Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive49

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – See below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've become involved in an edit war in the article Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty surrounding these edits pushed by Ivantheterrible1234. NPguy and I believe they are clear violations of NPOV and OR. We have repeatedly expressed our willingness to work with Ivan if he has something constructive to add, but he has in return engaged in reversion, personal attacks, and threats of sock puppetry. I considered tagging the page for an RfC but based on Ivan's responses to my objections to his edits, I don't believe additional people weighing in against him will help. I would appreciate any help available. AzureFury (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm afraid we can only do so much here. WP:ANI would be a good place to ask, particularly about the threats of sock-puppetry. But it's imperative you try Article RFC and/or mediation for content issues. You might need to make an RFC on user conduct additionally for the conduct issues. The links to these 3 forms of dispute resolution can be found at WP:DR. Good luck~ Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The RfC for conduct was my first thought, but I'm the only one to say anything on his talk page, and the RfC for conduct description says at least two people have to warn the person. I don't know if this is professional or not but I just asked someone else to give him a warning on his talk page so we qualify for RfC on conduct... AzureFury (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's critical to get more editors involved first through Article RFC. (You might need to inform administrators (at ANI) about the sockpuppetry threats) If the new editors who get involved also encounter similar (if not the same) issues, then you can advance straight to RFC for conduct. You generally need to be somewhat involved in the dispute - even if someone here was to give a warning, it wouldn't be sufficient for them to certify the basis of the dispute because of the lack of involvement, including in how the content issues are tackled. If there's no evidence of doing so, the conduct RFC is usually deleted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll put up an RfC right now, thanks for your advice. AzureFury (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Everybody has been given the feedback they need. This noticeboard is not a venue for content disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Was handled awhile ago --Jaysweet (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:Gennarous has accused User:Cberlet of being a "Hoxharian propagandist" (it's at Talk:Fascism#Chip_Berlet.27s_intentional_holding_back_of_article_progress; it was quite a while back so I'm not inclined to go look for the original edit unless he denies saying it.) Unless I am seriously misunderstanding, that's a pretty nasty accusation (the reference is presumably to Enver Hoxha, former dictator of Communist Albania). As far as I can tell, it is not based on anything factual: I've read a lot of Berlet's writing and can't recall him ever having anything nice to say about Hoxha, so it appears to be a generic attack, like calling someone a Nazi propagandist or a Stalinist propagandist. Seems to me to be beyond the realm of civility. - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I see now that User:Cberlet has closed his account, and I don't know the circumstances of that, so I'm not sure how relevant this is. If (and I have no idea whether this is the case) this amounted to part of harassing someone out of Wikipedia, then I would think it would remain quite relevant.- Jmabel | Talk 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the dates, I was blocked for that incident for a week. I said it in the heat of the moment, when said user was IMO going out of his way to irritate me. In case you're curious as to the choice of words there is this article from FrontPage Magazine.[7] Thanks.

PS - Berlet has left Wikipedia in a huff after he was blocked for making a personal attack against someone on the Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche article (don't know who). I was not involved in that since it was during my block. He may have attacked Carol Moore I think?[8] After further looking at the edit summaries, Berlet may have been blocked for calling Jimbo Wales a "spineless coward".[9] - Gennarous (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't follow the whole Cberlet thing in depth, but as I understand it, it was not just a single incident that led to the block, but rather the culmination of a bunch of things. The single incident might have been the catalyst.

In any case, Gennarous correctly points out that this incident occurred two weeks ago, and that he as blocked for a week as a result. That is a stronger message than we could possibly send at WQA! ;D I am marking as resolved, since this has already been taken care of. Although, now I can add "Hoxharian propagandist" to my list of obscure-yet-scathing insults. ("Yo mama so fascist, she's a Hoxharian propagandist!") --Jaysweet (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User: Your Radio Enemy has placed further messages on my talk page using harsh language. His nature appears unhealthy and obsessive. He has declared his intention to focus directly on me. His recent edits show that he is editing pages he has found in my own edit history. Libro0 (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Good, at least he is stopping his unhealthy and obsessive lies against me now. Starting sockpuppet proceedings because I disagree with him and replaced the images he stole from another website. Retaining information in articles that he and only he thinks should not be there. If it was there in the first place someone other than you thought it was important to include. He seems to play the system and drive people off Wikipeida. He is a bully and you have to stand up to bullies. He is the one who is guilty of continued harassment. Just look at [10], [11], and [12]. Uncivil harassment all from the innocent as the driven snow Libro0. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is another one of his paranoid rantings. He keeps acting as if I am a sockpuppet, and mentions other users he thinks I am in his rants. Of course I am going to look at someone who is constantly making false accusations against me is doing. I just happened to find some things that needed fixing and fixed them while monitoring him. Is someone who is searching for St. Leo's likely to be searching for an obscure defunct soccer team? Ditto for New York IRT and the rest. It is seeing a problem and fixing it to make Wikipedia a better place. The only thing is that I found these problems while monitoring the behavior of someone who seems hellbent to attack me. Did he even notice the problem? Apparently not.

I am not focusing my attention directly on him, I am seeing if he is doing any further damage to me. This passive aggressive abuse of the system is just more in his pattern of uncivil behavior. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I set a trap for Libro0. Let's see if he'll take the bait and claim it is sockpuppetry evidence. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Apology by Keeper76 has been accepted by Xander756. —Travis^talk 15:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like an admin to look at my situation. There is evidence at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/GDD1000 and on talk pages that the user names I have listed are united in an attempt to harrass me and prevent me editing the article at Ulster Defence Regiment. The discussion page there shows that their involvement stretches back more than a few months and that they have strangled attempts by other editors to improve the page by similar harrassment, incivility, bullying and the use of propaganda against other editors. So far I have had an untrue allegation of sockpuppetry leveled against me. I have been called the, "Self confessed former Ulster Defence Regiment member GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest", accused of adding disruptive material to the article, deceiving other editors, making a mockery of this encycopedia, being dishonest, adding unsourced additions, biased POV additions and copyright violations, having several "brand new accounts," collusion, pretending to be a new user, avoiding scrutiny, lying, appalling, editing problematically and pretending to be someone else. The following statement was made by the DomerFenian user: "You are an editor with a long history of disruption, gross POV editing, edit warring and copyright violations, you should not be permitted to try and get a clean start under a new name, and deceive other editors by editing the same article pretending to be a brand new editor". The tags of my accusers are: Domer48_'fenian' and BigDunc^Talk Everything I've read about new users, harrassment, good faith, the five pillars etc etc etc etc tells me that all of this is VERY wrong. Why should I, or anyone, be subjected to it? I do note that the user Domer has a history of being blocked for extended periods of time for similar abuse against other editors. All help appreciated.The Thunderer (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Domer has two blocks for incivility and I recently filed a report here against Dunc.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite two admins closing the sockpuppet complaint as unfounded he (BigDunc) has opened it a third time and demanded information to continue their vendetta.The Thunderer (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong not a single admin has closed it as unfounded, and not even a single admin has closed it. Also I'd even point out the first close was done on a non-existent reasoning acording to Enigma here. BigDunc^Talk 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither I, nor the user GDD1000 who you have such a bee in your bonnet about, have been found guilty of anything more than reacting to the abysmal treatment handed out by you and your tag teaming partners. Your manipulation of guidelines and policy seems to be matched only by your dogged perserverance in hounding anyone whose opinion doesn't concur with yours on articles related to Irish nationalism. The history of the extended attempts by GDD1000 to become a useful editor on Wikipedia is littered with your reverts, always quoting policy but doing nothing to assist the user in editing points into the pages the user was trying to contribute to. I note that "post-departure" your malicious behaviour continued against that user by damning his/her mistakes as a new, but enthusiatic editor, as "copyright violation," "POV pushing," etc. Not once in the history of that user do I see you or your fellow tag teamers welcome the new user or give him/her encouragement to continue posting, despite the overt politeness and appeals for assistance made to you. I see the same thing happening with me. Your welcome to me consisted of you jumping on the sockpuppetry bandwagon, reverts to my edits with the most spurious of policy quoting and a refusal to accept the word of an admin who has done a checkuser proving there is "no abusive sockpuppetry". You appear determined to pursue a course of incivility, harrassment, disinformation and propaganda against me to drive me off the Ulster Defence Regiment article and prevent the addition of useful, encyclopedic knowledge. That indicates to me, as it will to any person who bothers to check your edit history, that of your cohorts and of GDD1000. You've objected to my presence on Ulster Defence Regiment when I posted encyclopedic history of the regiment, its formation, armaments, vehicles, structure, commanders, awards, image, effect on the local community, duties, bases, casualties and allegations of collusion between loyalist and republican paramilitaries, all with inline references and citations and all you contributed in the same period was a revert to challenge information which was a direct lift from an article on Wikipedia which had been there, untouched for two years. In effect you've been hoist by your own petard for pursuing a vendetta.The Thunderer (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me state that 1) there is no abusive sockpuppetry being perpetrated here by The Thunderer and 2) I'm less than impressed with both BigDunc and Domer48's campaign of intimidation of the above editor. It's pretty obvious that they don't agree with his standpoint on certain issues and have taken it upon themselves to smear the guy's reputation with insinuations and accusations of sockery. Obviously, the goal here is to drive him from the project and, though I think his words to-date have been a bit strident and OTT, he has every reason to feel put-upon here. I'd like to see Dunc and Domer drop the matter, leave the editor alone, and basically get back to editing - Alison ^❤ 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the SSP case is not only closed but the door has been slammed shut at this stage. It only took two admins and a checkuser to close it. In short, it was a classic SSP 'fishing' case and one placed to simply cause trouble for their target. C'mon, guys, let's not do that. Had that been RFCU, I'd have thrown the case out for  CheckUser is not for fishing - Alison ^❤ 23:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Alison. I apologise for being "strident" but this type of harrassment is very hard to swallow, particularly when there is so much emphasis placed on friendliness in the guidelines published on Wikipedia. The Thunderer (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that I recently had an incident of gaming at the hands of these two users. Perhaps something can be done now. There is a clear recent history of disruptive behaviour.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an Admin can guide me on how to ensure I don't have to suffer this type of harrassment on Wikipedia again?The Thunderer (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Taken to WP:AN/3. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved

