my edits "vandalism" is incorrect, that seeing bias where there is none as nonconstructive, and this statement "you were associated in an edit content disagreement" as a deliberate misrepresentation of two minor edits. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that is what you are actually implying by calling me a PR promoter for Lady Gaga and challenging my contributions to Wikipedia as unprofessional and not as standard. Pray which standard are you talking about? And what veil of professionalism do you intend to address my contributions and additions to? I have addressed your reviewing of the above article as biased viewpoint because your initial intention is to fail the article and with that in mind you have started the review. Having 2 or more contributions doesnot change teh fact that you were aware of the article's position and didnot probably like the way it was written from a previous point. But instead of chosing to discuss them you chose to randomly go and start the review. And frankly what improvements are you talking about? Absurd things like contacting the artist's management to gain their consensus for the article? A number of users and respected editors have mentioned and explained it to you time and again that if a song's recording process is not available, then it cannot simply be added. What do you actually suggest, add my own original thesis in it? you have repeatedly ignored other's requests to step down from the review and ignored consensus. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 13:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None of which is a WQA issue. Gerardw (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)The current exchange began with Legolas's statement Your above statements simply show that you are letting your biasness come in the way of your review which is a comment about the contributor, not content. The reply above is on Piano non troppo's talk page after the unnecessary repetition of an accusation of bias. I don't feel Piano non troppo's actions are sufficiently egregious to require any further action or discussion. Gerardw (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like Piano non troppo to actually provide the sources where there is a mention of the recording process, the audio editing process, the circumstances of shooting the video, the video equipment, the video editing. Almost nothing about the people involved in running the equipment. This is the same comment he put on the "Bad Romance" talk page, I really don't know how are someone expecting that we put this information when is not available, that would be original research, and like another user said before that does not compromise the comprehensive criteria of a GA article, the guidelines for a song suggest that we add critical reviews, chart performance and charts sections, which the user believes are to promote Lady Gaga. If the user have a problem with the guidelines he should suggest them at the WikiProject Songs, or perhaps nominate all of the featured articles songs for a removal. Frcm1988 (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please continue dialog on the article page Talk:Paparazzi_%28Lady_Gaga_song%29. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gerardw, I would like to ask you how would you feel if I call your contributions to Wikipedia as fancruft and trying to promote an artist? The discussion was raised in respect to both contributer's accusations and article's content, so I don't see any reason as to why the discussion should suddenly be closed. Surely that's what WQA is all about. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 13:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What WQA is about is user conduct, not content. WP:NPA makes it fairly clear that comments directed at content are not personal attacks, in fact, it even advises users to comment on content as opposed to commenting on users. Piano has (as far as I can see) only commented on content here. Therefore you need to resolve this at a content level and at a more appropriate forum/discussion page. Trying to bring it up to an emotional level is inappropriate. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK so calling other's contributions as fancruft and other user's as PR promoter is not WP:NPA? Wonderful. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 14:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as the comment is directed at the content, no, it's not a personal attack. Gerardw (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Can somebody look as to why the bottom of the page is being covered up? --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 14:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That happens when the page is slow to load or render in your browser. --Una Smith (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The WQA issue lies in comments such as "unprofessional work such as yours", which address both the content and the contributor. User:Piano non troppo would do well to leave the contributor out of it, and address the content purely on its own merits. User:Legolas2186 would do well to give such ad hominem comments the attention they deserve: none. --Una Smith (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no wrongdoings from User:Legolas2186. The article contains exactly what other GAs, even FAs, about songs contain. The quantity of information User:Piano non tropo claims is ridiculous. -- 12345abcxyz20082009 ( talk ) 16:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I read all of the conversation and I see not too much of an attack against Legolas; there are some subtle moves and "unprofessional work such as yours" directly refers to an specific editor, not the content itself. In my perspective, Legolas did wonderfully with the article and is in no way fancruft. Maybe a bit less emphasis on clothes for live performances, other than tours and premieres, I there is no need of that. But overall, Legolas does a great job with the article and the article is worthy of a GA. And as far reviewing it goes, that does seem a bit suspicious. -- <b style="font-family:tahoma; color:LightBlue;">ipodnano05</b> * <sup style="font-family:tahoma; color:SteelBlue;">leave@message 00:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by 78.32.143.113
The user at IP address is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia, mainly on automotive subjects. However, unfortunately, when other editors disagree with his opinions, he (I shall presume the masculine gender here for the sake of brevity) seems to prefer reverting other users' edits instead of engaging in constructive debate and consensus building. When an attempt is made to discuss objections to his edits, he doesn't always respond, is often antagonistic and dogmatic when he does, and sometimes won't consider other editors' opinions and advice until an Administrator gets involved (for instance, here or here).

