Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive114

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
‹ The template below (Archive) is being considered for merging with Annual archive. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›


Feedback needed... is this an (admittedly minor) example of overtagging or forum shopping?

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – This is being discussed at ANI right now. Lets keep this all in one place. This is not an endorsement of the actions of either party. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My apologies if this was redundant. I did not think it was. My understanding of the subject of the ANI was allegations that I was harassing the other party and the other party was seeking sanctions but that the other party was not, in the context of the ANI, asking about proper interp of the two policies in question. I will write the other party on their talk page about their understanding of the scope of the ANI and will either pursue the question there or in some other place after that discussion. But it will have to wait until tomorrow. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems I am in a messy dispute with another editor, swirling around a question of wikietiquette, where the wikietiquette question itself has been lost. So I am asking for feedback about some policies here to help cool those flames. Hopefully.

The question involves my reading of policies concerning WP:OVERTAGGING and forum shopping.

The same editor has recently added two tags two Global warming conspiracy theory: (A) AFD - with reasons stated on the admin AFD noticeboard (B) POV - with the same reasons stated on the article talk page

As a result, the same argument is being debated in two different places. It seems to me that this is an example - admittedly a minor one - of WP:OVERTAGGING and forum shopping. The other editor seems to disagree, and if you care, the discussion is laid out here.

Please give us some feedback on the OVERTAG and FORUMSHOP policies. Would it be better consensus-building wikietiquette for the user to wait until AFD is complete, and if the result is to KEEP, only then tag the article with POV and a new talk page discussion?

I will leave an FYI about the question on the user's page so they can comment if they wish. Thanks for your attenion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for god's sake, News, let the damn thing drop. You've spent literally two pages complainign about this after violating the 1RR restriction placed on the page to revert the tags twice, the first time saying you were removing them because you wanted reasons put on the talk page.
Violating the 1RR restriction on that page is blockable. I obviously don't think you should be blocked, but it's increedibly hypocritical of you to be making all these attacks on me for a probable non-violation of policy right after you made a clear violation of policy.
Further, the removal of tags requires discussion, WP:TAGGING says not to remove them until after discussing the issues (something you have also violated). So, really, you're in the wrong here. Sooner you stop beating the dead horse, sooner we can have productive discussions about the whole issue.
Seriously, of you had merely engaged in amodicum of politeness, and treated me like a human being, we could have resolved this in five minutes. Instead, you've talked down to me, accused me of gross impropriety, made up false accusations about forum shopping, and generally caused as much disruption as you can. 86.** IP (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Please do not confuse my disagreements over your edits or your interpretation of wikietiquette with personal attacks. See assume good faith. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as a wikiquette issue per se. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 20:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Dang, you are correct of course. I apologize for posting the query in the wrong place. FYI, this is my first foray into this wiki area, and I overlooked the first two lines of text above the first box.... you know, the one's that refer to Wikiquette as a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance.... I did not mean to suggest that I had been treated civilly (or otherwise). I am not currently complaining about the process of discussion. I just wanted to get outside feedback on policy interpretation. Can someone suggest a better place to ask?

BTW... I suggest those two lines that did not catch my eye upon my first visit here be moved BELOW the first box. All alone above the box, I just did not see them.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No apology required, we were all new once. WP:THIRD is good for a disagreement between just two editors, WP:DRN is a structured forum for getting dispute resolution, WP:RFC solicits comments from the wider community. Thanks for the suggestion about the top of the page. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 20:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
He's forumshopped this, actually. There's an ANI thread about it. 86.** IP (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting outside commentary regarding user interaction

Hello, I wanted to request some outside viewpoints regarding my interactions with this user. Am I just being thin-skinned, or am I right feeling I can't discuss the original topic at hand until he tones down his responses? I even asked to restart the discussion without the initial comment I felt was needlessly confrontational, but he refused. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a history regarding this issue? I've found a discussion that is over a year old Talk:Smells_Like_Teen_Spirit#.27Duration.27_sub-template. To answer your questions: 1) I think you can discuss the original topic whenever you want, and 2) at first impression, yes, it appears to be needlessly confrontational, especially describing your edits as "disruptive."
It's also not clear to me why you care. I don't get the impression that no one is saying you can't enter a track duration of "3:02," just that if the another editor changes to use the Duration template you let it be. What difference does it make? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The edits that prompted this discussion: here and here. The validity of the edits isn't the sticking point for me, as I'm perfectly fine letting go if need be and not pushing an issue that to me is rather small--if we talk about it civilly. What put me off was his tone in various replies to me, especially given this is the first I can ever recall interacting with this user. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Didn't you discuss it August 2010 [1]? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 04:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
As I said, it was the first I could recall--I didn't remember that, but thanks for pointing it out. That does clarify a bit where Pigsonthewing might be coming from for me, but his tone still remains off-putting, particularly when I kept pointing out his comments weren't making me comfortable. As of right now the template issue isn't paramount to me---my field of editing interest is primarily in prose-writing for pages, and I really would be up for dropping my position, if he had engaged me cordially in the discussion. It's the nature of the comments I received that bothers me, which is why I sought input here. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
POTW has declined to participate, and indicated they also did not recall the past interaction [2]. That said, I concur that POTW's comments were unnecessary gruff, and the reference to you being disruptive shows a lack of good faith. Unfortunately, while I wouldn't describe the behavior as ideal, it does fall into the realm of what's general acceptable, so I can't do much more than encourage you to shrug it off and focus on prose-writing. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 21:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I too have had a bad encounter with Pigsonthewing. Typically, for someone so experienced as his profile suggests, he should be less demeaning, keep focus, and not split hairs. I had a conversation with Pigsonthewing about if I was "aware" of Wikipedia not being a democracy. Because I didn't specifically use the word "aware" but rather only pointed out that I knew "Wikipedia likes to boast it's not a democracy," as discussed here. Elsewhere in that conversation he uses swear words (sometimes tucked into acronyms e.g. "ffs"), which are not conducive to a productive conversation on policy. He even made an unnecessary and inaccurate comparison of my post to Godwin which is name-calling in it's purest distilled form, as represented on his userpage pyramid in the bottom tier. I find it compelling that if a user needs to post a pyramid about arguments, then he probably gets into a lot of them. That's a dead giveaway that the PotW may be the magnet for those arguments, and in some eyes, may share traits with troll-like behavior. I also came across another post of his, in which another user felt he was getting "personal." I'll link to it, if I can find it. If nothing else, Pigsonthewing either is naturally disposed toward a non-positive approach in his interactions on Wikipedia, or it's quite possible that he's lacking some fundamental inhibitions which are of utmost importance for a site like Wikipedia and in a person with as much experience and involvement as he has with this site. And I mean that in no disrespect to the fella in possible regret that he may go out of his way to personally make contrary edits on pages that I enjoy editing. He has described this regret as "[paranoia]" insinuating perhaps I should be paranoid, but he did not refute my claim that he was personally going out of his way to edit pages that I was editing, which ended in an edit war in clear disrespect of an unresolved discussion about the very topic in question. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
It's unlikely that a conversation will go well after making statements such as "Unlike Europe, Americans are overworked, and underpaid."[3]. Regarding the pyramid on POTWs talk page, as Wikipedia has many editors with different backgrounds and viewpoints who care greatly above the project, disagreement is common, and the content of the pyramid seems quite reasonable. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 21:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why a conversation couldn't go well after such a statement especially if it's based on facts. I meant no disrespect to anyone, especially PotW. It was not directed at him specifically, but was intended as exposé of American culture in brief passing. I understand disagreement is common and I truly cherish disagreements as a manner in which we can learn about each other and our psychology. So yes, I agree with you that the pyramid is perfectly acceptable and I have no personal problems with it. I was merely pointing out that its existence seems necessary to PotW because he must get into a lot of arguments and he refers them to his pyramid. If it's not for other people to read, then why is it there? It's existence may be a revealing factor of the possibility discussed here, that he may get in a lot of unnecessary arguments that are disruptive and needlessly confrontational. That is the only point I was trying to make. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I want to indicate that after posting the notice about this discussion on PotW's user page, this was his response. This discussion was brought about due to my concerns about his behavior, and is not tied to the issue we were supposed to discuss. After all, I expect to disagree with people in discussions on occasion, I don't expect them to act unnecessarily confrontational every step of the way, especially after I point it out to them repeatedly in the hopes of calming it down. And for the record, the other editors he is referring to in that page diff are two people who posted comments on my talk page, whom I don't recall any past interaction with, either: [4], [5]. And as far as I can tell, they never edited the pages in question, so while I understand they might have valid reason for interjecting into the discussion on my talk page, I did feel a bit piled upon by strangers. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that was unnecessary as Wesley has stopped removing the templates. Per WP:OWNTALK, best response is just to remove the messages, per WP:IAR I have done so for you: [6]. Unfortunately it's human nature that pointing out to a confrontational editor than they are being confrontational results in ... more confrontation. On the other hand, ignoring snippy tones and focusing entirely on content in a calm manner is generally effective. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 10:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll focus on doing that. Thank you for your perspective. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Nick Cooper

This user appears to not quite grasp WP:NPA

The article has had and continues to have POV and WP:BLP problems. Posts have been made to appropriate noticeboards about the issues involved in the past.

The problem is that Mr. Cooper appears to think that makingpersonal attacks is a good way to make his points.

[7] "Just how far do you want to move those goal-posts" was a fairly innocuous start on this.

[8] pushed the limits a hair with "No matter how much you dislike the reality of it"

He then runs quite over the bounds with:

[9] Your case is not helped by trying to dishonestly misrepresent other editors.

[10] No-one is beholden to you to keep consulting various noticeboard until it produces the result you want (if it ever can).

[11] is my reply politely asking him not to make personal charges.

[12] Yeah, right. So it's somehow OK for you to suggest - without a shred of evidence - that I "claim that balance is not needed in an article" but not for me to rightly say that such a claim, being false, is dishonest misrepresentation on your part? Me calling your false claims dishonest is a "personal attack" on you? How does that work? You have been repeatedly asked to clarify exactly what constitutes the "imbalance" you claim is in the article. You have repeatedly failed to even acknowledge that you have been asked for such clarification, let alone actually provided it. This discussion will go nowhere until you do.

Which seems to be to indicate a seeming lack of desire on his part for polite discussion.

[13] has a second editor pointing him to WP:NPA

[14] is Cooper's response to the polite message from that editor:

Collect misrepresenting me is dishonest (itself a "personal attack"), and me saying it is dishonest is a fact, not a "personal attack." Still, nice that you saw fit not to offer the same "advice" to Collect. What's up, do his "personal attacks" not count?

Which is also unlikely to impress the editor who offered him the advice about personal attacks.

I suggested that his next attack posts would be reported here.

So he follows with: [15] Collect, why do you think it is OK to personally attack me, but not for me to identify such a disruptive tactic by you? It is clear that you have no intention of playing fair on this page, and are instead attempting to smear those who disagree with you


All of which appears to be quite "textbook incivility" and a violation of WP:NPA.


Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's important to see Nick's mildly annoyed tone in the context of the original provocation which you have somehow forgotten to include here. Suggesting an established and careful contributor lacks basic editing skills is very likely to elicit a robust response. Exok (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
And note that I never attacked Cooper personally -- I think you also should understand the difference between personal attacks and commenting on edits - the fact is that the sections at issue on the BLP are woefully unbalanced, and I invite others to look for themselves. Here, though, it is Cooper's flagrant personal attack modus operandi which is under discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
No direct personal attacks by Nick Cooper either. He comments on you, which is not permitted, but is not entirely ruled-out when the discussion becomes difficult. I will wait for Nick Cooper's repose. I will correctly inform him of the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I had notified him when I first posted here. Meanwhile, are you saying that calling another editor "dishonest" is not a personal attack? Astounding! Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
He called your misrepresentation dishonest, not you. Exok (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
And his statement It is clear that you have no intention of playing fair on this page, and are instead attempting to smear those who disagree with you is not a charge about me either, then? Astou nding! Collect (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I often astound. As was pointed-out, you have internalized the comment. It was made about the edit and not the editor. Sometimes it's a fine line, but it is a line regardless. And you did inform Nick Cooper about this discussion, my effort was to make slightly more clear. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
As Exok notes, Collect said that I "claim that balance is not needed in an article." The reality is that Collect has repeatedly claimed in only general terms that the article or specific sections of it are not balanced, to which I responded several times to the effect that at present the article summarises the subject's views on various issues, and in most cases there are third party responses to them, and therefore asked Collect to specifically state where they think the imbalance they claim exists is. Other editors have made similar requests for this sort of clarification, but Collect has ignored all of them. Nowhere have I ever said words to the effect that "balance is not needed in an article" and it is notable that at no point has Collect sought to retract, modify, or qualify that claim, either when I first said it misrepresented me, or subsequently.
Anyone who reads Talk:Melanie Phillips will see that Collect has made a series of objections about the page since 23 November, including but not limited to disputing sources, and the above vague claims of lack of balance, BLP violations, or undue weight. When Collect has failed to achieve consensus from other editors on one point, they invaribaly refer to various policies/noticeboards without specifically explaining why they think they apply to the point in question, or else move on to another different objection - hence "moving the goalposts." I think "passive-aggressive" would also be an apt description of Collect's editing style on the page in question, in light of their repeated refusal to engage properly and explain their objections in specific detail, despite numerous requests to do so from myself and other editors. This seems almost calculated to provoke frustration in other editors working on the page. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I note Collect wrote, "your absurd charge is not borne out at all. and would seem more intended to deliberately poison a civil discussion than anything else". While I do not think that any of this amounts to a personal attack at least as it is seen by most editors, I think everyone should attempt to show more politeness. TFD (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
And my comment was after the poisonous charges, TFD - in case that elided your notice. And I would suggest charging an editor with "smear" meets the general category of a "personal attack". In spades. Collect (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
My responses that you are taking issue with were prompted by your repeated failure to reply to numerous requests from myself and other editors for specific clarifications of your objections to page content, and also your direct accusation that I "claim that balance is not needed in an article." It is clear from Talk:Melanie Phillips that I said no such thing, but despite me pointing this out several time both there and here, you have completely ignored this aspect, and certainly not sought to retract, modify, or qualify that false accusation. It seems remarkable that you object to me labelling this false accusation a "smear," yet you have pointedly failed to address the issue of the false accusation itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick Cooper posted a uncollaborative WP:IDHT demand here [16], when asked Collect to "answer" a question they had just answered. While not unsympathetic to the escalating snippy comments that could be interpreted as ranging from uncivil to personal attacks -- honestly I have not parsed them out that throughly -- I consider these concerns to be secondary to the WP:BLP issues. As an editor unfamiliar with both Melanie Phillips existence and the Wikipedia article, my overwhelming first impression upon reviewing the article is that it is a smear campaign for the reasons Collect has already expressed. Judging NPOV requires a holistic reading of the whole article; Collect is under no obligation to tutor other editors in the nuances of policies they can and should read and understand themselves, While Collect is to be commended for working to ensure BLP standards are maintained I'd suggest they lacked judgement in pursuing the argument on the article talk page when it was apparent they were not going to be persuasive, and should have sought additional community input. As BLP dispute resolution is not my area of expertise, I'm unsure as to whether to recommend RFC, BLPN, Jimbo's talk page or some other venue. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but are saying you think Collect had already answered the same question in their post immediately above mine in that edit? If so, then I can't agree that they did, but instead just came out with general objections yet again. I also don't know what you mean by "uncollaborative" given that the version of the page when I made that edit already contained similar (and ignored) requests to Collect for clarification by other editors.
The disputed sections contain a number of quotes from Phillips on the issues, and in most cases responses to them. As I said, either she said those things, or she didn't. Nobody has produced any evidence that any of the quotes are faked, or that they are taken wildly out of context, or that Phillips has subsequently recanted, qualified or modified her views. Philllips is a social and political commentator, so to not actually include the views she expresses in the process - especially since they often provoke robust third party responses - does not make sense. People do not win "Bigot of the Year" awards for writing about kittens or knitting. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

To show the nature of the problem, here is part of what Cooper has seemed to view as "neutral point of view":

She opposes civil partnerships for gay couples, and argues that what she calls "the traditional family [...] has been relentlessly attacked by an alliance of feminists, gay rights activists, divorce lawyers and cultural Marxists who grasped that this was the surest way to destroy Western society."[19][dead link] She claimed that giving IVF fertility treatment to lesbians would "help destroy our understanding of human identity", and said the opposition to it represents "a fightback to save our civilisation". [19][dead link] She accused the UK government of brainwashing children by including references to gays in lessons about censuses and population movement. Philips called it "an abuse of childhood", part of a "ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour". In November 2011, Phillips received the Stonewall Award for, "the individual who has gone out of their way to harm, hurt or snub lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the last year."[20][21]

Dead links and all, the [[WP:SYNTH[[ in the first two sentences with their implicit criticism of her (using such wonderful NPOV wording as "argues" and "claimed"), the cherry-picking of quotes, and the implicit and direct criticism in the remaining part. Collect (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The dead link (singular, not "links") is a red herring, given that it took me all of 60 seconds to find where the article is now located on Phillips's site.
Your objection to the use of "argues" and "claims" seems very strange. In the first quote Phillips clearly outlines what she thinks is happening, therefore she "argues" it. That's quite a standard form in the English language, and the same applies to the use of "claims," given that surely not everyone thinks, for example, that allowing IVF fertility treatment for lesbians would, "help destroy our understanding of human identity." The quotes demonstrate what Phillips believes, i.e. they are opinions, not facts. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Collect has exhaustively ventilated his concerns about the article on its talkpage, at WP:BLPN#Melanie_Phillips and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Multiple sources offered to label a person as being "Bigot of the Year", at none of which did he find the support he wanted. Hijacking a 4th forum to air his views and using it as a means to attack a contributor who didn't even make the edit he is objecting to is a ridiculous abuse of process and a flagrant attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP. Exok (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Your reading of the discussions varies muchly from what others have read at those discussions. As for me being the "attacker" - that is worthy of Samuel Becket. See also WP:SAY: To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, we are still waiting for you to address the issue of your suggestion that I "claim that balance is not needed in an article". Are you ever going to even acknowledge that?
WP:SAY only covers "claims" and not "argues" but even then says it "can call their statement's credibility into question" (my emphasis). Obviously the word is not as forbidden as you seem to think, and clearly it is appropriate in terms of what would generally be seen to be extreme views. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that forcing someone into admitting something that they're embarrassed about writing is appropriate or polite. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
No, obviously I should have come crying for sympathy here instead. Five years editing, and this is the most outrageous travesty of bullying and manipulation I have ever seen. I'm that close to saying "stuff it" and leaving, but maybe that's what Collect wants. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

We're getting off track here. Nick was obviously uncivil. Bottom line: if it happens again, Nick, you'll probably end up at ANI and this incident will be used as evidence of a pattern. – Lionel (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Whereas Collect's incivility, false accusations, and winding people up obviously don't count, eh? Is that how things work here? The complainer's version is assumed to be the "truth," even when it is clearly malicious? How pathetic. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of this board is to provide "assistance from other editors in resolving a situation." It has no authority in disputes and no power or mandate to issue final judgements of any kind. Editors who contribute here pretending that they are in a position to dispense sentences or declare a "bottom line" are in direct opposition to the intended outcome. Exok (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
And your point is? Seems to me that the incivility was shown and demonstrated to the satisfaction of all save you and Mr. Cooper. Who appears to think that having his own incivility shown is somehow "malicious" ROFL! Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Difficulty with Nyttend

Resolved
 – edit summary was good faith "false positive" Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 13:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

With this edit, Nyttend described edits of mine as vandalism. (The same edit also reverted other changes made by other editors.) Back in 2007 I had added some text describing the town’s location; and then in August 2010 I added another descriptive sentence giving more geographical context. The coordinates had been removed from the body of the article, but they were still present in the infobox. Nyttend removed my sentences and restored the old sentence that stated the coordinates, saying "geography had been vandalised". Then with this later edit, the user said “The maps were also mangled”. I had provided a county-level pushpin map. Such pushpin maps are used on many geographical articles, so the term "mangled" did not seem applicable.

Disagreement about content and style is one thing. Application of terms like "vandalised" and "mangled" is another. Of course, misunderstandings can occur and mistakes can be made, and the user may not have checked to see who had made those edits; so I asked about this on the user’s talk page in the hopes of some sort of acknowledgment which would have ended the issue. Instead, the user defended the edits and ignored the vandalism question. I responded, but in five days have received no further response. Editors will often disagree on content; and I have often dealt with editors who were less than civil without requesting any assistance. However, being called a vandal by an administrator is difficult to ignore. Omnedon (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

When I find that cited content common to a certain type of articles is missing has been replaced with unsourced information, I have every reason to believe that it is the result of vandalism. I didn't check the article history, so I had no reason to believe that this was the result of a problematic but good faith set of edits. I did address the issue of vandalism — see my response in the "defended the edits" link, where I remark on the absence of a standard map and of the coordinates. Moreover, I was unaware that a response had been given: this has been finals week for my grad school program, so I was away for several days because of intense schoolwork, aside from a few small edits that I made on public computers and which I thus didn't make while logged in, for password security. Upon my return to editing, I saw the new-messages banner, and clicking on it showed that someone had given me a barnstar; I didn't realise that there was a pile of other comments from various people. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The most appropriate description for unsourced information is "unsourced information." This [17] is vandalism. jkljlkj;ljk;lj;l or Wikipedia sucks in the middle of an article is vandalism. Assume good faith implies that any edit, no matter how incorrect, that can reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, is not vandalism. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Another type of vandalism is the wanton deletion of cited information, which I believed had happened. Would you call this edit vandalism? I now understand that it wasn't deleted for no reason, so I'd not now call it vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
And let me ensure that I'm clear, in case I wasn't before — now that I understand what's going on, if I were presented with the same situation, I wouldn't use any of the terms that Omnedon found objectionable. This is purely a matter of me not realising that these edits were done in good faith, so please understand the situation as being akin to a false positive by an antivandal bot. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Perfection is not required, only good faith. Thanks for taking the time to explain the context in which you made the edit summary. We can consider this resolved. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 13:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Nobody Ent: Agreed. Vandalism requires "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," which the addition in good faith of unchallenged geographic details certainly isn't. I also observe that the policy of verifiability doesn't require every piece of data be cited; rather, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged" should be cited, with the {{citation needed}} tag used "to identify questionable claims that lack a citation". Huwmanbeing ☀★ 02:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Response from an impartial editor

I'd just like to make one thing clear. Regardless of whether an admin is or is not involved, he WILL NOT receive special treatment just because he is an admin. I would, however, like to see some evidence of why Nyttend thinks you vandalised the shop. Granted, the geography may have been better placed in its own section, but that does NOT count as vandalism - it is, rather, a simple style choice.