 – No edit warring for several days. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement over wp:talk, User:Blockinblox and User:Jeandré du Toit, diffs: [18] [19] [20]. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-03t12:55z

I have commented at the talk page in question. While Blockinblox's rant is not particularly constructive, it is not so egregious that it would typically be removed as per WP:TALK. Since I see no edit warring in the last several days, I am marking this as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Stuck

 – Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This editor, when asked in a civil way to explain an edit, is generally rude or insulting. Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here. I could go on. This user has been warned, blocked, warned again, etc etc. I have also seen many instances where this user remains calm and helpful but I think he should be warned overall for getting too heated and becoming rude. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a follow up on a case of contested speedy deletion, which I deal with on the appropriate place -- see more here. This is also, I believe, a case of an editor who seems to be misusing his admin power by evading detail clarification of his speedy deletion nomination, and by letting the speedy deletion status on so that deletion was completed while I was showing interest in improving the posting and actively providing evidence why the posting was justified and notable.

As you could see on the talk page of the deleted IGO Search, I reacted on the 'speedy deletion' nomination mere minutes after it was posted today. I asked the admin, very politely, why this was done. Initially he cited 'blatant advertising', which I questioned, and he changed it to lack of 'notability', which I countered providing objective information about the non-commercial non-governmental nature and superb respectability of the publisher of the service described (mandate of the United Nations, 101 year history as an international research institute, etc.) I also said, citing Wikipedia help sources, that if notability was in question, speedy deletion was the last resort of an editor, and I asked him to reconsider. Afterwards he asked for sources, which I was ready to answer, were the article not already deleted in the meantime. It would have been enough if he changed it to possible deletion, giving me and other people more time to discuss deficiencies of the article properly. I wonder how is it possible that one single person, without other views, discussion, and without an editorial consensus, and especially without providing comments and time on how to improve a possibly deficient article, how can one such person cause deletion of someone's work. Moreover, when I complained to him about this very incident, still trying to be very polite and talking about his actions rather than himself as a person, he deleted both of my posts and posted an note on my talk page to which I could hardly, with my own words deleted, defend against.

Summary: I am all for intelligent discussions backed by clear and irrefutable evidence, and I am hereby protesting against single-person non-discussed deletions of the above user. I believe blatant deletion of other people posts is not a way of discussing issues described in them. I shall be very grateful for any consideration and recommendations as to how can I -- or other people affected by someone deleting their work without proving any wrongdoing -- proceed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjfulopp (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Two points: (1) Mayalld is not an administrator and did not (indeed, could not) delete the article. (2) This wasn't a "single-person … deletion". Mayalld nominated the article for speedy deletion, and an administrator (SatyrTN) reviewed the article and deleted it, citing general criterion 11 for speedy deletion (blatant advertising) as the reason. Railing against Mayalld for, in good faith, putting a speedy tag on the article seems misplaced anger. No one has accused you of "wrongdoing"; an editor and an administrator have simply concluded that an article did not meet the Wikipedia inclusion standards. You've initiated a deletion review discussion about the article. Why not calmly wait to see how that plays out? Deor (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tjfulopp seems to have a major issue with Speedy deletion as a process, and is effectively protesting that the whole process is unfair. In that case, he needs to debate the process in the proper place, not argue that a single deletion, done in accordance with the current process, is wrong.

He seems to believe that deletion when he hadn't finished arguing with me is wrong, and that the article should not have been deleted unless and until I had made the case for deletion to his satisfaction, and persists in sending long winded, and petulant, messages requiring ever more information (such as this), and complaining if I remove those messages. It seems to have escaped his attention that if he had spent the four hours between tagging and deletion in adding the reliable sources that he claimed to have, instead of arguing, the article may not have been deleted.

The fact that he now seems to be forum shopping, and that he hasn't had the courtesy to inform me that he was taking it to this forum is unsurprising. Mayalld (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeated incivility and personal attacks towards all users who disagree with him [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31],[32]. Repeatedly politely warned by several users to no avail (latest: [33]). I've asked User:Moreschi to put him on civility parole, under WP:ARBMAC and he denied, in a rather colourful way [34]. Note here that Moreschi has imposed WP:ARBMAC on me for much less and this is why I considered him the first choice as a neutral admin.--   Avg    18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it a lit bit clearer:

• oh hell no. you are disgustingly biased. please hold while i vomit. seriously, stay away
• fuck that
• Thanks, but I don't think I'll take advice from an illiterate pretending to be something he's not.
• obstinacy is unbelievable. btw are you a steak or a kebab?
• I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to take the blatant POV pushing by VMORO seriously. I don't feel the need to address anything that he wrote, because it's all bullshit.
• "you almost made me crap my pants my pants with laughter." and "Have fun trying to push your idiotic fringe view (and before you say that's personal attack, admit to yourself that you are POV-pusher)."
• rv POV pushing bullshit. stay away
• removing the bullshit

That's just to make it more readable. I'll add up to the tally soon. I grew really tired of this recently and since he didn't change anything in his attitude since the couple of ANIs filed against his behaviour I'm in full support of sanctions. He's been acting sarcastically and made really unpleasant remarks of at least 5 or 6 editors most of the times completely unprovoked. That is if "POV-pushing" is enough of a reason to call someone illiterate, a steak of gebab, disgustingly biased and so on.--Laveol ^T 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Another one:

• prolly coz u suk - that's to an annon. When I asked him what he was doing I got this answer: I'm pretty sure he does suck anyway..--Laveol ^T 21:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

InternetHero appears genuinely to desire to improve the encyclopedia, but may need to be reminded of the social norms of collaborative editing. In particular, this user has accused me of racism. I requested that the comment be refactored; the request was received, but ignored (current version after 17 hours and two edits by InternetHero to the offending page).

Clearly, actual instances of racism fall under WP:SPADE and WP:NPA, but the stated basis for this accusation is my contention that Telescope#History should focus on the historical technological aspects, reserving involved discussion of the theoretical underpinnings for History of optics and other articles in the same interwoven family. My contact with this user began when I answered a WP:3O about this dispute here. Reviewing the 3O history, I note that the request was initiated by InternetHero; subsequent canvassing of known editors led to opinions more to their liking. Rendering my considered opinion led immediately to an assumption of bad faith with respect to due diligence in reviewing the history and basis of the dispute.

I acknowledge that answering a third opinion request can be setting myself up for a certain amount of abuse, but I consider this behavior beyond the pale. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could communicate this to InternetHero. Alternatively, telling me to suck it up and go edit would also resolve this dispute. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:InternetHero has been notified of this request. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even talking to you. I was refering to FoBM and DigitalC. I wasn't even talking to them; I was talking to User:Chovain. If you want to talk about etiquette:

I made many compromises (I left out 2 of my contributions for the history of the telescope article and the optical telescope article---politely labeled here and here), and I just want to be seen as a contributer that has the right to edit freely on Wikipedia (with references of course). I think the problem also resides in them thinking I'm not assuming good faith: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (3rd para).

I've shown very good faith on many occasions (which were in turn overlooked many times) found: here, here, here, and here. InternetHero (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

InternetHero's consistent response to the considered contrasting opinions of his peers is to accuse them of 1)lacking experience, 2)ignorance, 3)waging a personal vendetta against him, 4)racism/bigotry, and/or 5) cite Wikipedia guidelines construed so as to support his want -rather than the purpose of the guideline. He has repeatedly rejected exceedingly kind feedback from multiple sources, attacked third parties he has solicited for support when they did not agree with his POV, and declined offer of a mentor. I strongly hold that it is in our interest, and InternetHero's, that a solution is found that is voluntary rather than punitive or compulsory -but I am at a loss as to how to affect any such solution. InternetHero has voiced a belief that edits involving his contributions are personal attacks motivated by a personal dislike of him, likewise to critical analysis of his positions expressed on talk pages. I believe these problems are rooted in an unproductive ego association with contributions and editing from a position of advocacy for vested point of view -traits to be guarded against by all editors, for sure, but that have risen to disruptive levels with this user. Any input on the mater would be greatly appreciated.Mavigogun (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you something: "How many times have I asked for a discussion before you 3 (not Eldereft) indiscriminately revert my edits?"

Other than following me around like a shadow, you just follow what everyone else is doing (probably to game the system). You talk about UNDUE weight, etiquette, and verifiability yet you have been here only this long, and you seem to use those words when the others use them. Absolutely no offence intended, but I noticed this from the start and thats why I don't really consider you part of this whole thing. Coming here to express your opinion shows you probably don't have anything better to do but trust me, you can find more enjoyable things then trying to outsmart/degrade people. Try finding another hobby to vent that frustration.