Examples of this user's activity that myself and other editors have questioned include the following (I've tried to list the events in chronological order):


 * In various articles, insisting that "Volkswagen Group" and "Volkswagen AG" are one and the same (actually, the former is a business group; the latter is the parent company of the former):
 * Porsche: edit ("Volkswagen AG (known in English as Volkswagen Group)")
 * Volkswagen Group: revert edit
 * my attempt to engage in debate
 * ETKA: revert


 * MAN SE: Insisting that "MAN Group" and "MAN SE" are one and the same (again, the latter is the parent company of the former): edit revert - my attempt to engage in debate


 * Insisting on referring to Volkswagen Group as "VWAG" in various WP articles (actually "VWAG" is rarely used, either by VW Group itself or by secondary sources, and leads to confusion between the group and the parent company, so using it improves neither the clarity or accuracy of the articles, IMHO). Examples include:
 * List of Volkswagen Group petrol engines: revert - first attempt to engage in debate on user talk page
 * List of Volkswagen Group factories: edit
 * List of Volkswagen Group platforms: revert - user talk page discussion - edit
 * List of Volkswagen engines: edit
 * Volkswagen Group: revert revert - talk page discussion - revert


 * Volkswagen Group and Christian Wulff: confusing the Landtag (legislative assembly) of Lower Saxony with the State of Lower Saxony, resulting in an edit war: revert revert revert edit - user talk page discussion - talk page discussion


 * Unit Injector: Insisting that the "English translation" of the German phrase "Pumpe-Düse" is actually "Pumpe Düse" (sic): edit revert - user talk page discussion


 * Using Template:TOC left and Template:TOC right in various articles (e.g. edit edit edit) where they where they are not necessary, contrary to advice in Help:Section and the template documentation, and despite warnings from other editors:
 * first discussion on user talk page
 * second discussion on user talk page
 * ETKA: edit revert revert


 * List of Volkswagen Group factories: insisting on inappropriate over-categorization to the extent of edit-warring: revert revert revert revert - my first attempt at debate -  revert - my second attempt at debate - revert - third opinion sought at guideline talk page

In addition his edit summaries sometimes get a bit personal:  .

— Letdorf (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Agreed. This IP seems utterly disinterested in the possibility of being incorrect on various points. Seems like a habit fit for breaking. -- King Öomie  20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an awful lot of content-related issues noted above, which clearly are outside the bounds of WP:WQA. WP:TEND does not tend to be actionable from this forum.
 * You might want a simple WP:RFC on the changes or even a third opinion first.
 * Long-term patterns of behaviour are dealt with at WP:RFC/U - this would include acting out of consensus, etc.
 * When relability of sources are in question, the reliable sources noticeboard is the place to go.
 * If actual edit-warring/violations of the three-revert rule then WP:AN3 is your best forum for action.
 * Although you have given diff's of some edit summaries that are borderline questionable, they are from December 2 and December 22 - far outside the boundaries of even providing a minor warning.
 * From what I see, if you deal with the article-related issues in the correct forum first, you will avoid antagonism, resolve the core issues, and in theory the occasional uncivil behaviour will subside. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AOBF issue with User:Andy Dingley
Regarding User:Andy Dingley, first diff. is from 28th December 2009: Merseyland Alternative Radio (2nd nomination), I protested the WP:AOBF and asked him not to assume (non existent) bad faith here: Merseyland Alternative Radio (2nd nomination)

Then a number of edit summaries were assuming the same on 9th January 2010: Trellick Tower, Radio Invicta (London Pirate Station), Eric's_Club and Ozark Mountain Daredevils - I did post a Wikiquette request above (and he was informed of this).

Finally a post on his talk page appeared to-day 13th January 2010: User talk:Andy Dingley