I would like to say that you reference to the 2007 edit does not help - it merely confuses me, as I can't see its relevance. Regardless of that, the maps did not appear to be mangled - unless Nyttend would like to give a definition of what he considers as "mangled" maps.

I do not have a problem with pushpin maps - in fact, they are considered the norm on geography articles. as for the talkpage...I looked on his talkpage, and there is a history of accusations of offensive behaviour. I may consider referring this to some other body, because I do not have the powers to do anything other than provide an opinion.

I also checked the complainant's talkpage. Both parties have met before on another topic. I can agree with the complanant, and state that the message left by Nyttend is irrelevant to the original question as left on his talkpage. As far as the most recent posting (the response mentioned in the original complaint), upon reading it, the arguments made in that response have already been given in this general response. I will, therefore, consider that Nyttend is in the wrong for the moment, however, seeing as communication between the parties is difficult, and that resolution is necessary, I am going to refer this to the informal mediation cabal, with myself and one other person mediating. --Thehistorian10 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Doc insanity

Resolved
 – Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

After attempting to help and resolve an issue with the Insanity defense talk page, Doc insanity decided to troll my talk page and notcited where I had previously disagreed with another editor about civility. He then proceeded to post on a thread that was no longer active to stir up trouble. I proceeded to revert the addition with a less than civil remark about WP:BATTLEFIELD. Doc insanity then proceeded to imply that I was being deliberately hostile about it. I removed the comment and delivered notice to Doc on his talk page that I did not wish to communicate with him outside of WP required notifications. He has proceeded to harass me on my page multiple times after I have removed his comments. I ask that he be required to observe the request to ceace interaction on my talk page per the previous notice. As he has requested that I not post on his page I am attempting to follow his request. Hasteur (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This account is grossly distorted. Hasteur included an unnecessary derogatory comment on an edit summary on his talk page (contrary to the Wiki principle of civility as he himself concedes), and the main communications about which he protests have been requests for him to remove this derogatory reference. I don't consider that request unreasonable , and therefore this accusation of harrassment is a histrionic overreaction and abuse of the Wikiquette process. I therefore make a counter-complaint of incivility. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Anybody can look at the history of my talk page for the last ~4 hours and see you repeatedly trying to stir up trouble and me trying to dismiss it. Hasteur (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

They will see me make repeated requests for you to remove the derogatory and uncivil remark. You are misusing the Wikiquette page according the guidelines I see at the top of the page. It's apparent that you don't want to resolve this situation, just bring to bear sanctions. Good luck with that, since it was your comment that started the "issue" (if a few comments on a talk page amount to an issue). Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Doc, it's technically impossible to "remove" any content from edit summaries, your request is nonsensical. Unless you meant Hasteur should "take back" what he said and apologize. Though demanding an apology has never really solved anything here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Jeraphine - thanks for the input, I hadn't realised this was the case. If I had, I would not have made repeated requests to do the impossible. All Hasteur had to do was state that this was the case. It would be a nice gesture if Hasteur apologised, but it's neither here nor there. I'm big enough and ugly enough to carry on. Hopefully Hasteur will too. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It is not a reasonable request as Hasteur cannot an edit summary once made. Although snippy WP:Gray Area incivil it does not rise to the level of personal attack to warrant revision deletion as described at WP:ES. It would be best if both parties just drop the stick and move on. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have the stick, and I have moved on now I know this. The request was reasonable subjectively, and all Hasteur had to do was inform me of that fact. Jack Hawkins legal academic & Times reader (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As we have both agreed to walk away from each other, I think that this report can be closed. I ask that Doc insanity respect my request as I endeavor to respect his. Hasteur (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User removing article talkpage discussion

User:Lhb1239 keeps removing discussion at Talk:Mad_Men#Question_about_smoking because he thinks it violates WP:NOTAFORUM.

I disagree with his interpretation of what's fit for talkpage discussion. Regardless, in light of objections to his removal he should have stopped anyway. While the thread may have started generally and thus appeared not related to improving the article, I saw instead a chance to discuss one of the prominent themes in the show and how it is depicted with the wiki article. (I have since expanded on the thread in more article-specific manner.) I attempted to discuss the issue with him on his talkpage [25] yet he dismissed me there [26] and continued to remove the comments. On a side note, I was not logged in because I was using different wi-fi spots, a simple convenience which he chose to make an issue by reporting me to Admin Vandalism board, SPI and several admins, and then trying to get me blocked for false claims of harassment. He has shown to be overly sensitive to disagreement. El duderino (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The reporting editor has NEVER tried to resolve this issue appropriately (as is required to do before bringing a dispute/issue here), rather he harassed me on my talk page over a period of two hours on 12/17/11 re: his disagreement. Additionally, the reporting editor did not inform me of this report being filed. Please see the following 3RR/Edit Warring Noticeboard report for the full story and history behind this issue here. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. I linked it above. [27] along with your dismissive response [28]. And you even admit that your 3RR report is just "to make a point" and is thus an abuse of that noticeboard. El duderino (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Re: "you even admit that your 3RR report is just "to make a point" and is thus an abuse of that noticeboard". Please read what I wrote again - I said YOU were being pointy, I never said I was trying to make a point, as you are erroneously claiming. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not see any civility issues here. I am not going to try and untangle the 3RRR issues and this is not the correct noticeboard for that in any case. However, I will point out that Lhb1239 is entirely correct that talk pages are not forums. The removed material should not have been posted to the talk page. Please read and understand this policy - Nick Thorne talk 22:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC).
I am well aware of WP:NOTAFORUM even before User:Lhb129 brought it up. I do not think it applies to this thread, not how I see it anyway. Did you read the whole thread? Yes the initial question may be unrelated to the article, but it generated some further discussion. Regardless, there are worse examples of talkpage as forum misuse, and I really don't see the harm in letting it stand. Or getting archived since no one else is discussing it. But repeatedly fighting to keep it out after several objections smacks of censorship -- as at least one other editor concurs in the related 3RRNB thread. El duderino (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
El duderino, do you really want to go there? You were warned on that noticeboard that you risk a block if you continue with this dispute. Bringing it here therefore is hardly a clever idea and will not achieve whatever it is you seem to think it will. This is not a Wikiquette issue beyond one in which you are as equally to blame as the editor you complained about. I recommend you drop this whole argument with Lhb1239 right now, stop adding the inappropriate comments on the article talk page and go find some other area of Wikipedia to work on where you can make a constructive contribution to the encyclopedia. - Nick Thorne talk 04:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Whoa. I started this request for outside assistance BEFORE that report was filed. This is not about the 3RR. And the warning there is about edit warring, not about whether the talkpage discussion is appropriate. El duderino (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Regardless, I have self-reverted and thereby removed the questionable content. However I am still disappointed in how this escalated, as User:lhb1239 apparently lumped me in with other IP vandals who 'attack' him. El duderino (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


'harassment'?

Since User:Lhb1239 has repeatedly claimed that I have harassed him, I would like to ask again where exactly is this harassment?
In an attempt to resolve the dispute without edit warring I posted two comments to his talkpage: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] (the last three diffs here are simply editing my own words for clarity). There is no example of 'personal attack' which he first mentioned [34] in a general way (ie, from other IPs) then seemed to believe that it somehow actually applied to me. His false allegations should not be allowed to continue. El duderino (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Drop the stick. Now. - Nick Thorne talk 08:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted. I'd like to hear from anyone else about the alleged harassment. I take these false charges seriously. El duderino (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It is highly inappropriate to try and take this argument to my talk page as you did here[35]. I have reverted your post there. If you have anything to say to me about this issue say it here. This is a volunteer noticeboard and I have given you my honest assesment of the issue you complained about. You obviously don't want to hear what I have to say, so this will probably be the last thing I say to you about the matter, unless you address me directly. Even then, I still may ignore your comments, as is my right, just as it is yours to ignore mine. - Nick Thorne talk 12:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I heard what you said first, I disagreed with it then you got snippy and more dismissive. Rather than call you out on that, I extended the courtesy (by posting on your talkpage) to clear up any possibly misunderstanding of your apparent tone above and earlier in this thread. Of course you are free to ignore this thread but I am also free to reply to your points, especially your mistaken conflation of the talkpage content dispute and the edit warring. El duderino (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Wikipedia does not have a justice system; it has a dispute resolution system. The goal is to resolve conflicts and get editors back to editing in the most expeditious way. Lhb1239 has already admitted (on the 3RR page) that he did not handle El duerino's inappropriate use of a talk page ideally; El duderino is not going to find support for an examination of whether Lhb1239 use of the word harassment was or was not justified. This is neither an endorsement nor a censure of Lhb1239's remarks. At this point, continued raising of the issue is likely to be seen as disruptive; I endorse Nick Thorne's wise advice to just let it to and move on. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your measured and (more) diplomatic reply. I still disagree with the "inappropriate use of a talk page" but I will not push that. However, I also disagree with your characterization of what Lhb1239 admitted on the 3RRNB -- he referenced only wanting to avoid 'further harassment' ... I think the term is tossed around too lightly and is often used to cloud an otherwise reasonable debate, unnecessarily escalating it, as he did here. El duderino (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Lack of edit summary despite repeated requested

Work in progress; comments welcome
 – See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hentzer Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User Hentzer makes a lot of good edits on Brazilian articles but I've asked multiple times for him/her to use edit summaries [36] which s/he never does and just keeps on editing. It becomes very difficult to track what edits are being made. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC) I don't know if this needs a formal warning, maybe just privately appealing to him/her. I'll give a shout. Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've tried multiple times. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see how that's frustrating. Hopefully they'll reply to the WQA notice and explain their thinking here. Gerardw (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OK libStar, I have to admit when I first read you alert, I thought you might be making a little much of someone forgetting to write edit summaries. So, I posted a totally friendly message on Hentzer's Talk page, to whit:

Hi there. I've heard you're doing great things on Wikipedia, really helpful edits, except you haven't written edit summaries even though you've been asked by others to do so. I know it can be tough to remember to do an edit summary every time time you do an edit, and no one expects 100% compliance, but if you could try to do it as much as you can remember, especially when making major or potentially contested edits, it can really help people when reviewing the history of edits. Thanks so much for your help!Mmyers1976 (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I checked his page this morning, and found he blanked the entire page shortly after I posted that. I also checked his history, found he had blanked that page no less than four times since the beginning of last month. I totally understand why you are frustrated now. This is not the case of someone forgetting about edit summaries or not realizing that they should do them. The guy is deliberately not doing them, and is also blanking his page every time someone posts something, no matter how gentle - both are extremely uncivil behavior. This behavior also makes it pretty obvious that he will refuse to take part in this discussion, and any warning that WQA might put on his Talk page will be ignored and blanked. I don't know though, can he be sanctioned for these actions? Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a request on their talk page. If the behavior continues, I'd suggest an WP:RFC/U as a next step. I'm willing to certify one, please leave message on my talk page if desired. Gerardw (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I would support WP:RFC/U. Deliberately ignoring others or not following standard procedure that helps the project is a sanctionable offence. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I also support WP:RFC/U. Libstar's and my messages to him and his lack of response/deletion are already enough to qualify it for certification, and now Gerardw has warned him, and he still has not responded and continues to edit without providing a single edit summary. On the article Fortaleza, he performed 24 edits in a row today without a single edit summary, and 25 in a row on Recife without a single edit summary. Mmyers1976 (talk)
Just a point of order. Is there a policy that requires folks to use edit summaries? --68.9.119.69 (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:EDIT#Be helpful: explain. I haven't actually looked at this case in detail, but just glancing through the users edits it seem that this was shortly followed by this (Walter responded here). That was the last proper interaction Hentzer had on talk pages or user talk pages; his next edit in this namespace was to blank his userpage following a further message from Walter about a week later. Since then he has blanked his talk page multiple times. Suggest someone try to sort this out with the user before escalating this into a RFC/U (for the record, I think Walter acted entirely appropriately and should be commended for such). Best wishes, SpitfireTally-ho! 02:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The policy you linked to says to "try" to leave an edit summary, ect. Again, I don't believe there is any policy that requires the use of edit summaries. That said, not doing so, ignoring others, being disruptive, ect, ect, can be against policy.--68.9.119.69 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the policy does not explicitly state that edit summaries must be used: this is because they don't have to be, and there is no community precedence for such a requirement. However, users are required to be polite and helpful in explaining their edits and are expected to work together in a collaborative and friendly manner: at times failure to provide an edit summary may be a violation of this policy (as you mention above, but just agreeing/clarifying why I linked to that policy section). Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 03:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I really think someone needs to engage with this user on a more positive note, and try to understand why since the copyright issue relating to their image they haven't been interacting with users. Comments like "due to your lack of response to this issue, as discussed here, it will be elevated if you don't cooperate" only serve to escalate the matter: do you really expect a positive response from the user to such a demand? Anyway, I'll try and leave him a message, but I doubt I'm really the best choice, haha. Best, SpitfireTally-ho! 03:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Spitfire, Hentzer has been send several very friendly notes reaching out to him, and he had deleted them all without response. LubStar's more stern note comes only after frustration over that. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
So I'm aware. Yet all the messages to him that he's blanked seem to be ones which berate him for something: the role of this board should be to try to understand why he's doing that and help to prevent it in future by discussing it with him, rather than judging him for it and sending him warnings. I think we should at least try to do that before escalating this, and as of yet I can't see that we have. I'm disappointed that LibStar decided to escalate this into a RFC/U, as I really doubt it'll have an outcome which is positive for the encyclopedia and the users concerned. However, that is of course his decision. SpitfireTally-ho! 19:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think your assessment of the situation is at all accurate. "Berating" is a strong word, and not accurate, especially to say that "all" the messages Hentzer blanked were "berating" him. He blanked my message:
Hi there. I've heard you're doing great things on Wikipedia, really helpful edits, except you haven't written edit summaries even though you've been asked by others to do so. I know it can be tough to remember to do an edit summary every time time you do an edit, and no one expects 100% compliance, but if you could try to do it as much as you can remember, especially when making major or potentially contested edits, it can really help people when reviewing the history of edits. Thanks so much for your help!Mmyers1976 (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no way on earth that anyone could honestly characterize that as "berating" (merriam-webster definition: "to scold or condemn vehemently and at length"). It's ridiculous to think that someone who would not only ignore but also blank a very friendly message like that and has ignored everyone and posted obscenities on other's talk pages without provocation would participate in a "discussion" of his inner feelings about his Wikipedia experience. At any rate, it is not the job of "this board" to do that; this isn't a support group or therapy session where we try to soothe and understand every problematic editor. "This board" is individual editors, some admins and many not, who volunteer their time here, not paid psychologists. The purpose is to help resolve situations when editors feel others are being uncivil. Such resolution cannot take place when the person being reported refuses to participate as Hentzer has, so it is entirely appropriate to move this up to another level. Your characterization of "LibStar decid(ing) to escalate this into an RFC/U" is simplistic - the uninvolved [redacted] GerardW suggested RCF/U, I, an ininvolved volunteer, agreed to support it. Your entire characterization of this situation has been completely inaccurate. Even if you "can't see it", people have tried to reach out to Hentzer, and the treatment of him has been entirely appropriate. It is entirely Hentzer's responsibility that this has escalated to RCF/U because of his refusal to respond to repeated attempts to resolve this, and nobody else's. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not consider Spitfire's analysis in anyway dishonest or ridiculous; had they offered their assistance earlier I would have advocated waiting before starting the RFCU to see if his attempt to engage Hentzer succeeded. I consider their opinion reasonable and well-thought out. Volunteers responding to the same request will bring often bring different perspectives to and interpretations of a situation; this is part of the consensus building process. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, I am objecting to Spitfire's use of the term "berating", especially when saying that "all" the posts have berated Hentzer. I don't believe that your or LibStar's posts meet the dictionary definition of "berating", but I KNOW my request was the opposite of "berating" - it complimented Hentzer's edits, attempted to explain why edit summaries were good, acknowledged that no one expected 100% compliance, and asked if he could try to do so in the future, and then thanked him in advance for his help. Spitfire also singled out LibStar, but since I voiced my support for RCF/U as did you, I didn't think it would be right for me to let LibStar "take the heat" for the RCF/U himself without speaking up and acknowledging my involvement. If Spitfire doesn't think anyone else has tried hard enough to "reach out" to Hentzer, then I encourage him to try and I hope that he will have better success than others have had. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hentzer's comment to Walter was entirely inappropriate. Of course, that was two months ago, and is a civility issue, not an edit summary issue. I do not see any provided diffs showing a continued problem. As to blanking his talk page, any user may blank their talk page at any time for any reason. It is not uncivil. Nobody here is FORCED to respond to anything. If you don't like him blanking his talk page, it's entirely your problem. As to edit summaries, there is no policy REQUIRING edit summaries. They can be very useful in some cases, most especially when the edit will likely be contentious. But I'm not seeing a list of diffs showing contentious edits without edit summaries. So, long before this is actionable, people bringing this concern and the RfC have a lot more ground work to do to demonstrate there is, in fact, a problem that needs to be addressed. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what the community consensus regarding a totally uncommunicative editor is. On the one hand while Help:Edit summary encourages an edit summary, it does not appear to require one. One the hand there exists a user warning template Template:Uw-editsummary which implies... something. It is precisely to determine what the community consensus is why I suggested and have endoresed a Request For Comment.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think the RfC is useful unless it can be demonstrated that Hentzer's lack of the use of edit summaries has created a disruption to the project. I don't see proof of that at this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
As I intimated in my second post here, I was skeptical that any actions could be brought against Hentzer for his actions. I became more supportive of an RFC/U when I saw GerardW suggesting one. I've never been involved in one before, and thought if an admin thought it was appropriate, maybe there was reason for it. It was entirely my fault, not GerardW's, that I assumed he was an admin, I have just seen him do so much helpful work here I just assumed, and I think he SHOULD be an admin. I do find a lot of wisdom in GerardW's view that there is some ambiguity in community attitudes about edit summaries (as well as User Talk Page Blanking) and thus RFC might help determine what that consensus is. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Harassment/Incivility

Here [37] we've been discussing on an issue to reach consensus, but this user's intention is just to counter my claims without any concern about the topic we're discussing. I'm providing the proof in the form of diffs below:

[38] - Here, the user unnecessarily mocked about my bio/profile pg description in a forum where we're discussing about a topic to reach consensus. He wrote "..when someone gets to write a bio, and he writes only 2 lines stating he does not like people undoing his edits, just shows sheer arrogance." This has got nothing to do with what we're discussing there.
[39] - Here,again, the user has been simply bashing me rather than focussing on the topic of discussion. Although i've just been focussing on the contents, and didn't respond to any of his comments on me, the user is repeatedly speaking of me(bashing) in the WP:IN forum.
[40] - Here, the user had once again made false accusations on me, in another user's talk page without any reason. Excessive trolling by this user. Please help me.. Hari7478 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


Also when I looked in the history of the user, I saw some "experienced" editors have suggested the user not to fringe http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHari7478&action=historysubmit&diff=436278068&oldid=436277292 KevinBraun 14:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)

I will not copy paste relevant links here because it's simply not productive. As far as editors or contributors with racial/linguistic prejudices when get into serial editing for self-gratification it's very disappointing. Which was the case here also. In Indian bio pages Language has been a special issue of conflict, if providing reference was sufficient, please look into those pages now. Changes made by the complainer has been reverted and a discussion is going on, which should have happened at first place. As far as bio's are concerned I have the right to read them! The same user wrote in the beginning, few months back, in his bio, that the user is here with regard to his/her interests about Aryan Lineage. These days the user deletes Kannada transliterations on many pages,which have been reverted now. Then the user makes very usual caste related mentions. Also user proposes to make a language compulsory on wiki pages!! (Which will offend many in India, and may lead to socket puppetry/vandalism). Easy to connect these dots and say the user is not using his rights constructively. Thank you. KevinBraun 11:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And also I dont find this comment by the user very pleasing - "Does user:Kbr144 even know the basics of wiki' editing? See below:My reply to user:Kbr144's accusations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MikeLynch#Kannada_Transliteration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have placed a notice on Kbr144's talk page to give him a chance to defend himself. I have not gone into the history of this complaint in any detail as yet, but on first glance is looks like you are being somewhat thin skinned here. Your first diff does not mention you and is entirely about an editing behavior of some hypothetical editor, this is not a breach of civility. In the second, the editor is commenting (quite properly) on your edits - there is no breach of civility here. In the last of your diffs Kbr144 has made a breach of civility by calling you a vandal. I would suggest that the appropriate action would have been to politely ask him to strike that comment, not rush here with a WQA alert without even attempting to resolve the issue (as it states you should at the top of this page). Also, I gain the impression that you are not telling the full story of your interactions with this editor, only that part of it that suits you. Before you try to take this any further, I suggest you (Hari7478) familiarise yourself with this essay because the volunteers here are familiar with these sorts of disputes and will uncover your part soon enough. Best to make sure you have been above reproach, otherwise you would be well advised to withdraw this complaint. - Nick Thorne talk 08:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And as far user's accusation that I mocked his bio, #1: I did not say it was the user's bio at first place. #2: Whosoever has that bio I still feel it's arrogant to write just two lines : that the user does not like his/her edits being reverted!! KevinBraun 08:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)

I'll get to the point about filing this report in the next paragraph. Right now, let me give you an outline of my exprerience with this user(kbr144), and about "my part of the story". By the way, you can check my contributions. I've never violated any of wiki's editing norms. I removed the kannada scripts in some pages where they weren't necessary. The reason is that they weren't kannadigas(kannada not their mother tongue), and i always provide sources for my claims. But this user(kbr144)wants a kannada tranliteration to anyone who resides in karnataka, regardless of his/her mother tongue/family background(eg:in the "ramesh aravind" wiki page). Well, that became the issue of discussion in the forum and we are nearing a consensus regarding this topic - "Should mother tongue be the only criteria for adding a transliteration, etc". Now, we are planning to remove scripts and simply use IPAs, as that had been disputed.
As you can see from his edits, he is a one tick pony who has mostly been editing "Karnataka related articles". But i've never been one for any specific language. Also, all my contributions are adequately sourced. I especially take intense caution while contributing caste related info', and unless i have multiple sources to support it, i don't contribute any such info'. Yet again, the user is making false accusations on me.
Contradicting user:kbr144's complaints about me "removing kannada scripts"; in this page -Saroja Devi, i've been removing the tamil script and I rightfully added/kept the kannada script as she's a kannada lady. Also, in another user's talk page, sometime back, I strongly supported the use of "kannada script" & removal of "marathi script" in the "bhimsen joshi" page, as he is a kannadiga, which was well sourced. I always contribute with reliable sources. I've never been for/or against any specific language. But when some users who always edit in "karnataka related articles", try to add kannada script for a non-kannadigas, i've been removing them. User:kbr144 is just a one tick pony who has been mostly editing in "karnataka related articles".
Also, i'd been specializing in the field of indo-aryan civilization, and that is one of my areas of expertise. What is wrong about that? However, i edit in a wide range of global articles.(inc' hollywood, bollywood related articles; geographical articles & many more).
My reply to the questions regarding this report.