In conclusion, I know what I'm doing for the most part and I recently always have been courteous. You only have to look at the history of the talk-pages. anyway, I'm over this. The community has spoken and thats all that matters. InternetHero (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The above reply speaks volumes to the problem. InternetHero has been warned to decist from personal attacks, and to "comment on the edits, not the editor". Yet, he above feels justified in describing others as racist (something that he was been warned about in the past), and then replies about how another editor expressing an opinion "shows you probably don't have anything better to do...". Because of the number of policies and guidelines violated, I don't think that WQA is enough for this issue, and that a RFC/U will need to be completed. - DigitalC (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This coming from some1 who thinks that a consensus is overrided by verifiability... You're defending a person who probably has some psychological issues---trust me. I ask you: "Who spends their time helping a troubled youth on Wikipedia"? Some1 who I am going to put on alert for stalking---thats who. He keeps (1, 2, and 3)following me and this DigitalC guy is starting to as well. This will probably be dubed as "a personal attack," but you guys need to find more constructive uses of your time. I'm only 23 and I go to school (not now) and work as a janitor...

This whole facade is just to try and think that the way I'm doing things is wrong, but that would leave out my integrity---something they probably hate seeing that the community has spoken against them. I tell you: "Please try and find another way to vent your frustration". I won't go as far as to say you need councelling or something, but you (DigitalC) should try and find a better way to vent other than trying to degrade ppl. Absolutely no offence, but you should try this website.

Anyway, the sandbox-edit prepared by DigitalC is completely out of context considering much of my "personal attacks" were in the confines of them having to stalk my history logs to even find it. In addition, the other "bad things" I did was probably in respect to deleting their editing on my user-page, and to a much more laughable extent: editing non-sourced material or "material not found in the source". My reply to this is: "Why in the heck would I need to source to verify that Al-Haytham was alive during the Middle Ages". Regardless, I can see the bit about canvassing.

In reply to the other stuff found in the next (very large and particularly misleading/indiscriminant) sandbox-edit: "this is where I lost my patience in the Dispute Resolution process and sought help from 2 admins (who completely agreed with me)". Read at least half of it and you'll see what I'm dealing with here. I hate to spend so much time for this nonsense, but I don't want my account to be labeled as "compromised" in any way shape-or-form. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough editors have tried addressing these concerns that I'm not sure what WQA can possibly do here. An RFCC is currently being prepared. -- Mark Chovain 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The RFCC mentioned above has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero - DigitalC (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Last night I stumbled on Masters of Horror after someone created an episode article for it using WP:COPYVIO material from IMDB. I redirected it to the episode list, only to discover one didn't exist. So, I spent a few hours creating an appropriate episode list, adding in the missing airdates and writers from a semi-list that had been in the main article. I then checked all of the other episode articles. All of them were simply plot summaries, some 800-900 words in length, and a few more copyvioed from IMDB. They all failed WP:EPISODE, WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and WP:MOSTV. As such, I redirected them all to the episode list. Artw began undoing some of these redirects today. When I left what I felt was a polite question on his talk page asking why, he left an uncivil response[35]. He has continued making personal attacks in the AfD for one episode, in his edit summary, and on my talk page.[36][37][38][39]

I finally left him a warning for the last one on my talk page,[40] to which he responded with more incivility.[41]. Another editor has also left him a warning about the personal attacks[42] and his response shows no sign he intends to change.[43] I've never dealt with this editor before nor been in contact with him before today. He has barely even edited in the last year, so I see no reason he should be so extremely hostile towards me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian has the misfortune to have been engadging in a stereotypical mode of behaviour that I dislike on a set of articles that I happened to be looking at, and managed to catch my irritation both barrels. Engaging Collectonian in quite that manner over the mode of behaviour was wrong of me - I should have dealt strickly with the actions and not the person. I apologise If I have been overagressive towards them. Artw (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hard to believe that when you are canvassing people to come "save" the episode articles with remarks like these[44] (which is a false statement, as only the episode articles were redirected while the main article was actually cleaned up and expanded with real referenced info instead of random stuff). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly remembering why I haven't edited for a while. And yes, removing content and replacing it with a redirect is basically the same as deleting it in most conventional senses of the word - the information no longer exists in the regular public parts of wikipedia. Artw (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how asking someone if they'd be interested in helping improve articles is canvassing (especially as I have Artw's talk page on my watchlist along with a number of the articles in question). This isn't the first time Artw has passed me links to articles he thought I'd be able to help improve (usually sci-fi/horror). As we have disagreed in the past he also knows I'm going to give him my honest opinion.

I would ask Artw to stay civil though, if the articles are going to be improved it is always best to try and keep things as calm as possible so that everyone feels they can contribute their thoughts without worrying someone might snap at them.

Hope that helps explain things from where I sit. Hopefully, the concerns Collectonian rightly raised about the quality of the articles and Artw's wish to save them will help focus attention on the issue and help to resolve this one way or the other (if they can't be fixed they will need redirecting). (Emperor (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Certainly these articles should be improved, but consensus-free summary deletion (we call it "redirect" sometimes) is not the answer. I can see why someone would lose their calm for a moment. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 21:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have engaged with this matter via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Screwfly Solution (Masters of Horror episode). User:AnmaFinotera's position on this article seems to be quite mistaken as this film quite notable and, being a free-standing, self-contained, high-quality production by a major director, fully merits a separate article. The Masters of Horror anthology seems to have been generally made in this style using other big name directors like John Carpenter. Engaging in the unilateral, non-consensual listification which got User:TTN topic banned for disruption seems especially inappropriate and unwise in this case. If User:AnmaFinotera continues with her disruptive provocation then we should perhaps seek a topic ban for her too. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• That has nothing to do with the incivility at all, and after your personal attack in the AfD[45], I don't think you really need to be involved in this discussion at all as it is clear you aren't neutral and are just looking for excuses to bad mouth me some more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• User:AnmaFinotera is uncivil here, making an insulting edit summary as she edit-wars contrary to consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You started it with that mess in AfD and your deciding that because YOU agree you get to revert rather than actually let the discussion continue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Taken to ANI, per below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User with long history of extreme incivility incidents [46][47] , multiple civility and revert warring warnings [48] [49] and blocks[50], now openly instigates revert warring, making extremely incivil personal remarks seasoned with anti-Semitic rant about Jews in Czech language [51]"žid nemůže krásti -- on jen bere, co jeho jest. Peníze nežida jsou majetkem bez pána -- Žid má úplné právo si je přivlastnit" ("Jews don't steal, they take what belongs to them. Money of the non-Jew is a property without the owner - a Jew has a right to take it" and so on. I think open instigation of revert wars and openly anti-Semitic rants like this are not acceptable, and something must be done about it. M0RD00R (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How about MORDOR'S Behaviour ? Look at his edition in all Polish related articles his adds are mainly around "proofs" for "Polish antisemitism, xenophobia, homophobia etc." That's sick, someone has to stop that other way we will have more propaganda from MORDOR than now. He also removed multiply times citations and sentences in the article about NOP. I tryed to discuss things but MORDOR can't talk, he need to do whatever he want. Situation is very hard because it's mainly impossible to build community and non propaganda Wikipedia while one user do whatever he want in spreading his point of view and no one react for these pathethic actions.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I see little common ground for discussion with you for quite obvious reasons:

• "That's it, you fucking pig. You spread your propaganda too much." [52]
• "Please do something with M0RDOR, he is Polish hating Jew ;(. Ban him, please." Followed by openly anti-Semitic rant in Czech language translated above [53]
• "look at the Mordro's editions - He always delete important things and add non-reliable sources. Maybe ypou should to ban him ?"[54]
• "Stop spreading your Jewish propaganda" [55]
• and last but not least your strange obssesion with my persona. You've been asked kindly to stop using my username in edit summaries and respecting WP:NPA ages ago. But still every now and then I'm being reminded "This is not your playground" [56] [57], I'm being mentioned in random edit summaries [58], and slandered with usual "propaganda" nonsense:

• Some users treat Wikipedia as their own propaganda spreading tool machine such as MORDOR
• stop spreading your propaganda.
• Stop spreading your Jewish propaganda
• Stop spreading ur propaganda about the Poland, MORDOR
• or the "pig quote" mentioned above [59].

You've been advised to cut down propaganda accusations by neutral editor just weeks ago [60], and yet you've done it again here [61].

That said, even if I see little common ground for reasonable discussion with you, that does not mean that I'm not willing to discuss your edits with uninvolved editors. I always welcome outside opinion in cases like this. As you know your edits were discussed for example here and here. And also as you are aware, your arguments have been dismissed by uninvolved editors as "nonsense" [62] and "borderline for being deleted as unacceptably racist on a noticeboard"[63]. Lately yet again consensus has been reached that your edits fail WP:RS and other policies [64], but still you have reverted consensus version with edit summary "Revert vandalism" [65].

But the fact that when things does not go your way over the organization (National Rebirth of Poland) that you've openly associate yourself with [66], you resort to extreme incivility [67] or straight forward disruption [68][69][70] [71] this is nothing compared with this recent openly antisemitic edit [72]. Wiki is not the place where antisemitic canards will be tolerated. M0RD00R (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He may have been impolite lately, possibly biting another, as you can see here ([73]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He did look a bit bitey - maybe leave a polite note on his talk page and see how it goes from there...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done: I left him a note...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 02:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Bettering the Wiki 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs)

I may have violated some Wikiquette, but I'd like to know what in particular made this necessary. The diff links to the entire conversation between me and MCB. I do not claim to get along with MCB, but it would help to know what part of that conversation crossed the line.