I have no problem with him disagreeing with my edits, but I am getting tired of his continuing to claim to everyone that I am making "bad faith" edits, especially when I already explained they were not, and asked him not to assume such things in future. Rapido (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with your edits, not with you. This has already been taken to 3RR, at least two other editors are involved, and your edits to yet another article (which I haven't even read, let alone edited) now appear likely to drag you off to WP:RFC as well. Stop playing the wounded martyr. When three different editors are telling you that your edits are WP:TENDENTIOUS, it's time to look at whether it's your behaviour that's the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that you conveniently wiped your talk page (and its catalogue of other editors questioning your judgement) immediately before posting this. You are of course entirely within wikilaw to do this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I admit that I broke the 3RR rule, that's fair enough - that's a completely unrelated matter. Not sure what you are talking about playing the wounded martyr and comments about my behaviour, and I take exception to that personal attack, and it seems you have a problem with me overall. All I can see is that you disagree with my edits because they interfere with your edits. However those edits have either been unsourced, and I cannot tell if some of the edits are in fact WP:OR, or the sources are mostly pirate radio fansites, and fail WP:RS, WP:SPS. Rather than badmouthing a fellow editor, why don't you find reliable and verifiable sources for your additions? Rapido (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have in the past added sources to these two pirate radio articles (once again, I agree with you that most of them aren't notable), including the relevant local newspaper the Liverpool Echo, a number of websites that are admittedly very fansitey, and there's also the conceptnews website that seems to be attempting to be a rather more comprehensive and robust history of UK pirate radio. I recently pointed you towards a couple of in-print books on pirate radio history. Yet the level of commentary from those seeking deletion has been to sneer at the webhosts used with "LOL" and "We should probably task a bot to remove all those links". Now who's failing to AGF? As these articles have been recreated (AFAIK independently) by three different editors, and you've AfDed each of them in turn, this is not an environment conducive to consensus or collaborative work to improve the articles (I for one have better things to do than to feed your scrap bin). I also note that you've still (AFAIK) failed to even notify the last article creator of your AfD (as per policy), despite being reminded.
 * At root here, we have a notability issue over two poor articles, on topics that are of niche interest (but still I would submit, worthy of coverage) from a fringe (and indeed illegal) activity that pre-dates the web. Such articles are perennially difficult for quality sources. I don't like or agree with your claim of non-notability, but if consensus AfDs the article, then I have always been happy to follow our larger community practice and let it lie (I'm not the one re-creating). If I should happen to find a new source that I think would convince you, then I might do so. Yet despite the non-controversial nature of these articles (WP:N arguments are far from major) you're now calling for the topics to be WP:SALTed, a thoroughly disproportionate response. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Firstly, it wasn't me who said "LOL" and "We should probably task a bot to remove all those links", that was someone else, and I for one disagree with whoever claims that using certain webhosts (I think it was Geocities) somehow reduces the credibility of the website. It's the content of the website that matters, not what server it's on. Secondly, User:Erwin85Bot automatically informs the relevant editors of articles about AFDs for those articles, altho' I am not aware of any obligation on myself to inform them. Regarding Radio Jackie North, it appears to have been deleted thrice before, and comes back more or less the same content each time, so I have no objections to a WP:SALT on the article name. Rapido (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So by SALTing, you admit that you refuse any GF on behalf of separate editors, independently seeing cause for an article on this station? To remind you from WP:SALT, repeatedly recreated by an editor. Not "multiple editors all agreeing it's a good idea", but the (sadly not unknown) case where one editor becomes a law unto themselves and refuses to accept a community consensus. This non-hostile situation is certainly not what SALT is for. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rapido, that statement is almost unreadable with the urls displayed; may I refactor it (fix it)?  --Una Smith (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - please do so; I am not sure how to make them cute and small. Rapido (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, for the good of everyone's word-wrap. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rapido and Andy Dingley, I am pleased to see you discussing the content dispute. But could you please not discuss it here? This forum is for issues of user conduct, specifically incivility. Here is what I have to say about your conduct. Rapido, could you try some approaches other than tagging every sentence in a paragraph with cn, and deleting the paragraph? That might include now and then finding a reliable source or two for some of what you want sourced. Andy Dingley, rather than objecting to Rapido's reverts and tagging, could you try to find more and better sources? Both of you, spend less energy on being annoyed by each other and more on improving those articles. Finding good sources can be a chore but someone has to do it, or the articles will remain in their current state. --Una Smith (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - regarding the citation needed tags, I put these on the Radio Invicta (London Pirate Station) page, and they were removed less than 3 hours later, and I made no attempt to reinstate them. However it still seems to be brought up by various editors, irrelevant to the topic at hand as it may be. I still take exception to Andy Dingley's comments such as attempting to delete article post AfD keep by stripping content in stages, trying to push an agenda, bulk stealthy deletions, etc. as they are incorrect and it's somewhat offensive to be told you're doing something that you're not. Rapido (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Una for your fair and balanced comments here. I have no intention to waste further time on these articles - for some time I've been entirely reactive here, not pro-active. If someone asks for a direct response they might get it, but I've not even edited the articles in question (in this incarnation). I see them as that sad part of WP that's simply beyond my abilities to fix, and there's no point in wasting effort on it. It's a mistake to think, "This topic needs coverage on Wikipedia". Topics don't need anything of the sort: sometimes Wikipedia might need coverage of them, but any worthwhile topic continues to exist, no matter how incomplete or inaccurate Wikipedia itself is. As for Rapido, I'd ask if you've ever read Wikipedia:WP:V is not a suicide pact? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes I've seen that, but it's only an essay which contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors, not a policy or even a guideline. Rapido (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that the pages have now been deleted and SALTed (without further discussion) by user:Cirt. Well done Rapido, it shows that ignoring 3RR and decrying newspaper refs with "LOL" work so much better than consensus approaches. Hope you're pleased. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - When did I decry[...] newspaper refs with "LOL"? The 3RR issue (which I did NOT ignore) was on an unrelated article, yet again, you are bringing it up. I am sure other editors here can make up their own mind whether you have a problem with me or not, and that you are continuing to assume bad faith. Rapido (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Gurch
Seriously, what's up with ? is a certainly troubling edit, blatantly saying "all ifd taggers are gay." Here, he snaps at a user over their using "HG" instead of "Huggle" to reference his creation. On three separate occasions, he blanked and redirected the WP:FRP page, even saying that the person who undid the redirect was being uncooperative. His erratic behavior is hardly new, either, if this vandalism from June is any indication. Overall, he comes across as very anti-social, and at times just plain rude -- the "all ifd taggers are gay" comment is, IMO, the final straw. I don't care that he did create Huggle; no user should ever get a free pass for such egregious rudeness. Oh yeah, and let's not forget the pointless template creations, such as Om nom nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 12:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and of course you have asked him this very question yourself first? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Other users have already called him out on his rudeness and he's only responded with more rudeness and arguing (see here for one example) or not at all. I really don't think I'd get anything different if I asked him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, how about "...and you have advised him of this WQA report, as required?" Based on what you're saying, there's likely little that WQA can do ... RFC/U becomes more of an option, and even then ... ? ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the situation, I agree with Bwilkins, a RFC/U may do better in this scenario, as the user has been previously warned, talked to and trouted for situations, so I don't think there is much we can do here. --Taelus (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Notified user of this thread. --Taelus (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure if RFC/U is the right way to go yet. I might try it anyway though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Prestonmcconkie
While it appears to me that edits made by User:Prestonmcconkie often improve and tighten language in articles, he has an unfortunate tendency to be offensive and/or insulting in his edit summaries. He's been queried about his civility on several previous occasions, including on his talk page, but as far as I can see he has neither responded nor altered his behaviour; I recently requested once more that he moderate this, but seemingly to no avail, so I am mentioning it here. This is a long-standing problem; back in July 2009 on the Calvin and Hobbes talk page, he said this and was cautioned by multiple users without response or result. A quick glance at his contributions shows that he often provides no summaries, but that they are often questionable when they are provided. Here are a few of the most egregious examples from the past month or so: , , ,  , and . Since my request on 6 January, he briefly stopped providing any summaries at all, but now edits like this have begun to appear again. Thanks. Omnedon (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In my judgement those examples would already be sufficient to justify a block for incivility -- Prestonmcconkie is advised to exercise a much greater degree of restraint in his interactions with other editors. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Behavior clearly unacceptable and there are prior warnings on his talk page. I'd suggest moving this to RFC/U if there is no response in the next couple days. Gerardw (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Activist personal attacks
I tried to discuss this with User:Activist on her/his talk page as well. Kozitt (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing no personal attacks. I see a discussion of controvertial edits - maybe I'm missing something without a good WP:DIFF that specifics the exact edit where the WP:PA took place, rather than a link to a talkpage. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think you are missing something, but you can find it firstly on the NPA page you quoted. A personal attack can be using a persons affiliations to dismiss their views and can also be suggesting affiliations without evidence. A quick look at the talk page in question gives the quote 'My assumption that Kozitt was a relative, friend, paid employee of Rehberg or was someone else with a vested interest in submurging his responsibility in the crash, such as a lobbyist from special interest whose agenda Rehberg supports, has not been dispelled by her reverts on other pages or her explanations.'. Wiki NPA policy then would suggest that user Activist had no business making such an assumption without presenting evidence of such and the suggestion constitutes a personal attack against user Kozitt. Weakopedia (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence, as I said, a diff would have been useful. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Javanbakht