  • Among the users who participated in that forum, mine was the only profile to have such a "profile description", and this user mocked at it, although he didn't mention names. But i'm sure it was about my profile. I'm posting it again:[41]. Even if he argues that it wasn't about me, that comment was entirely unnecessary in the "india forum" where we are discussing something else to reach consensus. If he has something to say about such profiles, he should have left a note in the corresponding profile's talk page, if he needed an explanation, and not rake up the issue under an important discussion which is unrelated to his comments. Even if he argues that it wasn't against me, his behaviour in the forum was not constructive but was repeatedly centered on "countering my claims only, rather than taking the discussion forward".
    * [42] - Here, the user said "Hari, your own argument prove why it makes sense to add Kannada transliteration for Ramesh Arvind, Rahul Dravid, Sri Sri Ravishankar etc. They all speak Kannada and they're living/working in Karnataka. Not worried about all those north Indians and tamilians (who can't speak Kannada) in Bengaluru who'll never have a wiki page by their name!! Thanks." So the user is proving that his only intention is to make "pro-kannada pov edits by adding a kannada script to anyone who lives in karnataka". So you could see as to who is language centered. Whether it was against me or not, it was an "unconstructive, narrow minded & rash" behaviour in an important forum. But i believe that comment was for me. At first, it might not seem to be that wrong, but you need to take a look at the whole discussion. For that comment made by "kbr144", another senior editor rightfully called it "childish point scoring" and that "it could be construed as an incivility", here [43].
    * "Kbr144" called me a vandal person here:[44] by mentioning some of my edits in some of the pages. But in those edits, i had provided sources and never incorporated any "own work". All i did was -"provide sources regarding one's mother tongue and attest them as refs alongside the scripts/transliterations". So, a discussion was started in the "WP:IN" forum for this case - "should mother tongue be a criteria for providing transliterations". But this user wants a kannada transliteration of a person's name, just because he/she lives in karnataka or speaks kannada(in certain biographical articles). There are many people who are skilled in many languages- For that purpose you cannot add a transliteration in all those languages. See this[45] - Inspite of providing a reliable source(Times of India article) the user had reverted my edits. It is the usage of script/transliterations that are under dispute. But in the diff provided, the user even removed the info' on "the celebrity actor's date/place of birth" along with the sources. So, the user did not have any understanding of wiki' verifiabilty policies, and just reverted my edits based on "WP:IDONTLIKEIT"(personal agenda/region centered). Having done that, he instead calls me a vandal. How can i politely ask him anything, when he doesn't understand the very concept of "verifiabilty"? He shouldn't have called me a vandal. And he has been "forum shopping" by repeatedly taking on me, either directly/or without mentioning names. Check his recent contrib's please.
    Other than the occasion(s) when he took a dig at me, his behaviour in the "WP:IN" discussion(until i filed this report), was never constructive, but rather disruptive. We were discussing about an important issue in "WP:IN", for reaching a consensus. That consensus would be applied to all india related articles. In such an extremely important discussion, he shouldn't have shown such a behaviour. I've explained everything clearly. Hari7478 (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)



1. User:Hari deleted Kannada transliterations in few profiles saying Kannada is not their mother tongue, hence the deletion. 2. Then user says those who can't speak Kannada need not have Kannada transliterations on their profile.

Whereas all those profiles where Kannada was deleted, they can all speak Kannada. If only mother tongue is to be mentioned then there was no point in saying north Indians and Tamilians in Bengaluru don't speak Kannada. Does not makes sense since it's clear their mother tongue is either a North Indian language or Tamil.

Then what's it with saying Devanagari has to compulsory! If it was just an opinion first diff pointed out is an opinion as well. Especially when I am not saying who's it that I am talking about there is no point in taking it on yourself.

For third part where I called you a Vandal it was a mistake on my part. However the user can be rather polite than pontificating "Learn wiki editing basics first"

As far as constructive contribution is concerned I am doing it already discussing. Some editors must stop pushing "imperialistic" agenda. 

KevinBraun 14:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)


So when I said "...Not worried about all those north Indians and tamilians (who can't speak Kannada) in Bengaluru who'll never have a wiki page by their name!!" it's only as relevant as saying "..That isn't a good idea. There are many north indians & tamilians in bangalore who cannot speak kannada, coz you don't have to necessarily know the language, as one could easily get along with hindi or tamil, in the city. It would be pointless to add a kannada transliteration for a north indian working in bangalore, who might not know kannada.." For saying i'm pushing Kannada POV, I can counter that accusation saying this user is pusing Hindi POV. I am not pushing any POV. Removing all Indic transliteration is fine by me. KevinBraun 15:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And User Hari: you're making fresh baseless allegations here. What do you mean by ".. But when users like "kbr144" who always edit in "karnataka related articles", try to add kannada script for a non-kannadiga, i've been removing them.." I am not adding any script anywhere. So how do you know users who add Kannada scripts are like me? KevinBraun 14:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbr144 (talk • contribs)

Filing Flunky Being Rude and Giving impropriate warnings

Filing Flunky added some actors for whom I could not find any references on the internet. So I undid the revision he made. But he gave me a warning of blocking from editing without even discussing. An incident happened before too when I tried to create a page for Abhishek Kumar. But, he kept on making changes and was getting personal. But it was only me who got the warning for being personal. He's just behind whatever edit I do on the wikipedia. He told me on Abhishek Kumar talk page that IMDB not a reliable source and now he made changes based on just IMDB and he expects them not to be touched. Please see into this matter. Andrewsymonds12 (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And? Toddst1 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
And - judging by the warnings on Andrewsymonds's talk page, he's not far off being blocked himself, like just one more warning. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The warnings aren't fair, he's been warned for different types of issues. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
If the issues demonstrate a pattern then it's WP:DISRUPT, whatever they are for. The solution here is for Andrew and FlingFunky to stay away from each other. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no pattern. There was no first warning, the second was for "personal attacks", third was for "vandalizing" (false positive by Cluebot), last was for "removing content" (a good faith edit, wrong or not). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Need Assistance

75.149.1.22 (talk · contribs)

For the last 6 months, I have been been under siege from an individual identified only by 75.149.1.22 who appears to not even have an account at Wikipedia. His apparent motive is he thinks I'm a supporter of crime author Michael Butterfield, who ironically, I don't even like. Besides the attacks, he has also continually reinserted a link to a web page that I believe should stay deleted. For his latest entry, visit Talk:Arthur Leigh Allen and view the last entry "How Much Longer Do Wiki Editors Plan to Tolerate TL36's Blatant Page Vandalism?" Other entries by 75.149.1.22 on this page are under "NPOV and NOR Violations:" The web address is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arthur_Leigh_AllenTL36 (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the editor also editing with other ip addresses? The last edit appears to be have on 15 December. In any event I've removed the personal attacks. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 23:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he has also edited using the IP 98.16.113.109 and if some block isn't put on him, he'll be back again to at least reinsert his "pet" external link.TL36 (talk) TL36 (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
If they return the best option is requesting semiprotection at WP:RPP. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 16:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – already discused at Wikipedia:Ani#Eagles247_restoring_personal_attacks Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been having some recent civility issues with this user. He seems to not have been not complying with WP:AGF. He calls me a troublemaker. See his personal attacks on my talk page, here. And see many of his remarks in my ban proposal, here. Particularly this, this, this, this and some of this. Plus see this. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 00:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

HAVE YOU LEARNED NOTHING? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rtrammel

This happens:

  • I remove a section from the article Self-concept, explaining that it's not related to the subject of the article; I also leave this message to the user who (re)added it, Rtrammel.
  • Rtrammel proceeds to insult me and then make several edits with the summary "Jeraphine Gryphon foced me to delete my research".

He also sent me an insulting e-mail, to which I responded the way he deserved; the actual problem here is that he's removing referenced and relevant content from articles only because of this issue.

There's nothing I can do to cool him off and I refuse to message him; in his last e-mail he threatened to report me to "Wiki" and to "authorities" (and I told him to *** ****, so, there's no resolution between us).

(I just checked my e-mail, he's calling me a terrorist because he feels terror, and has reported me to US police. Or something. Point: removal of content, I hope someone else besides me can take care of that.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a legal threat to me and should probably be taken to WP:AN/I for an indef block. Yworo (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The legal threats were given via e-mail, so I think they're outside of what Wikipedia should care about. (Right?) I know I definitely broke the civility policy in my e-mails, is that an issue? It was definitely after he started blanking things, so I don't think that's my fault. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I dropped an edit warring template on his page in case he is unaware of edit warring (which he seemed close to doing w.r.t removal of content). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

His reasons are obviously bollocks, but should I be worried if he does "hint" to someone that I might be a "terrorist"? (I don't even live in the US but I do live in the EU.) Because if there's any reason for me to be concerned (about being annoyed by authorities) then I think WP:HARASS applies. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I notified R of the discussion here, he removed the notice. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Are the emails via the email the user Wikipedia system, or are you emailing directly? If there's any possible hint the threats might be physical I'd follow the advice at Wikipedia:Threats of violence. As far as wikipedia is concerned I've they've stated they're retired; I've edited out the parting personal attack. As long as they don't edit or email you anymore there's probably nothing that needs to be done as far as Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 21:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
He used Wikipedia's system more than once, but obviously we both know each other's addresses by now. And no no, no threats of violence, just more than one threat of reporting me to various authorities. For "cyberbullying" (I only replied to his insults, I never asked him to e-mail me to begin with), which according to him is a form of terrorism (because he feels terror) and a federal offense. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
He used past tense, meaning he's already reported me or he's lying to scare me. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it. If there's nothing outside of WP to this dispute, there's about as much chance of anything coming from this as I have of turning ten years old tomorrow. (And since I'm picking up a case of wine tonight, I really hope I'm not turning ten!) Ravensfire (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for guidance about personal attacks

An editor at the cold fusion talk page has been making personal attacks [46]. I pointed out the relevant Wikipedia policy, but he told me to "stop whining" [47]. Is this a pattern of behavior which deserves correction? Keep in mind that there have been at least two Arbcom cases about cold fusion and that Arbcom declared that the cold fusion page is subject to discretionary sanctions [48] [49]. Thanks. Olorinish (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not seeing an actionable personal attack here. Just my opinion, mind you. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding any form of personal attack ... could you point it out a little more clearly for me? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
He is aware of uncivil behavior: [50]
Battlefield mentality: [51] [52] [53] [54]
Bad Faith assertions: [55]
Accusing others of acting in bad faith: [56]
Accusing someone of babbling: [57]
IRWolfie- (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
All and all, it's arguably overly strident but not personal attacks.Nobody Ent 10:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

FPGT24 making false accusations of vandalism, failing to assume good faith, page ownership

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – user indef'd for legal threat Nobody Ent 18:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

On the Ford Explorer article introduction, I edited out the statement that the Ford Explorer is a crossover SUV, because of my understanding that it was built on a light truck platform, not realizing the 2011 model year was built on a different platform from previous years that may qualify it as a crossover. A simple mistake, but still a good faith edit, and therefore not vandalism.

User FPGT24 reverted my edit, which is fine, but his edit summary stated:

"Reverting vandalism by Mmyers1976. the 2011+ Explorer is a indeed a Crossover SUV built on the Taurus platform, as confirmed by Ford.)"