The word "bitey" is strange here, because it seems to refer to don't bite the newbies, and my entire goal on UAA is to prevent biting of newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• WQA often confuses me, but this one a bit moreso. How exactly did Rspeer "bite a newbie" here? ^S._D.Jameson 21:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• He bit an established user, not a newbieBettering the Wiki (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for using the wrong terminology, but you seemed rather stressed and hotheaded.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think all will be well if we just leave this. The comments were not 'biting' per se, but weren't entirely civil. Treating this as a 'warning shot' would probably b best - as rspeer is an obviously great user, showing unsurpassed kindness to newcomers. One argument and he's at WQA - that seems extreme. Let's just let it be for now...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 18:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree to close this, but not before warning rspeer that another action will be higher in the dispute resoultion process. I say this not to be mean, but to control his behavior.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely your choice if you want to escalate this or pursue the next step in dispute resolution should another incident occur. Howeverh, I will expressly state that I don't think it is necessary, nor do I think it will necessarily be looked upon in your favour. Dendodge has summed it up - no action is necessary here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In the context of a dispute about possible vandalism from User:Maurice27, he has been showing a lack of civility with his own user talk page:

1. First, he has shouting me on my own talk page. I'd claimed him not to shout me.
2. Second, he removed my claim and has attacked me saying I'm a "dumbass" in a resume description of reversion from history talk page. I'd claimed him not to attack me.
3. Third, he removed again my respectful claim, and has attacked me saying I'm telling "foolish words" in Spanish "A palabras necias..." (I'm Spanish-speaker). This is a part of a popular expression in Spanish language that is "A palabras necias, oidos sordos", it means "Foolish words, deaf ears".

See in History of talk page from this user, from August 12th at 11:00 AM to 11:06AM.

Thanks. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 11:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User advised by Stifle. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quite thick skinned but BehnamFarid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to have recent history [74] and I do not wish to inflame the situation more by delaing with him myself. Specificall I alert you to his personal attacks here and on another editor's talk page here. --triwbe (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Stale

 – No users have responded in 5 days. Becky seems to have dropped the matter. --Smashville^BONK! 15:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Anonymous_Dissident repeatedly makes indirect personal attacks:

• Calling an AFD nomination "very poor" with no address of the arguments presented.[75]
• Giving undue "advice" about conduct in AFD debates [76]
• Making condescending remarks in response to a polite template warning [77]
• Making false accusations [78]
• Calling user actions "ludicrous" [79] rather than providing constructive criticism or basic discussion
• Calling user actions "silly" [80] rather than providing constructive criticism or basic discussion Becky Sayles (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't personal attacks. I think because the discussion was heated, you have taken offence when none was present or intended. The issue seems to be a result of an AfD, which has now closed, and I believe we can consider this issue closed also. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't take offense for anything he wrote, nothing that important. I just chose to identify problems with the way he conducted himself. Calling things ludicrous or silly, not someone, has implications on the person responsible for them. Clearly a single editor is responsible for nominating an article, and to call the nomination poor without discussion is a direct attack on the editor by intent. He would rather call the nomination poor than to treat the nominating editor with respect and to explain his !vote. It seems counterproductive to call things silly or ludicrous, and not to actually discuss relevant issues. He appeared not to understand that such discussions are not democratic votes, nor that quick responses to comments does not imply belief in the contrary. I tried to bring up issues with comments by left by other editors, and I got condescending advice about not being able to change the outcome. Becky Sayles (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling a nomination poor is not an attack. WP:NPA even says that this situation is not a personal attack: "A posting that says 'Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y', or 'The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research', is not a personal attack." You are not the nomination. He called the nomination poor, he did not call you poor. I don't know how to make that any clearer that it is not a personal attack. Also, the thing he called "silly" and "ludicrous" was you warning him for making a personal attack when he didn't do so...there is nothing "counterproductive" about it. The only counterproductive part is making a big issue by misrepresenting facts here. I don't understand what sort of "productivity" you expect from that conversation anyway. --Smashville^BONK! 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take in a little more detail:

• The admin referred to an AfD nomination as a poor nomination. The user is being uncivil towards the nomination?
• The admin gives you advice that responding to each keep nomination with a question is not going to result in a change of result.
• The "polite" template that you gave the admin was in response to him telling you that responding to each keep nomination would not change the result. You therefore incorrectly templated him for a personal attack. His statement that he did not make a personal attack is correct and in no way uncivil.
• Again, a rather civil response to you after you have templated him and made this post on his talk page. Posting a link on an admin's page on "How to Discuss an AfD" is simply snarky and uncalled for. Given that, the response you were given was rather polite.
• The admin says it is ludicrous to view his statement as an attack. That is neither uncivil nor untrue. There was no personal attack.
• He states that the believing that a page with frequent updates is considered a blog is silly. He did not call you silly.

I also note you did not inform him of this discussion. After reviewing these edits and other edits, you are the only one that seems to be behaving in a slightly uncivil manner. You are taking disagreement to your AfD nomination a little too personally. If you nominate an article that people are actively working on for deletion, you can expect there to be disagreement about it. A person giving you advice is not a personal attack. However, templating someone when they did not attack you is itself considered a personal attack. As per above, this should be considered a closed issue and the only reason I tacked this on was that I thought it was a little more detail (and I spent a long time writing before my edit conflict) --Smashville^BONK! 18:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Telling me that the result would not change is contrary to the purpose of the discussion. I discuss the comments of other editors. He makes the assumption that he is right, rather than participating in the discussion appropriately, making comments about conduct. I feel as though being an admin is being given excessive weight. An admin who does not constructively contribute to the discussion [81] should be held to the same standards as any other editor. If I incorrectly used the template, that certainly can be my mistake. But Templating an admin in general, and providing a link to information that might help him work more constructively in future AFD discussions, I thought was appropriate. To me he appeared not to understand how an AFD works, so I attempted to point him in the right direction. This was based on the absence of discussion with his post calling the nomination poor, and his use of the discussion to generate comments about editor conduct rather than placing that on a user talk page. I made the assumption that the AFD should be limited to the article nominated, and that talk pages would be more appropriate for the rest.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep within the parameters of your report, which alleges personal attack. Two other editors thus far have said they think this report is bogus. Rather than abusing templates, filing bogus reports, and generally making untrue accusations against others, I would advise you to be less liberal and willing to make incorrect and blatantly false assertions and allegations. Such can cause problems here, as no-one enjoys being warned about, accused of doing, something they never did. So now I will warn you: make sure what you are accusing someone of is true by policy, else problems could result. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that your entire complaint is based upon a personal attack made by you (templating someone and accusing them of a personal attack when there was no personal attack is considered a personal attack) and the reaction thereafter. Taking this to WQA afterwards is almost certainly a continued personal attack. And the "not appearing to understand how an AfD works" again is just plain snarky and uncalled for. That he didn't explain his logic entirely is not a personal attack and your behavior hereafter, including taking this to WQA, is simply rude. When someone disagrees with you or tells you that your actions are not warranted, it is not a personal attack. The only person who has behaved poorly in this situation, Becky, is you. AD has been more civil than one could expect given your behavior towards him. --Smashville^BONK! 13:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User warned/advised by IronDuke. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping that someone could help cool down a situation where a long-time user appears to be taking everything that I am trying to explain to him with great hostility. After posting in proxy for the indef. blocked User:Ryoung122. I left him a message on his talk page indicating that indefinitely blocked users do not get a say on Wikipedia and that proxy posting could have consequences. He responded not on his talk page, but on the talk page of the article in question telling me to be a little bit less of an asshole. I warned him not to be uncivil and gave him an opportunity to remove his comments himself, at which point I would have entirely forgotten about the incident. His response, again on the talk page of the article, was to accuse me of threatening him and to tell me to "back off, and cease being an asshole. I don't know who the hell you think you are, but grow up." I find this response entirely inappropriate given the tone of my comments on his talk page (note that I even prematurely apologized in my first comment, in case I was mistaken with his proxy posting), but I feel as if anything I could say directly to him at this point would only escalate the situation.

Canada Jack has been an excellent contributor over the past few years, as far as I can tell, so I am uncertain as to why he is reacting this way. I do not feel that, at this point, any use of administrative tools is appropriate, given his standing, so I was hoping that someone here could explain the situation better than I could, or at least in a way that he would take less offense. Usually the standard procedure would be to remove the incivility, but I am afraid to do it myself and escalate the problem but in this case I moved it out of the article talk page and into the user talk page. Cheers, CP 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For full discretion: I moved another uncivil comment to the talk page. Cheers, CP 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Those remarks look pretty bad to me. I have given my two pence here. IronDuke 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming your counselling is going to work to resolve this issue (it's very good) - if it doesn't, and there's no change (further assumptions of bad faith/incivility/personal attacks), then please change the tag to Stuck. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Wikidea is currently using edit summaries to accuse me of trolling, stalking (despite the fact that I first edited that page on 24 February 2008) and for not being smart. On article's discussion page he also accused me of being a troll and expressing wish that I would go away [82].