 * Personal attacks and incivility.
 * The article Taraneh Javanbakht is nominated for AFD. The user:Javanbakht is the same person in article which is nominated for AFD (She has stated it in Wikipedia). She is participating in discussions in this AFD which is clearly violation of WP:COI--WIMYV? (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Editor has been warned and directed to WP:COI. warrior  4321  03:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, JFYI, the editor has been wikipedia since 2006 (with different account) She has been blocked several times in fa,wiki for incivility.--WIMYV? (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't really look at what happens in wikis of other languages for consideration of blocking in the English wiki. It seems that the article has a lot of promotion in it. Most (if not all) sources seem unreliable. I just removed some very obvious ones. warrior  4321  03:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WIMYV, Please notify the user of the alert. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done--WIMYV? (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, the user removed the notification without response. However, judging by the edit summary, this seems to be a cross-wiki problem as the user mentions insults in fawiki articles. |Link to talk history for convenience. --Taelus (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor has retired. I am closing this as resolved. warrior  4321  02:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

She repeated her personal attack calling me and others "minor people". You will know about her unacceptable behavior more. Please keep your eyes on her. She is use to insulting people and then claiming others are not civil! She is already blocked for incivility in Fa.wiki. She always says she would leave wiki when she is in danger of punishment, but she will come back after a while.--WIMYV? (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Justin A Kuntz routinely using rv tool in content disputes
From what I gather, User:Justin A Kuntz has been rather routinely using the rv tools rather than providing appropriate edit summaries in content disputes. When I reminded him on his talk page that this is impolite, he proceeded to use the reversion tool to remove the reminder. His next edit on his user talk page removes a similar remark from another user. I'm not sure if this is a big issue, and I've had few (if any) other interactions with the user, but I have to say it disturbs me when users routinely remove from their talk page all indication that they've been warned about their behavior, especially when the remove it in a manner highly analogous to what they've just been warned about. - Jmabel | Talk 07:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone is allowed to remove warnings from their talk page, Wiki states clearly that removing a warning shows that the user has received that warning. Weakopedia (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is, however, if he is using the Rollback tool to remove those warnings. That tool is only to be used to undo edits that are explicitly vandalism.  Using it in content disputes, or even to remove valid discussions from their own userpage is an improper use.  That said, nobody in WQA can remove the tool as it is an admin function.  Go to WP:ANI, provide diffs from where it was not used properly. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We permit huge numbers of warnings to the outright vandals. We ought to extend a similar courtesy to those editors who are in any way GF, but making some knowing or ignorant mis-use of a particular tool or feature. Warn them, with links to the relevant policy. You can always shoot them afterwards if they keep doing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The notion that rollback is solely for reverting vandalism is a misconception. Using rollback to remove recent comments on your own user talk page is unusual but not problematic (just assume the edit summary is "tidying up my user talk page".) This user has for some time had a notice at the top of his talk page saying "If I've deleted your message, basically that means I've read it and nothing else. I tend to delete quite a few to keep the page tidy. I don't see the point in archiving niff naff and trivia." That seems reasonable to me. The only problem I'd see would be use of rollback by an indefinitely blocked editor on his user talk page to remove an active "indefinitely blocked" notice--but then the problem would be the removal and not the method of removal. --TS 11:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * True, "Rollback should be used only for reverts that are self-explanatory – such as removing obvious vandalism; to revert content in your own user space". It's the use in content disputes that would of course be concerning, and would need to be addressed in a forum such as WP:ANI.  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Tagging NWQA. Repost if user continues inappropriate rollback on content pages. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The allegation is untrue, I don't use rollback in "content" disputes. Justin talk 21:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's no defence though. Rollback has been removed for non-rollback manual reversion when this was a third reversion, also for reversions where a majority of editors agreed that it was simple vandalism but an admin didn't (self-fulfillingly, this thus makes it "controversial", and so not deemed an appropriate case for rollback). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Being innocent is no defence? Is this a Kafka novel?   Justin talk 23:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It happens. You know what this place is like 8-(  Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone actually think to check the diffs above, supposedly where I used rollback. Anyone who had done so would have found that I did not use rollback. It would be appreciated that people check allegations before commenting on them. Justin talk 21:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did check -- I thought Undid in edit history meant the changes were rolled back. How did you remove the comments from your talk page? Gerardw (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't, I simply selected a series of messages, did a diff and hit the undo hyperlink, added an edit summary and voila. You can spot the difference from a rollback as you can't add an edit summary with rollback.  Justin talk 22:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's a couple of utils that allow one to use edit summaries with rollback :-) ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? I didn't know that.  I also don't really see the point, I use rollback for vandal patrol because its quicker, nothing else.  Justin talk 23:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn
After encountering issues of page ownership, reversions, and rude edit summaries ignoring my attempt to communicate from regarding United States Secretary of Energy, I brought my concerns and request for third opinions to WT:FLC (since the page is an FL). When confronted by other users as well, he responds with rude personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and uncalled-for criticism of WP:FL. His response to assertations of page WP:OWNership are to make a WP:POINT by removing his contributions to the article. Also note that Saturn was blocked just three days ago, but was unblocked under the condition that he agree to edit cooperatively, which has obviously not been kept. Reywas92 <b style="color:#45E03A;">Talk</b> 04:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * William S. Saturn is a meanie. --William Saturn (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Reywas' assessment, particularly the ownership of articles issue, as William has demanded of respected editor and FL director Dabomb87 "What basis in policy do you have to change articles around as you see fit?" at WT:FLC. Considering the existence of WP:BOLD, WP:5P, and WP:IAR, this is a particularly tendentious question, especially considering that this contributor has been with the project since May of 2008 and has likely been exposed to these basic principles before. I'm also particularly troubled by his seemingly unrepentant attitude so soon after his recent block for edit warring, and the subsequent unblock in which he agreed to "edit cooperatively". KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 13:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on this [] promise, his Meanie commment above, and current behavior, it seems unlikely WQA will be able to do much. You may want to post an RFC/U. Gerardw (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When Saturn calls himself a "meanie", maybe he's trying to say that he's just average. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this WQA will not be of much use. The best thing to do is to focus on the content and ignore the below-the-belt comments. If Saturn continues said behavior, then perhaps an RFC/U can be considered, but I think the best thing everyone to do is temporarily disengage. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hostility and attitude from 98.248.32.44
Earlier today I noticed tagging a number of articles for CSD, PROD, and AfD. I noticed his AfD nominations were going incomplete, as the WP:AFD subpage for discussion was not being created. I completed several (three I believe) of his nominations by creating the appropriate pages. It is at Articles for deletion/Charlie Bone and the Hidden King that the anonymous user has decided to take offense to my assumption of his lack of knowledge. Please note this diff, which in my opinion borders on, if not constitutes, a personal attack. He soon removed this comment and replaced it with another. Of course all page history is available.