I left a message on FPGT24's talk page, directing him to WP:AGF, and also to WP:Vandalism so he would better understand what is and is not vandalism. He replied on my talk page with the following:

Removing true, verified information from an article is indeed classified as "vandalism". The 2011+ Ford Explorer is a full size Crossover SUV which Ford clearly stated before the release of the vehicle. Removing true information (in this case, the Explorer being a Crossover SUV) and placing false information in place of it (in this case, you said the 2011+ is built on a light truck platform and not on the Taurus platform) is considered vandalism, and defacing the article. Please don't edit articles on subjects that you don't have much knowledge on. Car enthsuiasts like myself put alot of time and effort into providing information to wikipedia that your average person may not know about a vehicle. With that being said, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FPGT24 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So he still is failing to assume good faith, and now he violates WP:OWN with his comment telling me not to edit articles I "don't have much knowledge on" because "car enthusiasts like [him] put a lot of time and effore into them". Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(moved for clarity, comment addressed to FPGT24) Wikipedia articles are available for everyone to edit, the user made an honest and good faith mistake, this is not vandalism. I would also suggest you keep your opinions on who can edit which articles to yourself; anyone is allowed to edit any article, not just those with specialist knowledge. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor: FPGT24 attempted to delete this thread and flagged it as a minor edit: [58] IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Vandalism" was the wrong choice of words. User Mmyers1976 refused to contact me in a personal manner to resolve this issue. In the 3 years I have been on Wikipedia, I have never had trouble with anyone. A big deal is being made out of a small issue that could have been resolved on my talk page. I never said or acted as if i owned an article. Good faith or not, no one should be removing VERIFIED information from an article, to place untrue, unverified information in its spot. FPGT24 (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)FPGT24

Indeed... mountain > mole hill. One of you uses "vandalism" too liberally, the other sees the need to come here and complain to easily. I suggest you each trout yourself and move on. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Thank you much. FPGT24 (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)FPGT24
FPGT24 is lying when he claims that I refused to contact him:[59] I did try to resolve this on his talk page, he deleted the comment I left and continued to call my edit vandalism (perhaps Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 would like to amend his comment in light of this information), and is now claiming I refused to contact him and didn't try to resolve it on his talk page, an outright lie. He seems to be escalating his uncivil behavior, including trying to delete this thread from WQA while marking his deletion as a minor edit, as IRWolfie pointed out. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, FPGT24's claim that the information I removed was "VERIFIED" is another falsehood on his part. The assertion that the Explorer is a crossover SUV never had an inline citation attached to it. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
User Mmyers1976 is obviously looking to pick fights. I was minding my own business reverting an article back to true information and I get harassed for it. I used the word "vandalism" lightly, and incorrectly in this case. We all know this and I admitted to that. Mmyers1976 is refusing to cooperate saying I must admit that I used the word "vandalism" incorrectly when I already admitted it a few times. Yes, I did remove what you said from my talk page because you were ranting at me and I do not want that on my talk page. You tried to resolve nothing. This is nothing but harassment. Keep in mind Mmyers1976, you are 35 years old, and you are arguing with a teenager over a BS sentence that I pulled from an article because it wasn't true. LET. IT. GO. If this continues i WILL contact police and we will see how you enjoy getting slapped with a cyber harassment charge of a minor. I'm telling you to leave me alone and I meant it. I've never experienced an adult flip out and go bonkers over being corrected. FPGT24 (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)FPGT24

Referred to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat based on threat above. Nobody Ent 18:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg

I feel that Jayjg is behaving in an in appropriate manner towards me. The following are two examples in the past few hours:

  • Jayjg appears to have followed me here. He never edited the page before, and I'm not sure how else he could've gotten to it. And his first ever edit on the page was to revert me. (This behavior got me a block a few years ago).
  • Jayjg seems to be bringing a dispute from one article into another, when they are not related at all (except that he and I are the ones in dispute).[60][61] That is really unhelpful and muddies any dispute resolution attempts.
    • In fact he seems to be confusing me to the point I can't understand his position (does he support or not support the National review as a reliable source: his comments are conflicting).

I know these are two recent examples, but Jayjg has done similar things before. From deleting my comments on his talk page (within minutes of me writing them, to make it seem he's ignoring me) to trying to get me to "admit" stuff. All this happened years ago, and I fear that it may happen again.

All I ask is that Jayjg communicate clearly, and that he not mix up issues (or otherwise create confusion), and that he behave in a manner conducive to dispute resolution.Bless sins (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a personal attack in the diffs you provided, overlap at a single page isn't sufficient to abandon WP:AGF and accuse an editor of Wikihounding. The talk page discussion you reference was from 2007 which is too long ago to be convincing evidence of anything today. Nobody Ent 03:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
All I want is clearer communication.Bless sins (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it safe to say Bless/Vice just outed himself as a sock? Or am I missing something? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I accidentally used the account of Vice regent while he was still logged on (not realizing that). I'm related to him and we sometimes share the same computer.Bless sins (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I apologize. :x — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Obviously not, and they instantly reverted the edit; the accusation shows a lack of good faith. Nobody Ent 10:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It's exactly the instant revert and then saying something completely different from the right account, that made it suspicious, plus they both edit (controversial) articles on Islam. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It was sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bless sins: both users have been blocked, one indefinitely. There was no basis for this report, and it should be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As Emily Litella would say: "Oh, that's very different. Never mind!" (I was misled by the ineptness of the sockpuppetry) Nobody Ent 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
ANI consensus [62] was that situation more likely two users sharing computer than socking.Nobody Ent 21:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Bodhislutva

Resolved
 – Per Beeblebrox, and closure agreed by Yworo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks against two editors (myself and Polisher of Cobwebs), including accusations of "obvious personal vendetta", "someone trying to push a one-sided view of anti-free speech", "exposes your 'concern' as a deliberate deflection if not out-right bullying", "I note your glaring hypocrisy", "stunning hypocrisy", "brazen arrogance", "a massive sense of religious entitlement driving your attack on my choice of personal expression", etc. Yworo (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(By the way,) reported here: Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#User-reported. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And long discussion resulting can be found here, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Bodhislutva. Yworo (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I was just about to add: I wasn't aware of the discussion when reporting. :x — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad, I should have mentioned them both, though the personal attacks are most severe on the user's talk page. Yworo (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The user has been provoked and annoyed, I'd suggest just dealing with the issue (at the username RfC) and ignoring the subjective things she says. Yworo should try to refrain from provoking her further. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Jeraphine. I took her off my watchlist just before filing this report. She's quite capable of digging herself into a deeper hole all by her lonesome, and I see she has now started to do so. Yworo (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yworo badgered me (on my talk page and the discussing over my username) multiple times to report what I consider to be his personal attacks on me (now below). Note I refrained from doing so until after he escalated it here. Also please note I never posted any comments on his talk page and the only comment of mine on Polisher of Cobwebs' is related to an edit dispute (namely PoC blanket deleting my revision twice, a fact you can verify). Otherwise I have tried to defend my username, which I believe I have a right to do. --Bodhislutva (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


Polisher of Cobwebs

1. Twice deleted all revision by blanket reversal on the Richard Webster page, the second time in spite of my attempt to address the issue on the editor's talk page.

2. Then three months after becoming aware of my username, Polisher of Cobwebs sudddenly began a campaign to make me change my username, including the opening post on my talk page which contains the personal attack:

"I have to assume that you know this perfectly well, and have chosen a username that is deliberately offensive and malicious." -- Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No evidence of my intention is presented. I later explain that my actual intent was playful personal expression, no apology for the extreme accusation is forthcoming. --Bodhislutva (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yworo

Yworo has been pursuing me constantly on my personal talk page for the past day. Acting in concert with Polisher of Cobwebs, he filed a complaint against my username. I have been subjected to various personal insults from Yworo, including:

"the offended feminist routine is getting a bit boring as a (non)-defense" -- Yworo (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Please note I had made no comments claiming to be a feminist.

"I think you may be Tap Dancing on the Titanic." -- Yworo (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)"

  • Made AFTER I expressed my opinion to another user that I considered "tap dancing" as a descriptor of arguments to be a form of insult.

"yup, it's all a big conspiracy against you, courtesy of The Cabal." -- Yworo (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I never claimed any conspiracy. I merely noted that the coordinated nature of the messages, complaints and edits on my talk page and Richard Webster indicated a concerted effort by Yworo and Polisher of Cobwebs against me. The timing of their posts validates my concern.

Yworo later began a string of escalating personal attacks involving my personal religious beliefs:

"A Buddhist would feel compassion for those it offended, realize that the fact that it offended or raised negative passions in others clearly indicates that it is not a form of "right speech", and would voluntarily change it for the sake of all sentient beings. If you actually know anything about Buddhism, you would have to admit that this is how a Bodhisattva would view the situation." -- Yworo (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  • So basically if I fail to capitulate to his demands I cannot be Buddhist.

" I see you have not answered the question as to whether you are Buddhist or not, so it is now clear that you are a non-Buddhist making sport with other people's religion,…" -- Yworo (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) "I ask you again (third time I think), are you a Buddhist?" -- Yworo (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Note how he makes up his mind that I am not a Buddhist in order to attack me, while again asking me if I am one an hour later.

"Just as well, there aren't any such texts." -- Yworo (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  • This was a summary dismissal of religious texts that go against his sense of religious orthodoxy and what he nevisions to be my personal beliefs.

"I've made no attacks. I'm sorry you don't appreciate my humor, it's meant to lighten things up. And you've reacted precisely the same way to every argument that every editor here has made, not just me. That's your conscience that's bothering you. Your reactions are those of a person that knows in their heart that they are in the wrong. And it is Wikipedia's role to prohibit offensive user names." -- Yworo (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)"

  • When a user is telling me what is in my heart and mind they are engaged in open, unequivocal personal attacks. The fact he tries and dismiss his earlier attacks as "humor" only adds insult to injury. --Bodhislutva (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia & Walrasiad

Resolved
 – request withdrawn by OP Nobody Ent 11:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be brief, both I will be brief, both users have been rude. They have demonstrated incredibly less than exemplary behavior, with comments like "ugly" and "grow thicker skin" showing plain lack of manners! I do not believe they should be left un-checked or un-noticed, somethung must be done! Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to notify them of this thread. Cheers. Yworo (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I just did, thank you very much :) Cheers to you as well Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The following are comments made by SandyGeorgia that were compiled by the User:Lecen Words by SandyGeorgia:

  1. "is there an IQ test for adminship ???" [63] (calling The ed17, the administrator who made the move, an imbecile)
    You can stop right there putting your spin on my words, which were most certainly not directed at The ed17-- I see you're doing the same throughout this section. My comments were directed at ANI, and why no admins were weighing in to help The ed17, and that was discussed above, yet you've made this bad faith misrepresentation here. You really need to stop this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  2. "...why the heck aren't admins looking at the things they're supposed to be looking at: disruptive behaviors." [64] (asking me and another editor who favored he move to be blocked. That's how she deals with different opinions)
    Your spin again-- where did you read the words "blocked" in anything I wrote? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  3. "...Serge, if you have diffs, post them here-- you have to make it very easy here on ANI, because not all of them will look beyond obvious vulgarities for which they can issue an easy block." [65] (Trying to find a way to have me blocked. The reason: I voted in favor of the move)
    Same again-- no mention of blocks, mention of how one needs to present evidence to get admins to weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  4. "RFC on what or whom? ... Unless you're suggesting an editor RFC for disruption ..." [66] (Desperate to have me blocked. Who is not on their side must be blocked or expelled)
    Bad misrepresentation here everywhere, which is what I've seen elsewhere of Lecen. DR ahead: it's time for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lecen to go blue. And thanks for the notification.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As one can see, even in her comments on her comments, a feeling of ill behavior is presentCristiano Tomás (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really what WQA is for. WQA is intended to give assistance in resolving cases where a user believes they have been treated disrespectfully. If you think a particular user has a longstanding history of inappropriate behavior, you should start a user conduct request for comment. I would note that I do not consider any of those edits to be problematic. Prodego talk 04:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Prodego, Lumastan does think he's been treated disrespectfully, has only been editing heavily for a few months, and part of the problem may be cultural (Portuguese-- romance languages are much more polite than English), part of the problem may be misunderstanding of idiomatic English, part of the problem may be context (everyone at ANI knows that my comment about blocks for vulgarity refers to a current arb case, not Lecen, but Lumastan may not), and part of the problem may be the contextual misrepresentation of every single post by Lecen, which may be misleading Christiano. Now, since Christiano is unlikely to listen to me on any of that, since I am apparently rude and horrid, I do think he's in the right place here, he was sent here from ANI, and I'd be most grateful if he could get more than one sentence explaining why those edits aren't problematic, what the context of them is, and why Lecen's failure to AGF and present evidence correctly is. WQA has a chance to help out someone who is just starting out here, and give him a good example to follow instead of those he is seeing so far, and sending him elsewhere when ANI sent him here is not on.  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
tell me, would you consider these to be problamatic!?