He was warned to watch on his manners by User:84user [83], me [84], and User:Yannismarou [85], [86]. -- Vision Thing -- 23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by every word, and my record in every page that he is messing with, against this vexatious, impudent troll. Wikidea 01:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to echo User:Yannismarou—cool down, Wikidea. Cool Hand Luke 04:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

His latest comment: I wrote it you moron. -- Vision Thing -- 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for that. And the next time I called you a moron as well, which I'm deleting from the talk page. You seem to have stopped making a nuisance, which I appreciate. Wikidea 02:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Sockpuppets blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up on the user User:Haroldandkumar12, he has been making repeated personal and civil attacks such as this and here and reverting whenever they're removed. He's starting to become a nuisance. Rehevkor ✉ 17:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a bunch more uncivil posts by this user, from the same article. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well fuck you guys I'm putting you douches on this list cause you guys are jerks to me. Zombified24 (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

very amusing. I'll leave this here as another example of his behaviour. Rehevkor ✉ 01:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I have tons of usernames with easy passwords to remember so I dont care. I'm like a Jew, I'm everywhere and you just dont know it! Zombified24 (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This emotional editor usually doesn't edit pages, but instead posts uncivil comments at talk pages. I think we have to draw a line and give him a final warning or a block, since he's been warned before.[87]

He has also vandalised pages before: [88]

Here's examples of him being extremely uncivil often towards other users: [89][90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]

The last four were from today. 62.163.232.175 (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see this user is already blocked for 2 days. 62.163.232.175 (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Stuck

 – referred to mediation cabal

Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my history you will notice that User:Dfgarcia is constantly leaving me messages regarding his "profession" as an ESL teacher, and offering to "teach" me things. I have tried to ignore him and lately I admit that out of frustration I have lashed out at him. He constantly provokes me, and as you can see I have NEVER left a message for him that was not in response to a message that he left for me, usually without reason. Please ask this "editor" to cease with his childish games and snobbish attitude towards me and to immediately terminate his annoying habbit of posting messages on my talk page. I have nothing more to say to him, he is not leaving constructive advise for me for any other reason but to be cleverly demeaning towards me and to insult my character, much in the way an unpopular schoolboy would try to "tattle" on his classmates. Further dialouge with him is nothing more than a pointless waste of my time. Thanks. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, he is attacking you. I will leave a note on his talk page promptly.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 DoneBettering the Wiki (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... you don't get it either: [97]. dfg (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing to substantiate your claims on that page,DF.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then I'm glad it was someone else who took meaningful action: the sysop involved both warned and blocked the above user.  Done dfg (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at edit histories, I think Wjmummert would benefit from some kind of mentorship. While prolific, he doesn't seem to 'get' some aspects of Wikipedia; I'm looking at the extensive, and largely unchallenged, unsourced editorialising in Chicago Cubs articles (which need a WP:NOR cluebat in general). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree, and had hoped to clue him in on such, except that he was very combative to begin with and it devolved into this mess. That he is so prolific and makes so many incremental edits further discouraged me from jumping in and trying to work together. He has received some guidance from other Chicago-topic editors whose names I won't drag into this, but it's been slow going. If anyone knows of an extremely patient mentor willing to step in to situations like this, please alert them. dfg (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* This is only getting worse...I have no choice but to reccommend you to the mediation cabal.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest reading up. Additionally, in the future, take the action first, and then template, not vice versa with over an hour's delay. dfg (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, what action? I did not do anything relating to this cases outside of here, or your user talk pages.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, then; I assumed your note meant that you would be posting a notice to Mediation Cabal, rather than a referral to the original poster. I chalk the misunderstanding up to a lack of experience with these procedural WP pages. However, I do find it extremely amusing that you have failed to note (getting back to my "reading up" comment) that the admin who took action in this case is listed as one of two coordinators for the Mediation Cabal. Don't you think he would have suggested it (MC) himself to either party if he thought it were worthwhile, instead of unilaterally blocking one? I do. dfg (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Case re-opened.

Hello. I've noticed a bad side of Ward3001. In response to this warning, I told him that it may be best to tone it down a bit here. (Note: It submitted three times because I continually tweaked it after clicking save, but before the page reloaded.) Then, Okiefromokla said the same thing. He then dismissed our comments and left a nasty message at my talk page. I then explained and apologized for the misunderstanding and again, he dismissed it. I was wondering what I should do. Thanks! Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a more detailed message at this user's talk page regarding the issue. As long he stays calm in the future, there shouldn't be a problem. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've re-opened the case as the user continues to leave messages, as he did here. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You've neglected to mention that you've very patronizingly templated him. Even for people not familiar with WP:DTTR, don't you think one that starts with "Welcome to Wikipedia" and ends with "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia" would irk someone who's been here for years? dfg (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So I give him a 4im? I'm not gonna be that iffy about this. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 15:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My goodness. No, don't use one at all. If you can take the time to file a Wikiquette alert, why on earth wouldn't you take the time to write a personal note? I can understand using the template in initial correspondence, but using it after already having had terse words seems like very poor judgment, or if one doesn't want to WP:AGF, being smarmy. dfg (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I didn't want to write a note is that he would revert it, so what would be the use? I also reverted the template addition. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your logic escapes me. If you felt it wouldn't be of use, why even leave a template? Furthermore, while I agree reverting the template was well-intentioned and a good move diplomatically, perhaps it would have also been a good idea to leave a detailed explanation for the revert (possibly even an apology), either in the edit summary or on the talk page. Doing that might have circumvented Ward taking further offense and reverting your revert. Just sayin'. dfg (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what we have here is an honest misjudgment from Jonathan. We can all forgive him for that — I certainly don't see any negative intent on his part, although it might be a stretch to say that Ward3001 engaged in a personal attack. Ward, however, has been deliberately confrontational. The original issue was really quite insignificant: He warned a vandal using bolded capital letters ("yelling") and both Jonathan and I advised him to refrain from doing this. While he made it clear that he is unwilling to acknowledge that this was indeed inappropriate behavior, I'm only really interested if he continues to break talk page guidelines and WP:CIVIL. In such a case, he will be warned again and then blocked temporarily for incivility. Perhaps the best and only thing that can come from this Wikiquette alert is a few more editors confirming that civility and talk page guidelines apply to everyone — even when dealing with vandals. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For about a year I have occasionally contributed to the Traditional marriage movement article, as has Agnaramasi. It is probably fair to say we have "butted heads" on several content issues related to the article, but except in one respect the article content seems to be "good enough" for both of us. That one unresolved issue is regarding the inclusion of some sort of image that "makes sense" for the article. I found one that seems pretty good, though obviously not perfect. Agnaramasi has deleted it each time I have added it. The edit summary for the most recent revert included, "please do not add this rediculous image again." I do not think my edit was ridiculous! Moreover, I feel the wording of this edit summary ridicules my contribution, which is being made in good faith. With this note on Agnaramasi's talk page I attempted, in a civil way, to bring this ridicule to Agnaramasi's attention. The response from Agnaramasi does not appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for effective collaboration.

The underlying content issue can be discussed at Talk:Traditional_marriage_movement#Picture_needed, should anyone wish to express an opinion on that. This "Wikiquette alerts" forum was the only place I could find to ask for peer review of the meta-issue of civility, particularly in the (essentially unalterable) edit summaries. (sdsds - talk) 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Libro0 thinks I am heading up some big sockpuppet ring to drive him crazy or something. He is trying to hide his talk page. He has made two sockpuppet cases against me at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy (2nd) claiming everyone who is against him is a sockpuppet and claims crazy evidence. He has acted in an uncivl way all because he wasn't getting his way in baseball card articles. He needs to be removed. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I archived the talk page because it has become very long. Everything in there still remains viewable. Libro0 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Constantly adding "sockpuppets" to my page, despite having no evidence to say they are mine. have requested that s/he stop as the "sockpuppets" are not mine (one is my IP address, another is my old work IP, so should be removed as my old work may be used by another editor, and another is from my old PC in my old home - the only one that is mine is my current IP address) and he simply stated that I was a "liar". He has repeatedly reverted my (correct edits). TBH, I think a warning should suffice in the first instance, but if he continues a ban may be neccesary. Thanks. Step13thirteen (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the entries he pleaced on the IP-pages. Make sure that you do not "forget to login" in order to "accidentally" circumvent Wikipedia rules. An Admin will want to keep an eye on 3RR's for both users.

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have finally reached the limit of my politeness with the above-noted editor. One day, while monitoring "recent changes" I saw a rather heated response in the Talk Page of Silent Hill. I stopped by to help to resolve the issue. Very early on, I was attacked by this user, and referred on their discussion page as a "pervert". I have since been accused of being a sockpuppet (although not officially, even though I have asked them to), been told that I'm a liar and a freak. Sadly, they have referred to others in involved in the same mediation efforts as "stalkers" and "psychos". I have tried to assist the editor, and politely help them to actually understand policy and even the concept of AGF. One day, I even gave them an official "welcome" using the cookie-based template to show that I was honestly friendly.

Not long ago, the editor again referred to me as a sockpuppet, and a liarm and I placed a comment on their dicussion page that VERY firmly (as I should have before) advised them of how disturbing their comments were.

They then blanked there page, and called me a "pervert" in the edit SUMMARY.

That was indeed the last straw. I am now in permanent record a pervert - that's libel, and is not acceptable conduct on ANY internet site, let alone on Wikipedia.

This may have to be escalated, as they already have shown a propensity to not respect admins, and I see little chance that they will change.

I am done trying to defend this editor and their right to edit when I am abused and attacked, and called a "pervert". This editor needs to be stopped.