He edits and talks like a user with experience, reverting vandalism and removing unreferenced/poorly referenced material, but at the same time shows a remarkable disrespect for the ideals of civility, discussion, compromise, etc. I have been tracking this user's edits, removing speedy deletion tags from a couple articles that do not qualify for speedy deletion. In the process I have noticed him removing redlinks from articles potentially against the guidelines in Red link, which state that red links serve as notices that new articles can/should be created. I have further seen him be sharp with other anonymous editors (see this talk page) over the issue.

I placed two notices on his talk page, one in regards to personal attacks, another in regards to treatment of newcomers. Both were removed, as I was labeled a "sour grape".

While this user may know how to click his way around Wikipedia I feel he really needs a break to review ALL Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:CIVIL, and work on interpersonal skills. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 08:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO, should take this to ANI for swifter reaction. --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> 1185 09:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Kripalu Center
I was hoping to join the discussion on the talk page at this article, but my initial attempts were met by a personal attack by editor Calamitybrook, not against me, but against another editor, Sinneed. I think both editors may have valid points but I'm not sure how to get them talking to each other and to me. Rees11 (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please give some more specific links to the events at issue? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry. The immediate issue is the personal attack at Talk:Kripalu_Center: "Ironic perhaps, that Sinneed endlessly refers to minutia of Wikipedia policy/guidelines and makes various related, obnoxiously self-righteous comments, and then utterly trashes this talk page, ignoring the most basic and simple principles of WP, in order, purely, to push his peculiar and personal point of view, which he refuses to explain or justify..." My apologies if I've mis-read this as a personal attack, maybe it's just spirited debate. Rees11 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a lot of sympathy for Calamitybrook here. Sinneed seems abolutely determined to keep tags on that article, and has never given any sort of useful information about what the problem is.  I myself removed the tags once, but haven't kept watch on the article since.  I really can't spot anything in the article that justifies accusations of non-neutrality -- can you? Looie496 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the non-neutrality, but I do think the COI tag should be removed (I came to the article from the COI noticeboard). I've found it impossible to discuss the removal on the talk page due to the actions of both editors. I too have a lot of sympathy for Calamitybrook's position on the article contents, and I think that editor would make better progress by resorting to reasoned debate on the talk page. Rees11 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Public premeditation of incivility
Only one user in my experience has a conspicuous notice at the top of his user talk page saying he intends to be gratuitously disrespectful and abusive toward other users and that they should "cut [him] some slack" because he's so experienced (but he doesn't allow any slack to those who are far more experienced in editing Wikipedia than he is and who are consistently kind and respectful toward him).

Should such premeditation be grounds for any sanctions against him? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's hard to say anything without knowing who you are talking about. In general I'd say no. I've run across several users who make similar claims; they are subject to sanctions just like the rest of us if they step over the line, and I've never really had difficulties with any of them.


 * Wikiquette is for addressing specific problems with user behavior, not for general discussion of potential problems. If you want to suggest general rules, you should try wp:Village Pump (proposals); if you have a dispute with a specific user you should lay out a case with diffs for the specific problems you've encountered.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Skywriter
This user has accused me of being a sockpuppet with no other reason other that I have reverted one of his edits. He has made this accusation both on my discussion page and in an article's talk page. He has also, intentionally apparently, misrepresented (lied about?) the extent of my user contributions in this edit. I have asked him to remove the accusation or at least explain why he thinks I am a sock. He stands mute. Can someone please offer some guidance on what I should do with this? I'm trying to assume good faith but from the very first this user appeared very belligerent. Thanks. - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, good faith doesn't enter into it. People can be belligerent in good faith, silly as it may seem. Talking about whether he's acting in good faith doesn't lead anywhere good; trust me. That said, he's clearly wrong about your contributions. Someone has pointed that out on his talk page, I note. You might or might not get an explanation out of him. It's not worth demanding one, because ultimately we don't have that kind of control over editors here. There seems to be an underlying content dispute, and some reverting going on. I've commented at the talk page in question. If he keeps reverting you and insisting you're a sock, then he's out of line, but let's see what happens at The Professors... -GTBacchus(talk) 16:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi 76.231.247.6. I see that you are annoyed, and why.  That said, I think you are reading too much into Skywriter's remarks.  I don't see where Skywriter accused you of being a sockpuppet.  Skywriter asked if you are an established editor, and hinted that if you are and you don't say so, that might be construed as sockpuppetry.  Some editors do use IPs when they are on travel or for other acceptable reasons.  Or they don't realize their login has expired.  Okay?  When asked, they say "oh, yes I am so-and-so."  Skywriter's comment about your edit history I think is a poorly worded reference to the fact that you have only two edits on Talk:The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.