Words by Walrasiad:

  1. "...there they go, triumphantly reversing all the monarch pages within minutes of your terrible decision. I am now going to have to reverse them all. Thanks a lot for messing things up" [67] (message written to The ed17, the administrator who made the move)
  2. "...I've heard your pátria is the língua portuguesa [I've heard that your fatherland is the Portuguese language; that is, the Wikipedia in Portuguese]. Wouldn't that be a natural place for you to be editing?" [68] (kind way he found say "get the hell out of Wikipedia" to Cristiano Tomás, the user who requested the move)
  3. "...flows much better, much clearer, than clumsy, ugly, low recognition Portuguese spellings." [69] (How he sees the Portuguese language)
  4. "...If this change is undertaken, I will not respect it, nor will I adhere to it, but will continue referring to Portuguese monarchs by their common anglicized names." [70] (if he wants "John VI", we have to accept it. But if others want "João VI", he won't accept it. Double standards. Why anyone should respect anything, then?)

Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that these are copies of representations by Lecen, without the benefit of explanation as mine had, and likely to be as wrongly represented as those attributed to me are. At least that's my experience in editing with Lecen, so check the diffs and context carefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This is frivolous and vindictive. It is all related to the ANI which I recently submitted contesting this editor (Cristiano Tomás) request for movement. I have already given the replies I believe were warranted. I have no intention of adding anything more here. I don't think an editor should be forced to reveal personal details about himself on Wikipedia in order to defend himself against a barrage of personal insinuations and attacks by another. Walrasiad (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Who ever has the power, go ahead and close this or deltete this or whatever, I just dont care anymore. SandyGeorgia and Walrasiad can be happy because they have insulted me and effectively tired me out, so whatever. I think I have lived in America so long that I just dont care anymore, so, cheers or not or whatever Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Carliitaeliza

The user was blocked indefinited on eswiki for using the site as a forum and she is continuing here, take a look if possible. Regards!!! Esteban (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't provide any diffs or other examples of problematic behavior, so it is hard to tell, but it sound like you aren't saying that she has been uncivil to you or anyone else, just violating WP:NOT. WQA isn't really the right forum for that kind of problem. I would recommend maybe WP:RFC. When you do start a new discussion there, please provide diffs or examples of the problematic behavior so people can see what specifically you have an issue with. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
this by example, she edits in talks user pages requesting her unblocks in eswiki Esteban (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as I have said, these are not WQA issues. You should take them up at WP:ANI. Mmyers1976 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney

Resolved
 – This is stupid. I will ask Yworo to apologize to One Night In Hackney. Von Restorff (talk)

This diff says it all. Yworo (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a forum where you get to win your argument over a content dispute with other editors. ONIH is criticising your actions not you, that is not a WQA issue. The worst you can say is that the language is fairly robust, but it would appear to be after some provocation, so I am prepared to cut him a bit of slack there. Simple advice: if you don't wish to be criticised for editing against policy, then don't edit against policy. Nick Thorne talk 21:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Except I'm not editing against policy, and not asking for any judgement on that issue. The editor is well beyond the pale of civility. Yworo (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yworo is editing against policy by edit warring without consensus. The stable consensus version is without the category, so it's up to those wanting to add the category to get consensus for the addition. Mo ainm~Talk 21:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
That's a false representation. Supporting text and citations have been added, and one cannot simply assume that this has not changed the consensus. Based on comments on the talk page, those for and against since the addition of supporting material is even. There is no consensus either way, and this is not the place to discuss this in any case. I know you know there is a thread at WP:BLPN, where you have not made any argument as to why the proposed reasons for inclusion of the category based on new sources are insufficient. Yworo (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This was stupid. I will ask Yworo to apologize to One Night In Hackney. Von Restorff (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I treat people with the respect they deserve. There are a great many people on here that act reasonably in disputes, and I act perfectly reasonably with them. But when I see bullshit, I call it just that. The facts surrounding this prove that what is going on is indeed bullshit.

The facts of this.

On 31 December a WP:BLPCAT violating category was added to the Nicole Kidman article by an editor with 25 edits. I recommending reading WP:BLPCAT now, other editors concerned apparently still haven't which is the cause of the problem. So the stable consensus version was prior to the addition of that category.

Since I'm a busy man, especially on New Year's Eve and Day, I didn't edit Wikipedia until 6 January. Within 18 minutes of my first edit that day I removed the offending category, with an edit summary of "rm per WP:BLPCAT". There's no deadline for me to revert within a certain time period (within reason of course I'll grant you), especially at busy times of year. So the stable consensus version was prior to the addition of that category.

So you'd hope anyone planning to revert me might have, you know, taken the time to read WP:BLPCAT before reverting, or ideally do what they are supposed to and gain consensus for inclusion? Not on your life, reverted with a summary of "restore Roman Catholic category, it is cited in the article to a quote by Kidman". Now as anyone paying attention so far will know WP:BLPCAT has two specific requirements, self-identification being only one of them. So it being cited to a quote by Kidman is irrelevant without WP:BLPCAT being satisfied in full, which it isn't.

So I remove the category again, with a summary of "rv per WP:BLPCAT, try reading it eh? It requires way more than "it is cited in the article to a quote by Kidman". You'd hope this would make it clear to anyone who couldn't be bothered to read WP:BLPCAT the first time I mentioned it that it might be, you know, a good time to actually bother reading it?

Of course not. Removed with a summary of "properly supported, take to talk page". Things are back to front already, since it's up to people making disputed additions to a stable consensus version to get consensus for addition not the other way round.

So as I'm clearly dealing with a tendentious edit warrior who's going to keep reverting no matter what, I make this post to the talk page outlining the history so far complete with relevant diffs including much earlier reversions by other editors of previous attempts to add the same category. By doing this I demonstrated what the consensus version was, and that other editors in good standing had objected to previous attempts to add the category. And at the same time I removed the offending category, since BLP violations are always removed.

Brace yourself, for now the real problems come out. A reply that starts "You haven't shown a consensus on this article". David Irving would be proud of that sort of revisionism, as I did indeed show what the consensus version was, when the latest attempt to add the category was, when it was reverted, and that previous editors have objected to earlier attempts to add it. It continues "This is the first time you've brought it up on the talk page", that's because, duh!!!, it's usually the editor wanting to change the consensus that starts the discussion. But since I'd drop dead of old age before that happened, I decided to do it myself. And we carry on with "Now regular editors of the article can discuss it". Yeah, obviously I stepped on the toes of the articles owners, how fucking dare I try and enforce policy on THEIR article *rolls eyes*. And we carry on with "On articles in which the Judaic religion is involved, the general consensus is that if the subject has made it public in an interview, that very act has made it relevant to their notability". The problems with that being that's it's a blatantly unsourced assertion (quite unlike my explicit reference to WP:BLPCAT I hasten to add) and that Category:Jewish actors for example covers both ethnic and religious Jews, so either way you'll get people saying well they aren't in it for their religion they are in it for their ethnicity. That's assuming this mythical consensus even exists, as you carry on you'll see Yworo is somewhat economical with the truth, if you haven't seen that already with his claims about consensus and which articles diffs refer to.

Not satisifed with doing the sensible thing and waiting for consensus, Yworo carried on edit warring to include the category after adding some new text to the article. Anyone is welcome to look at the sources provided in that diff and tell me exactly which source the text "and her role in The Golden Compass was questioned by some"? I've looked, and it's none of them! So not satisfied with violating WP:BLPCAT, we're not into outright WP:BLP violations by making things up that aren't in the source. Who questioned her role? Nobody! On top of that we get the specious claim that "her appearance in The Golden Compass was publicly criticized" despite nobody actually criticising her, well at least not in the sources provided. When called out on that and asked for sources that actually criticise her, we get "As I said, there are many more sources". He didn't actually get round to producing a single one that crticised her though....

The fun and games carries on here with "I've been a Wikipedia longer than you have and have made more edits, you have no effing right to speak to me this way". Oh please, will you stop! Seriously, what next - "my dad's bigger than your dad". On a kind of related note we have revert 1, revert 2 and revert 3 within the space of about 9 hours, yet for some reason he claims he's not edit warring yet someone else is. Anyone else confused yet?

Any normal person posting on my talk page can't possibly miss the fucking big edit notice, or can they??? Maybe I shouldn't expect people to read every single point, but you'd hope they'd at least read point 1 right? So why the fuck do I get this message on my talk page? Despite what you might think that's not actually a rhetorical question, the edit summary of "Nicole Kidman: new section" told me that it was a failure of point 1 so I just reverted to an earlier version of the page without bothering to read it. Too lazy to read my edit notice, well then I'm too lazy to read your message. Tough world innit?

Bottom line, I call it like I see it. If certain people object to being portrayed as a tendentious edit warrior who ignores consensus, ignores policy, misrepresents sources and misrepresents discussions, then the best thing to do is stop being all of the above, not come here and make out you're the injured party.

Obviously you'd think someone so outraged by robust commentary wouldn't have the gall to accuse me of "crypto-anti-semitism" based on the flimsiest of evidence, but they did. 2 lines of K303 10:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Attack on newby

Resolved
 – DocKino has been asked to avoid uncivil edit summaries and talk page comments. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

On 9 January a newby named User:Windofkeltia edited our article Elvis Presley. He added the word from and left an edit summary saying graduate isn’t transitive. (See the diff.) I could tell he was probably a newby because his Username still appeared in red. When I checked his edit count I saw he had only made 91 edits.

A very experienced User named User:DocKino promptly reverted the edit. DocKino’s edit summary said:
Ridiculous. Before you edit Wikipedia again, why don’t you splurge on a decent dictionary? (See the diff.)

DocKino’s edit summary was insulting and entirely gratuitous, especially considering Windofkeltia was a newby. I wrote to DocKino at his Talk page and drew his attention to all of the above. (See the diff.)

Ideally, DocKino would have acknowledged that his edit summary was inappropriate and no further action would be required by me or anyone else. Sadly, DocKino’s response was to erase my message without comment. He didn’t even leave an edit summary. (See the diff.) It seems DocKino remains committed to his attack on the newby, and is contemptuous of my attempt to alert him to the inappropriate nature of his edit summary.

At Help:Edit summary#How to summarise we give the following guidance:

Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult.