Sorry to disturb, but I will truly appreciate whoever's assistance. BMW(drive) 23:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has been blocked one week for other offenses. [98] Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I really hope that someone "adopts" this editor when they return. Unfortunately, their ban does not address the issues above, but someone will need to let this user know that because other people either disagree, OR they try to get you to follow Wikipedia policies, that does NOT permit you to attack, call names (such as pervert), or otherwise try and discredit others. I tried to help them, but I'm not going to hang around for additional abuse. BMW(drive) 09:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Appears to be mainly a style/content issue. Recommended WP:3O or WP:RfC

Ckatz is a "consensus monkey" - he contributes virtually nothing to the talk page, then he re-writes the article saying it's the consensus - leave the re-writes to those actually actively discussing things, I say. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs or particular articles? Ckatz is a widely active editor, so it would be difficult for one to guess what it is you are referencing in your note. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Lazulilasher, thanks for looking into this. Frankly, I'd appreciate an uninvolved perspective as this editor has become quite disruptive. Having not achieved what he wanted at the Solar System article, he has now resorted to a series of personal criticisms/attacks directed at Ashill, Serendipodous, and myself, including this filing, a checkuser request, and an accusation of sock puppetry. (Apparently, Ashill, Serendipodous and myself are one and the same editor.) Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the talk page Solar System discussion. I noticed that there is already an open thread here regarding HarryAlffa and this discussion above. In the interest of keeping the discussion in one place, and in the absence of any diffs against Ckatz, I would move that this conversation be concentrated above in the existing Wikiquette Alert. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only point to the Solar System on the 9th & 11th of August |diff1 |diff2. If you go to the talk page at this point, you will find only one contribution from Ckatz. Myself and one other editor were actively editing the "Ice" paragraph, while one other wanted rid of it, then Ckatz removed it twice - erroneously claiming consensus.

I found another example of someone complaining about exactly this behaviour on Ckatz's talk page, but don't have time at the minute to search again for it.

As I said yesterday in the complaint about me on this page;

Ckatz would have read this before he put his post above, so why did Ckatz make out that I was still claiming sock-puppetry? Basic dishonesty? I know Ckatz and Ashill will have read this, because one or both of them is "spying" on my contributions, as they both turned up to on various pages on the May contain nuts I didn't tell them about.

Ashill, Serendipodous and Ckatz seem to view making points they have no answer to as disruptive behaviour. I did critique Ashill's cognitive abilities (see the complaint about me on this page), can anyone offer any counter arguments? But this one deconstruction of another's comments cannot be described as a series. I would appreciate any intelligent editor casting an analytical eye over Ckatz who is revealing himself to be as honest as a politician or a tabloid journalist. -HarryAlffa (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

First, please avoid comments like "as honest as a politician or a tabloid journalist." Second, after another reading of the article's talk page, I cannot find an instance of Ckatz breaching Wikiquette or being uncivil. The talk page discussion seems lively and reasonably professional. I commend that, and hope this conduct continues. As far as a content/stylistic dispute is concerned, this is most likely not the correct venue (as my astronomy knowledge is limited). I recommend either Third Opinion or Requests for Comment if the talk page is not working. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your fair summary of the talk page. I am still somewhat ignorant of wiki-community rules, so by placing my complaint here you have concluded that I thought Ckatz was bein uncivil, my fault for that! I had thought that being a concensus monkey would be frowned upon? Ckatz hasn't contributed to the talk page in this, so he hasn't expressed himself uncivilly. Above, on this page he has been spinning things a little. I think that is obvious?

Surely it would be a terrible thing if even sarcasm, "as honest as a politician or a tabloid journalist" was pollitically incorrect? Thank you for your time spent on this. -HarryAlffa (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Harry. Generally, this forum is for Wikiquette concerns, rather than content concerns. Regarding your remark, the difficulty is that we are only communicating via keyboards and monitors, therefore sarcasm can, and often is, misinterpreted. That you did not mean it as such is good, and I am glad that you took the time to mention it here. Again, most kind regards. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This user has been engaging in mass reversion of maintainence tags including:

• [99]
• [100]
• [101]
• [102]
• [103]
• [104]
• [105]
• [106]

I believe that unsourced POV is unencylopedic and unhelpful, and his edits are disruptive and detremential to the project Fasach Nua (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute - you can pursue Article RFC or mediation at WP:DR, but this is not the venue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like someone to take a look at the incivility I am having to endure from this user. I commenced posting at 16:19 on 29th July. By 17:59 this report had been submitted accusing me of abusive sockpuppetry, which was never the case. You can also see the use of propaganda POV editing, conflict of interest, disruptive editing, copyright violations, edit warring, and "a mockery of Wikipedia". The abuse continued under the guise of the complaint calling me "a self confessed UDR man" which I presume was intended to indicate I was not a fit person to edit the article at Ulster Defence Regiment, accusing me of having several brand new accounts, and deceiving other editors. Because of the perceived harrassment I reported the matter on this page here and as you can see admonishments were handed out by Admins. As you can see I attempted to redress the issue by inviting the user to participate here and here. My attempts at friendliness were rebuffed by incivil comments as the user removed my entries from his talk page, on several of them accusing me of policy violations. On my own talk page I was again accused of violating policy here. I have resolved myself not to become involved with this user again where possible because he seems to have the ability to make me lose my cool. I do note however he has a long track record of incivility to a number of users and (I believe) had a ban for the very same thing quite recently. I do not feel this type of behaviour has any place in Wikipedia and respectfully ask for an interested admin to look into it.The Thunderer (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Forum shopping again? Please be civil, stay of my talk page and the next time you call me a "rabid Irish bigot" I will request you get more than a slap on the wrist. And Alison never said you were not a sock, just that you were not an abusive sock-puppetry. I disagree, go figure? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully ask admins to note the comments by User:Domer48, the disdain he shows for the concern he has caused. Also the way he is trying to twist the comment made at "rabid Irish bigot" which, while perhaps a little strong of me, it's direction at any one individual is emphatically denied here, something which Mr Domer failed to notice or point out. I would also request that the tone of my comments be examined in the fond hope that they are found to be non-inflammatory as my intention all along has been to remain civil and try to negotiate a settlement with the editors who seem to have taken such a distaste for the edits I produce at Ulster Defence Regiment.The Thunderer (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Stale

Various users on the Anglophilia article have been on the receiving end of some rather uncivil behaviour from the above-mentioned user.

• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice.

"My worry is that you are presuming to edit when you cannot even spell Adolf. Perhaps stick to Romanian?"

"(PS your command of the English language might be improved.)"

• Referring to other editors' good-faith changes as vandalism.

"Problems with Francis Tyers: repeated vandalism"

"why have you been indulging in ... indiscriminate vandalism?"

"It is now perfectly clear, given his history of vandalism of this article, that Francis Tyers should be blocked."

"Thank you, Francis/Jimmy. Reporting yourself for vandalism and sock puppetry would be helpful."

• Rudeness

"When you are dead, or get older, you might feel embarrassed at being a time-waster."

"Have a shave. Get a haircut. Have a wash."

"I am telling you to grow up"

These provide some examples of the kind of aggressive discussion that we think breaches Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL policies. - Francis Tyers · 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the user has been warned by an admin already about civility, see here. - Francis Tyers · 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Hello, I've been working on Berlin for a couple of days now. It had a lot of dead links and a lot of the references weren't formatted consistently. I repaired the links, formatted and added a couple of references and changed some of the pictures to better versions of the same subjects. About 60 edits in all so quite a lot of work. Then I got this message on my talk page [107] and this editor reverted all 60 edits in one go [108] including back to all the broken links. I reverted the edit [109]. Please can someone help, I will try and reason with the person as well regarding sources though I feel a 60-edit revert needs to be reported somewhere. thanks very much Tom (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Compounding references as you did, Tom, is a very good practice. Rather than reducing the credibility of an article it enhances compactness on what we see and even more on what we store as source code. Moreover, it conveys easily the significance of a single source for the referencing thereby rather increasing the article's credibility, I find. I guess it is for these reasons that we are encouraged to work like this.

It's probably OK to disagree with this guide line, since it does not sound very strict. However, such arguable disagreement certainly does not justify the revert of so many necessary, obviously improving edits. I wish both of you good luck resolving this. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) has made comments on User_talk:Tony1#Further_observations, [110] (now reverted by another user) and User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Date_linking that I consider rude, insulting and to be personal attacks, simply because I questioned another user for going through pages and systematically removing links from dates.

User:Malleus Fatuorum has made no effort to state his case for removing date links (I'm always open to listening to people's point of view or suggestions of a new policy!) and has instead simply posted insults on the talk pages. Please could someone have a look at this? Thanks, JRawle (Talk) 09:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Take Malleus' insults to an admin, if you ask me. I think he needs some time off Wikipedia to cool down and come back once he realizes that people here should be treated with respect. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate situation involving an overreaction by Malleus to what was, IMO, a rather odd post by JRawle on my talk page, much of it apparently a standard paste-in (for newbies?) that was inappropriate under the circumstances; I do believe that JRawle was heavy-handed in the "Warning" title and information sign, which did not assume good faith on my part. It clearly perplexed Malleus as much as it did me, but that's no excuse for Malleus's comments, in which he has played loose with language there and at MOSNUM (linked to). I believe he owes JRawle an apology. Malleus, will that be forthcoming? It's not hard. Your posts were a bit over the top, weren't they? Tony (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if he wanted to apologise, it may be difficult to get one now, as he has been blocked for 24 hours by an admin JRawle contacted. I think the blocking was premature and escalates the matter, given that an apology could have been agreed upon until that point.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Malleus was given ample opportunity to resolve the matter, as per my conversation with him on his talk page. He instead refused to do so, and chose to continue with the uncivil behaviour. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that what you did was wrong, as your actions comply with the blocking policy. However, I just think there might have been some room for other editors, probably some who knew Malleus, to persuade him to make a retraction and apology if imposing the block had been delayed for a little extra time. Oh well, it's done now.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have apologised to Tony1 for the inappropriate template I pasted, which wasn't the right way to discuss edits he was making.