 * So, what should you do about Skywriter? I would now ignore Skywriter's questions and personal remarks to you, and get on with collaborating on the article.  --Una Smith (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Una. Una the reason you don't see the sockpuppet accusation is that Skywriter later overlaid it. If interested you can find them here and here. Although I feel roughed up a bit I have decided for the time being to continued to collaborate on the talk page with the help of GTBacchus. But I'm going to ask you, Una, to consider for a moment the implications of this kind of belligerent behavior. Someone, like myself, uses Wikipedia alot and decides to "give back" in a small way by correcting/improving it whenever he can. This goes along fine for a couple of months and then he is suddenly subject to a vicious attack by an established editor. He finds himself labelled as a sockpuppet for no reason. His motives, intelligence, character are called into question all because he happened to hit the wrong article and the wrong editor who guards it. Do you think this IP editor would ever come back? Especially when the offending editor has not owned up to his behavior, has made no apology or even offered up any explanation for his bad behavior? Instead he attacks again making baseless retaliatory edits like the one below. I will tell you from my own experience that this IP editor would not come back and that is a loss for the encyclopedia. I would suggest to you that this kind of behavior should not be just ignored. Wikipedia has rules, laws if you will, to protect it's users from this kind of stuff. The Admins are a sort of police force. They need to be relied upon to make sure the offending editor has reason not to continue this kind of behavior. I don't know what that should be, a temporary block? I would leave that up to them. I'm not being vindictive. But this behavior needs to be countered with the strongest kind of discouragment. Thanks for your feedback. - 76.231.247.6 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The "admins as police" metaphor can be a little bit misleading. Since there's no real centralized authority over individuals' behavior, since we don't really have firm "rules", and since the community aspect of Wikipedia doesn't justify its own existence except insofar as it supports the encyclopedia... it gets complicated. An admin who acts very much like a cop is likely to be de-sysopped before too long. You're right about new editors' reactions to being attacked personally for their edits. Our policy Please do not bite the newcomers (or WP:BITE as we call it) turns out not to be a policy, but a guideline. That distinction means nothing in the long run, but in the short run it influences how people talk about it. This board is a good place to come to in cases where there's biting going on. Because everything here is grounded in the encyclopedia, there are really just two options for dealing with behavior issues. The preferred one is to simply move past them and get back to editing. In that case, we just need to persuade everyone to start talking about edits (either informally like this, or via something like WP:3O (third opinions) or WP:RFC (requests for comment)). If this works, then the comments about other contributors are just water under the bridge. In the effort to work on the article and not on each other, someone(s) may end up blocked for disruption if the heat gets high, in which case you want to be the one talking only about edits when the blocks start flying. If article focus consistently fails to work, then there's the second option: You leave the article-space and work the dispute resolution process. This can take the form of reports to WP:WQA (here), WP:RFC/U (requests for comment on an editor), WP:ANI (the administrators' noticeboard, but that place is dangerous and insane), and eventually WP:ARBCOM (arbitration committe). After WQA, these avenues are only to be pursued for editors who are chronically disruptive. I hope some of that helps, or at least makes sense. Some of it probably seems bizarre, but I'm not sure how to change how the wiki works... -GTBacchus(talk) 17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unregistered user 76.231.247.6 seems very experienced in the ways of Wikipedia ---much more than I am, and I've been editing here for five years-- and have never filed a grievance such as this. According to 76.231.247.6 had made a total of 19 edits on 10 days beginning in November 2009 and had never before appeared on Wikipedia to edit anything.

Over less than 60 days, for a total of only a few hours, 76.231.247.6 made a few small edits to a few articles, in some cases, using sophisticated tags, And then, 76.231.247.6 suddenly showed up at The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America and reverted to an old version of the article that includes a long list of 100 professors whom David Horowitz charges are "dangerous." Note that this article has very little content, indeed, not even content from the book itself, short of this list. Thisarticle is pure WP:spam for Horowitz and his enterprises and I hope Wikipedia is at least collecting an advertising fee.

76.231.247.6 claims to be a novice user or an experienced user (I can't figure out what is the claim) but ramped up to a sophisticated level of attack in no time at all. With no civility whatsoever or discussion, 76.231.247.6 slapped my talk page with too nasty-assed warnings, to wit. and.

76.231.247.6 sure knows how to move around Wikipedia at warp speed to get what 76.231.247.6 wants. I wonder where that experience derives.

After spending only a tiny amount of time on Wikipedia, this was the sequence that led to this brouhaha. (cur) (prev) 22:58, January 13, 2010 76.231.247.6 (talk) (13,597 bytes) (Undid revision 337134321 by Skywriter (talk)restoring the list per discussion @ talk page) (undo) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Professors:_The_101_Most_Dangerous_Academics_in_America&oldid=337690311

04:04, January 11, 2010 76.231.247.6 (talk) (13,549 bytes) (Undid revision 336849264 by Skywriter (talk)Why are you lying about my user contribution numbers? Which are irrelevant anyway?) (undo) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Professors:_The_101_Most_Dangerous_Academics_in_America&oldid=337128243

19:34, January 9, 2010 Skywriter (talk | contribs) (5,010 bytes) (Please take to talk page; Unregistered user at IP 76.231.247.6 has no history on Wikipedia beyond 2 reverts, this article..) (undo)

17:41, January 9, 2010 76.231.247.6 (talk) (13,549 bytes) (Undid revision 335844417 by Skywriter (talk)rmv judgmental edit that deletes crux information from article) (undo)

18:30, January 9, 2010 76.231.247.6 (talk) (13,549 bytes) (Undid revision 336832966 by Skywriter (talk)Pls do not remove text based on your own personal opinion. Others may not agree.) (undo)

17:58, January 9, 2010 Skywriter (talk | contribs) (5,010 bytes) (rv unregistered user from IP 76.231.247.6 for WP:soapbox; Wikipedia is encyclopedia, not personal attack channel.) (undo)

18:14, January 4, 2010 Skywriter (talk | contribs) (5,020 bytes) (Removing list as it is gratuitous advertising for this book and unsupported opinion by publicity seeker) (undo)

For someone with only 20 total edits on Wikipedia, and unless 76.231.247.6 is using another identity, 76.231.247.6 went from zero to Mach 1 in mastering the ways of Wikipedia. For example, 76.231.247.6 figured out in no time at all how to engage in edit warring, how to bring a grievance against a longtime editor and wallow in the sympathy of being the "wronged" party. Best of all, 76.231.247.6 figured out how to keep the edit war going long enough to keep cheap, unsubstantiated attacks on 100 academics going in an article that is pure advertising WP:SPAM for an author who is genius at using Wikipedia to push his brand-- and getting deleted all serious criticism of his books from Wikipedia. Where's the proof of this? It's in the history of The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America going back to 2006. Look at all the reverts of serious criticism of this book and decide for yourself. The facts are there. It is, for example, as if [http://www.freeexchangeoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&Itemid=25 ''Facts Count | FactsCount: An Analysis of David Horowitz’s The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America Free Exchange on Campus May 2006] had never been written. It is as if the many replies by the professors whom Horowitz attacked had never been written-- because, before I added a couple of their replies, in the last few days, few if any were present..

I wish Wikipedia was not being used to proliferate spam for David Horowitz enterprises and to censor opposing viewpoints, but it sure is, at least in the articles linking to David Horowitz. Skywriter (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Skywriter has a history of making personal attacks. <b style="color:#000080;">APK</b> whisper in my ear  14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User AgnosticPreachersKid (APK), are you engaging in WP:WIKIHOUNDING? Or, do you just like piling on? Anyone can read the article And you are lynching Negroes and its talk page for a fair accounting. You have had no role in editing that article. Why are you attacking me with an unrelated matter? Skywriter (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed; he's recently re-opened an edit war which had been dormant for over two years in the Samuel Eliot Morison‎ article, and is claiming that I have a 'history of censoring viewpoints' for removing the lengthy quotes which it was decided were best handled as a summary several years ago . When combined with the above posts and report in April last year it suggests that this editor uses personal attacks as a standard means of trying to get their own way in content disputes. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D, your position is in opposition to historiography and it will not hold up. Changes to Samuel Eliot Morison‎ focuses on whether the review of Morison's work, by his peers, over the last 50 years can be used to evaluate the writing of this prominent historian. The work of every prominent historian is subject to review in that the writing of history consists, in part, of the critical examination of sources, the selection of items from primary sources, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods. There is much that is positive about Morison's life work and that is reflected in the article. To try, as you have been doing, to minimize or smother critical voices-- this is not the policy of Wikipedia. Using solid sourcing, I will continue to try to persuade you that reviews of Morison's work is more complicated than what this article now reflects. Skywriter (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)