I would also like to point out that I did not contact any administrators to ask for Malleus Fatuorum to be blocked. If an admin saw this discussion and edits by Malleus Fatuorum and decided to block him, so be it, but that was not my original intention. Just thought I'd make that clear. JRawle (Talk) 10:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. my mistake. Sorry.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry. I did contact Ckatz, but that was to thank him/her for reverting one rude comment from a talk page. I was unaware that Ckatz was an administrator, and that was before anyone had suggested contacting an administrator or blocking. JRawle (Talk) 10:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Several users were expressing concerns, but what was alarming was not so much that the incivility continued, but that it became more pointy with direct personal attacks (eg; "one of your idiot friends"). I think the block was appropriate and seems to have resolved the matter for now. If there is further incivility during or after the block, then it's probably something for the next step in dispute resolution, or for admins to deal with at the admin noticeboard. Of course, it's ideal if it stops. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User raising complaint indef blocked for abusive sockpuppetry

This user seems intent on making unevidenced accusations that I am a sockpuppet and a troll [[111]] . I've directed him to WP:RFCU but to no avail. His accusations run counter to the guideline WP:BITE and his comments are in the lowest levels of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution hierarchy of disagreement. He has made massive changes to my userspace, which while allowed under WP:userspace, is generally considered impolite. --ENAIC (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

ENAIC, you have very few edits and your user page appears to be a massive (800+) link farm. Is there a reason for that? Dayewalker (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The (Ad hominem) 'link farm' on my user page is a list of references from various articles. The discussion on WP:BOT NB, was about converting bare reference external links. I compiled a random list of refs for analysis. --ENAIC (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:ENAIC is indef blocked as sock puppet. --Rob (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Taken to ANI; filing party warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Stale

• Template talk:Sexual orientation (edit | template | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk · contribs)
• Alynna Kasmira (talk · contribs)
• Benjiboi (talk · contribs)
• Luna Santin (talk · contribs)

A recent dispute on Template talk:Sexual orientation has been getting a bit nasty, recently. In particular, when responding to this comment from Alynna Kasmira, another user named Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield said "you are just like a child with a semi-automatic pistol" and made a further allusion to (I think) what they called Alynna's "poor education." Benjiboi said that he found Nigel's comment offensive, to which Nigel replied that "offense is part of learning" and that he has an absolute right to offend. See Benjiboi's next reply and Nigel's following retort. When I reminded Nigel of his obligation to maintain civil dialogue, I was told to "suck the lemon" (I'm not sure if I should be offended or not?).

I would love to see a return to calm conversation, but doubt I can achieve that acting alone, at this point. A little help? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that Nigel does not actually seem to want to edit wikipedia (by his own admission) but only enters into disputes on talk pages. this would not normally be a problem, mind you - more inout is always better - except for his tendency to be offensive rather than productive. --Ludwigs2 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Errr... Is this him?Is this about him? I only add these items because I started searching for the credentials of a Dr ... even I can call myself a Doctor on the Internet. However, when one asserts a level of knowledge on a subject, and decides they are "right" because they are a Doctor, one must determine veracity. There cannot be a large number of people with this EXACT name who are doctors. BMW(drive) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the links you gave, but I'm not sure this kind of 'identity outing' is within policy. I really don't know, but it makes me uneasy, so I thought I'd raise the issue. --Ludwigs2 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has created a username that appears to be a complete, proper name including title. The name is easily Google-able. The user is either named that (and thus outed themself), made up a name (in which case, it might be a bad choice), is a "fan" of the person (which might be in bad taste), or used that name just to stir up controversy (which would be against policy). Any single user in Wikipedia, or even the general public can do the exact same search and find the exact same results. As such, no policy has been violated by me. I merely wanted to point out that the editor's focus on specific topics may indeed be related to a person who happens to go by the exact same name as the username chosen. BMW(drive) 23:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

that makes sense to me. apologies for the unnecessary tangent. --Ludwigs2 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Concerns over policy vio = good editor :) BMW(drive) 00:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is me on YT, albeit interpreted by haters :) That is my full name, they are my academic credentials and have never been attributed to, in the topics under discussion. What area they are in need not concern anyone here, at this time. Now, what is the problem, other than hypersensitivity and the inability of some to see inverted commas? Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and for the record, I did fancy adding a reference to an article, today :) Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a horrible feeling that the problem, as far as User:Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield is concerned, is everybody else. This isn't the first academic I've seen who has no time for unfamiliar community practices - and in this case Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks spring to mind. Unfortunately, those are the behavioural norms here and it is accepted practice to ban or block editors who commit repeated or serious breaches of them. Therefore I urge User:Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield to review both pages and to make an effort to play nicely with the other kids. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

hey! no academic bashing! Some of us are well-adjusted, you know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

SS: Then you have not read my comments and, obviously, know little about me (how could you?). 'Kids' is appropriate, in many cases, in an intellectual sense ... you are correct. Thank you for playing. Yours, Nigel, Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Nigel, it's exactly comments like you just made that will eventually result in you being blocked on Wikipedia. This is a collective - a commune if you will - which you signed on to, and of which you agreed to the policies and goals by applying for a user account. In Wikipedia, all are equal, and all have equal say. One of the policies you agree to is to be civil to other editors. I left the "Welcome" template on your user page so that you would take a few moments to avail yourself of your roles, rights, and responsibilities. They are not optional. The reason this discussion appears here in Wikiquette alerts is because you took the first step: incivility towards other editors. The attempt now is to help you fix this before the next step, which would require administrative warnings and blocks. If you truly feel you have valid input into Wikipedia, stick around and use the rules you agreed to. Unlike society, where you are required to inherit the laws of where you live or visit, on Wikipedia you have made a conscious decision to accept a series of rules by your own personal choice. If you did not like the rules and conditions of use, then you had the opportunity to not join. BMW(drive) 11:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, all are equal, and all have equal say Apparently not, and the odd thing is, my funny little fellow, I am being civil. Perhaps not to your USA/Canadian sensibilities, but that is not my concern. Vandalise my talkpage, if you want, block me, if you will, ban me, if you must ... that will merely confirm my propositions. I think you overestimate the importance of this wiki. Do you think there is anything you can say to me, within this sphere, that is news? Again, I recommend you read my posts, with greater care, before you make any further, rash accusations. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nigel, how would you feel if a new student joined one of your classes, and proceeded to disrupt the discussion by treating everyone with an air of insufferable superiority, because they were (let's say) an outstanding football player? How would you go about explaining that achievements in one field, no matter how impressive, are utterly irrelevant to how one should conduct oneself in other fields? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your false analogy is noted. It would depend on whether he knew more about the topic I was teaching and/or he was more skilled in conveying it and/or he had an evidenced, successful history of intellectual pursuit. If he qualified, on these points, heck, I would welcome him, with open arms, and maybe let him run the show ;) No more scenarios to aggravate the situation, please. Yours. Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You behave as if you are ignorant of how to behave on Wikipedia, yet you dismiss any concerns that your behaviour is improper, and you continue to needle and insult editors who are trying to help, based apparently on your opinion of your achievements outside of Wikipedia. In short, you behave like the student who thinks he knows more than the teacher. What makes you think the analogy is false? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a tip ... stop 'helping' ... perhaps it will heal itself. I am sorry that the subtleties of my modification were not clear (although, from your response, I believe they were - crystal). You need not concern yourself with it. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to think that assistance will always be given to editors in good standing who post here asking for it. Having said that, I shall now watch and wait. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"I should like to think ..." ........ Just joshing you :) :) :) ... "White riot, I wanna riot, white riot ..." Yours Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• As one of those slighted by Nigel's unique takes on expressing themselves by disparaging others I commend the effort to help introduce them to the civility and npa guidelines in place. Sadly, I sense that this user has little interest in following community protocols and they seem to want to assert their own platform as the truth for the rest of us to catch up to. This is welcome but only when done civilly which has been absent as of yet. We work with one another not as the most degreed or learned rules. Perhaps your opinions are correct but condescending and disparaging comments are counter-intuitive to constructive progress on all fronts. Banjeboi 10:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

At this moment the editor has had Wikipedia's requirements for civility explained clearly. He has been advised as to what portions of his editing were considered unacceptable. Wikipedia's policies exist as part of a welcome template on his talk page. He is also now completely aware that people do, indeed, monitor. This forum for Wikiquette is indeed the place for this discussion, and early on in an editors "career" is as good of a time as any. Civility has no "Canadian/American" interpretation - those who have the power to block come from around the globe, and jurisprudence has helped define what civility means inside this collective. Attempts to rationalize uncivil behaviour will likely be met with a simple "oh, phsaw!" Bans and blocks will not "confirm your propositions" [emphasis added] but merely confirm that you did not wish to behave according to a well-founded policy framework. All that being said, the editor has been warned more than once - additional incivility should not require more warnings, and an escalating series of blocks should be the immediate response to additional incivility by this editor should it occur. We should not have to hammer this point home so firmly, but as an educated invidual, I would expect that the editor understands now. As far as I'm concerned, this specific entry is closed. BMW(drive) 11:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

BB: No, because 'you' have learned a few new things, so it has been valuable. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

BMW: You truly have no appreciation of cultural differences. No matter. The remainder of your corporate diatribe, once again, confirms my propositions. Now, stomp your feet and block me, if you will ... if it is permanent - seeya, wouldn't wanna be yer ... if not, catch you on the flipside. The best way for this entry to be closed, is for 'you' to stop posting and move on to something that really matters. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"You truly have no appreciation of cultural differences" Now THAT should receive nomination for "Joke of the Day" somewhere. You make me laugh, Patch Adams, you really do. BMW(drive) 13:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, clearly you do not. It is also apparent, that you have never participated in formal, international, intellectual debate, because, if you had, you would understand your deficiency (or, more correctly, you would not have it). You are on a Wikihigh. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Stop biting the hands that try and help you, Doc. Closing this discussion lets you get on with your editing. Knowing policy helps prevent you from getting blocked. Take the help that's given to you, or leave it. BMW(drive) 14:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Not replying to any one post or person in particular, but we needn't set the hounds on the guy, just yet; I wasn't exactly asking for people to google up dirt on the fellow and toss out ominous threats of imminent banning or all of that. It's no small surprise someone might get their back up in response to a confrontational approach, like that (I confess I may have gotten us off to a bad start, which was why I posted here to begin with). Not trying to chide anyone with this, but please do bear in mind that text carries no tone of voice and no body language, and that it's all too easy to infer negative intentions when someone is perceived to be an "adversary" -- I find that reminding myself of that can be quite helpful, sometimes. I do sincerely appreciate the effort to assist, but I think we need to bear in mind that civility, as a concept, means more than just using pretty words or citing policies: in my mind, it's the practice of respecting or accommodating others and trying to negotiate win-win outcomes when possible, without pushing people out unless we have to. The last thing I'm trying to do with this comment is start an argument or put others down, but for Nigel's sake in particular it seems best if I'm not completely silent on this point. I think he caught the drift, so I'll happily see how it goes from here on out. Once again, a sincere thanks to all who responded, I do appreciate it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Stale

 – Communication difficulties continue, but progess appears to be happening. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Both parties advised - dispute became stale. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Filing party Blocked as a sock of QuirkyAndSuch. seicer | talk | contribs 13:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

User Matt Lewis made a suggestion on Talk:Republic of Ireland [114]. After a long and largely fruitles debate I decided to post a detailed response, numbered as his suggestion had been[115]. To try to keep my post intact I added a comment, <!-- Please do not split this post. Reply below -->, between each numbered point. Matt's response was a vitriolic outburst, accusing me of arrogance and what-not - not for what I said, but for the comment line[116]. I replied, annoyed but not abusive, suggesting ways that he could respond without disrupting my post[117]. His answer was to break up my post, exactly as I had asked him not to[118][119][120]. A friendly post to his talk page, suggesting a way around this[121] was met with this response[122]. Of course, I am now up to three reverts so I have run out of options. I have been told that I "can't dicate how people reply to my post", which is undoubtedly true, but it's a matter of wikiquette. Am I making a big deal out of nothing? Scolaire (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I had to protect my 'package' proposal from breaking down. Basically, I'd like to apologise for any offense caused. I can argue like a really cold and ruthless type of person at times, but I am nothing like that at all. It's partly about editing time for me - I give far too much to this place, but I know I can and have helped it in many ways. For my sins.

My very serious 'package' proposal at Republic of Ireland ('proposal' as it came to be) is too important to me to let someone make a mid-poll 'point-system' appraisal unchecked - to make the 'rule' (or strong appeal) that I cannot personally deal with it point by point. I simply had to. I think I've made a good job of avoiding the mess I am certain the page would fallen into had a number of people tried to answer it in the way I think was intended(?) These things have to be managed at times - I feel that is all I have done here.

The discussion in the poll was in my eyes very productive, and is even going on as we speak. Everything is sorted now, IMO re Soclaire's 'appraisal.. Please understand the person who wrote the 'proposal' (myself) must be cut a little slack when it comes to replying to things. The 'un-clinical' way it was written (a bit too much a continuation of our dispute in my talk page, IMO), would have made it very unfair if I just left it as its own as a self-supporting thing. I actually saw no call for it - but it's there - and I've answered it, and have spent the last hour or two keeping the poll (I hope) in order. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, you're very lucky you weren't blocked yet because your conduct on this matter has been absolutely unacceptable. Users are entitled to make their views known in a manner that keeps their posts in tact, particularly if they make that request - the mere fact you made the proposal does not give you ownership of Wikipedia, package deal or not. I am going to restore Scolaire's post as it was desired - if you continue to refactor these comments, you will be blocked. You are welcome to reply like every other user (i.e. below the person's post). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

After all the work I've put into it today keeping it on track? I certainly won't revert it (who wants to be blocked?) But did you read what he wrote? It was clearly directed to me - and in point form. I told him as soon as he wrote it (and waited a while for a reply) that if he took away the points I'd reply underneath it - but if he kept the points then I wish to reply under each point. I made MY perfectly fair desire here as clear as I could - but he ignored it, because he has written a composed attack on my proposal that he doesn't want to appear unchallenged.

Why I am unlucky I'm not blocked? Scolaire didn;t have to at all revert my comments when I inserted them. His comments were not made any less readable at all. The sad thing about this is that 10 to 1 we'll be here again now as it is hard enough for us to deal with each other as it is, and I'm getting to know what he's like. I put a lot of work in making his MID-POLL 6-point appraisal NOT bog-down the poll (and he wanted people to reply in point form - MID-POLL - why?) - all the neatness you saw was down to me. I hope you are an admin who appreciates people's work - but you say I am lucky I'm not already blocked? I don't get it. I can either help keep things like this together for Wikipedia, or I can watch them become a total mess. Which is best?--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had an idea - my list of replies are now unreadable IMO - it is too difficult to compare them to Soclaire's comments which they answer (and I know Wikipedians who will struggle with doing this too, so its helpful to no-one IMO).

Can I duplicate Soclaire's original comments one by one above my own replies? This would at least make things readable. I wish I thought of this at first. It seems totally reasonable to me, but I'm asking here first just to be safe. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Matt, irrespective of what anyone writes, you should generally refrain from refactoring another's comments. He(?) is entitled to make his comment, whether it entails bullet points, numbering or neither, and he is entitled to have his comment stay as it was posted without another person's posts being inserted with his. That's a matter of Wikiquette, regardless of who made what proposal. You're not prevented from replying/responding to (or challenging) anything he's said below his comment.
• You're welcome to request another user to reply underneath each point, but if they want their post in tact, you need to respect that. This is something that applies in a vice-versa case too - another user shouldn't add their own commentary in between points you're making. They're welcome to request you for permission to reply under each point, and you have that level of discretion to grant it or not. However, generally, replying in that manner puts off a lot of users from reading the discussion at all, even at FAC nominations.
• The cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Bold, Revert, Revert, Revert.... I'm not saying you necessarily had ill-intentions in the reverts, nor am I suggesting you should stop editing for failing to follow WP:TALK page guidelines, but you need to keep Wikiquette in mind. These guidelines may give more definitive answers.
• In regards to your question/request, I don't think there's any harm. An effective method that has been used in the past is putting the copied comments in italics and putting your responses in normal formatting. If you want an example, I can show you. Good luck in any case! Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do the italic thing - I wish I'd thought of it before I started reverting. To be honest I have no idea how many reverts I made (I didn't even think about 3RR is this dispute - it totally escaped me as a factor in the case). I just knew things wouldn't work if everyone just replied in a list. Obviously, duplicating his comments was the way to go. Cheers.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire, yes, you are making a big deal out of nothing. It is poor form to try to dictate how people respond to your comment and a violation of WP:TALK to remove replies you deem as non-compliant [123]. You started 6 different discussions and you knew how things were naturally going to go. If you're concerned that your signature will disappear once those paragraphs get into threads, why not just sign each paragraph? Matt -- yes, of course you can duplicate Soclaire's comments above separate replies, in fact, this is basically what Soclaire requested that you do [124]. Mangojuice^talk 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't spot where he said it, but I must have missed it in my annoyance. If I managed to keep calm it would have probably occurred to me. I was in a bit of an 'edit rush' trying to get a temptingly neat page that Soclaire could go for - but we were both too determined of course.

I think the poll is going quite well considering what some of these particular ones can get like (I generally know the issue when it crosses the UK but am just a little bit out of my usual 'territory' with ROI - although it all relates). We should have a better Irish Etymologyy section out of it if nothing else. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

@Mangojuice, you talk of violating WP:TALK. WP:TALK has this to say:

Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

• If you have their permission

I explicitly withheld my permission. Inserting his comments into mine is editing my comments. Scolaire (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I deliberately did not re-post to here, to see what way it would go, and what happened? He responded to the warning by making more personal attacks on me.[125] In particular: "But did you read what he wrote? It was clearly directed to me", "but he ignored it, because he has written a composed attack on my proposal that he doesn't want to appear unchallenged" and "The sad thing about this is that 10 to 1 we'll be here again now as it is hard enough for us to deal with each other as it is, and I'm getting to know what he's like." Note I have had no input at all since filing the original request. If Matt Lewis responds to the threat of being blocked by making further unwarranted personal attacks, then he should be blocked. Scolaire (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets just put this behind us - whatever was said above was before the italics solution, and you can't beat a solution! We can all see through this poll. All the things I'm itching to do right now are actually elsewhere - but no one can deny the poll isn't interesting, and who knows it may possibly lead somewhere. Let's see how it goes and focus on the naming issue at hand. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's the closest I'll get to an apology ;-) OK. Scolaire (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll apologise for him. I can see he meant no harm. Thank you for your earnest consideration and judgement of the matter. Hopefully we'll see you rejoin the discussion now? The Thunderer (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Both users blocked for various vios. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The above user left this comment--what are the measures against this sort of hateful language?--Asdfg12345 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not polite ... but is it a direct attack on another editor, because then it would be WP:CIVIL. Looks like point of view to me, and it's on a talk page, not in an article itself.

I have noticed the user has been banned from a Falun Gong page as well. A Warning was left on their talk page, additional information on the article page, and the admin who banned them from the other page has been advised. BMW(drive) 22:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)