In the interests of showing everyone that the Wikipedia community has zero tolerance for gratuitous attacks on newbies I feel I now have no alternative to asking others to get involved and reinforce my message to DocKino. Dolphin (t) 22:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, deleting a comment on one's own user talk page is to be viewed as acknowledgement of having read the comment. (WP:OWNTALK: "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user.") DocKino isn't required to respond to your comment, or to apologize for the uncivil edit summary; all he is required to do is avoid repeating such uncivil behavior in the future. Unless DocKino has continued to post uncivil edit summaries after your message, there is not a need for a WQA at this time. I was looking through DocKino's talk page, and it appears that several people in unrelated situations have found his edit summaries and talk page comments uncivil. It appears this is a recurring problem. Still, you have to give him a chance to change his behavior after warning him as you did. If you notice another uncivil remark from him in the near future, bring it to WQA and then there would be better footing to deal with him. In the meantime, I am also going to leave him a note to be more civil. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, I hope you won't take this as overly critical, but I think your warning to DocKino could have been better written. First, it was a bit long. Second, your final sentence: "while I am contemplating what further action I might take on Windofkeltia’s behalf, you might like to let me know what you now think about your edit summary," was kind of unnecessarily threatening, kind of like you were holding the threat of getting him "in trouble" over him to force him to apologize. The best way to handle it is with a short, civil note like "your recent edit summary (diff) was uncivil. Please remember Help:Edit summary#How to summarise which says 'Avoid inappropriate summaries. [...]try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult.' Also, please note thatUser:Windofkeltia only has 91 edits, so remember not to bite the newcomers. Thank you." Then you should assume good faith, in this case assume that DocKino will read the warning and abide by it. A comment about "contemplating further action" does not sound like you are assuming that. Just food for thought for next time. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
@Mmyers1976. Thanks for your prompt response. I acknowledge that Users are invited to remove warnings from their User talk pages. My message to DocKino was not a warning. It was an attempt to initiate a constructive dialogue.
I can see nothing threatening towards DocKino. I even gave him a very broad hint as to what he might write to terminate the whole issue so we can both get back to more productive things. I wrote you might like to let me know what you now think about your edit summary. In those words there is no warning or veiled threat towards anyone, and certainly not towards DocKino. I acknowledge that I advised DocKino I would be contemplating what further action I might take on Windofkeltia's behalf. That was merely a statement of fact. I have contemplated it further in the light of DocKino's response, and my decision was to raise the issue here on the Wikiquette Assistance page, as is my prerogative.Dolphin (t) 6:33 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Dolphin, I am just pointing out that if I, a neutral and uninvolved editor thought your final sentence sounded a bit threatening, there is a good chance the person it was meant for will think so. You have to ask yourself is it really going to achieve the desired result of encouraging someone to be more civil, or is it going to make him even more defensive? If we go with your interpretation of DocKino's deletion and silence, then the latter is the case. When dealing with editors who make uncivil comments we have to start out being painstakingly civil to them in our request for their civility. We should model the kind of neutral, civil "just the facts, ma'am" kind of comments we want them to be making. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for volunteering to leave a message for DocKino, asking him to avoid incivilities in his edit summaries. In raising the issue on this page I am asking for nothing more than someone else to contact DocKino and reinforce that civility is expected from all Users. Dolphin (t) 23:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Hopefully it will help. In my first comment on this thread, I was just reiterating the instructions for this page: "Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor, usually on their talk page." Generally, them blanking your comments isn't considered reason to escalate things to WQA. Continuing the behavior you tried to address with them, or disagreeing that they have been uncivil is. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DocKino

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DocKino Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize in advance for the length of this report, but the user's behavior has been going on for many years.

DocKino has been asked repeatedly by many different users to avoid uncivil edit summaries and talk page comments, but his behavior has persisted. Here are some examples from before his August 2009 block.

:Comments like these help no one. Like everyone else on the project, I'm a volunteer trying to make a positive impact on the place, and like everyone else on this project (including you), I'm not perfect. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Two copyeditors saw no problems with the article. I probably would have more eager to help implement the changes you requested sooner if you weren't as rude and uncooperative as you were. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
This is what I was talking about. By treating others this way, you make them want to talk to you even less. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

After his August 2009 block for making personal attacks expired, he went right back to his old pattern of behavior:

:In two edits on Talk:The Beatles ([71], [72]) you described me as incoherent, ignorant, and lazy, among other things. I am formally requesting that you retract those comments and strike them on the talk page. I don't appreciate being insulted and it's not appropriate for those uncivil remarks to stand, especially on the talk page for an article that I have invested many hours to help improve. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you see my reply to your post on my talk page? I try to keep discussions in one place and so I replied there rather than here. The summary:
If you are not going to retract your comment, please say so. Given it's been more than a day since I made my request, I suspect I have your answer. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for striking the comments on The Beatles talk page. I trust you have seen that PL290 provided his point of view on our dispute. He interpreted my initial edit conflict message similar to the way you did, and given that, it's clear I need to try harder to avoid making comments that can be interpreted as criticism. I sincerely hope that we can work productively together in the future without those interactions being tainted by this episode. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that, in some cases, your attitude towards historical facts and well-sourced contributions by other users is somewhat questionable, DocKino? Not to mention your rather condescending behavior towards me because I have a more critical view than other Wikipedians. (I do not think that this is fully in line with Wikipedia policies.) However, in general, I am very satisfied with your edits, as they actually contribute to the improvement of the Elvis article. Onefortyone (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you aware you can revert a user's attempt to improve the project without being insulting ? Gnevin (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Sex Pistols. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. You've obviously done a lot of good work on the article - no need to be rude to another editor, even if they are wrong. Anaxial (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I have previously reprimanded your disrespectful behavior towards another user on Talk:Elvis Presley, specifically in my analysis of one thread on that discussion page (most easily accessible in the section named "This talk page is poisoned" here).
In a post you made today you write "Since Meco and The Troll...sorry, the Troll...found each other here on "Toilet Talk"..." I contend that this type of language goes beyond mere flippancy and I find you are in clear violation of WP:WIKIQUETTE, specifically WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. If you continue to resort to name-calling and making snide remarks instead of finding appropriate venues to vent your frustrations or constructively address the underlying conflicts I will file a report against you at WP:RFC/USER. __meco (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Radiopathy did you a favour removing your comment - I would have let it stand for others to see that your tone has become totally inappropriate. If you can’t make your point without insults, then you have lost the argument. You’re taking this personally, and making it personal - you need to cool off. Come back to this in a couple of days and let others have their say.--Patthedog (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
In regards to this, among others, stop your insults now or you will go to WP:AN/I. Radiopathy •talk• 15:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you read the policy on personal attacks? Posts like this, about other editors, are not on here. Rather than stirring the outcome you want, they'll only make getting what you want more of a slog, because some editors will understandably want to have nothing to do with you. Since this is an opening editing project, like it or not, one must mostly find ways to get along with other editors. Comment only on sources and how to echo them in the text, not other editors. Likewise MoS/spelling woes, you can talk about those, cite sources and so on, but don't throw in name calling. If this carries on, some admin at some time will wind up blocking you to shield other volunteer editors from your taunts. The personal attack policy has aught to do with whether or not your editorial outlook on something like, say, spelling, is supported by sources on the topic, on English spellings, by en.WP policy or other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't make wise cracks in edit summaries. There's a way to explain things to people nicely. Thanks. --John of Lancaster (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I do not appreciate all of your comments directed at me on Talk:Punk rock. I am not stupid, despite what you think, I do know what I am doing. I have been trying to stay civil and not start a huge argument (it's very hard to), but I feel that I should say something to you about it. I find your comments (and you) very offensive. I may not have as much experience on Wikipedia as you, but at least I am nice to people. Now look, I do not want to argue, I actually would like to be friends with you, but I am not going to put up with you insulting me. I am not a brand new member of Wikipedia (I joined in January), though as far as I can tell, I am still considered one, so maybe you should read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. And by the way, you will be happy to know (I am sure all of your dreams will have came true), I am done editing the punk rock article, I'm very tired of dealing with people like you and DCGeist who keep insulting me (especially you, DocKino). And I might even stop editing Wikipedia entirely. --Blaguymonkey (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

More recently, DocKino has continued to be rude and offensive in edit summaries. Following this edit: [73], Dolphin51 posted this request for civility on DocKino ‘s talk page: [74]. Dolphin51 was frustrated that DocKino deleted the request without comment, so he posted a WP:WQA about the situation, and informed DocKino on his talk page. DocKino did not respond. I thought DocKino deserved one more chance before making this a WQA issue, so I posted my own request for civility: [75], and hoped that DocKino would heed this request. He deleted the request with the edit summary of “Mmm-hmm,” but I decided to keep with WP:AGF and follow the assumption that his deletion of the message was acknowledgement of it. I had hoped that would be the end of it, but instead, DocKino decided to go on the Elvis Presley article talk page and address our requests while defending his uncivil edit summary: [76]. Moreover, he continues to be sarcastic in his edit summaries and talk page comments: [77]

Fourteen different editors have noticed that DocKino’s edit summaries and talk page comments are rude, insulting, and uncivil, and have asked him to edit more civilly, and he has even been blocked for personal attacks, and none of this has stopped his uncivil behavior or acknowledge that he should be more civil. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to get all the evidence on a single page using Diffs as a RfC/U. I observe that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DocKino is still a redlink. All you've posted here could easily make up the begining of a easily certifiable RfC/U. Hasteur (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I have now started a discussion there. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

BrownyCat

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_false_accusations_of_vandalism Nobody Ent 14:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a content dispute with this relative newcomer at Velankanni Town; myself and another editor have been trying to engage constructively and explain policies, etc. However, BrownyCat has twice used edit summaries and talkpage comments to suggest that I am a terrorist and religious extremist because we disagree on how much content (about an individual church found in the town) to include in the article.

  1. terror?
  2. keeping away terror

If an uninvolved 3rd party could explain that these are really inappropriate comments and shouldn't be repeated, hopefully it will help keep the dialogue constructive. Thanks, Doc Tropics 14:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Second diff is an IP edit. Do we know that it's the same editor? Nobody Ent 14:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, I meant to clarify that: one edit was made by BC, the other by an IP. But both made exactly the same edit to the article and both made nearly identical comments in their edit summaries, and within 24 hours of each other. This might not be enough evidence for a courtroom conviction, but for purposes of a WQA it seems highly probable that they are the same editor. Thanks, Doc Tropics 14:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
FYA: One more IP in action - here and here --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Further to my above note: the second ip User:118.102.167.83 has involved in both abusive name calling and has violated the 3RR rule other than edit waring. Thanks --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The edits at Velankanni Town are not suitable at Wikipedia (for example, see this and the following sections at 09:13, 13 January 2012). However, the edits are simply misguided, and must not be referred to as "vandalism" because WP:VAND is very specific about what that term means at Wikipedia. There should be a straightforward procedure to handle editors who so blatantly misunderstand Wikipedia, but there isn't. I'll try to join in at the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. My original reason for posting here is that this individual repeatedly uses personal attacks and insults against those who have a legitimate content disagreement; this issue has still not been addressed, despite 2 further instances of calling other editors "terrorists". It's these behavioral issues that I would hope to see addressed through WQA. Thanks again, I'll see you on the talkpage. Doc Tropics 14:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong calling people who indulge in section blanking with certain agenda as teror! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownyCat (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course there is a problem with labelling good faith contributors as "terrorists". The fact that you cannot appreciate this and have continued to use the term is worrying. Perhaps English is not your first language but even if this is correct (and you do not need to tell us) the fact remains that several people have objected to your use of this term and also other offensive messages. This type of comment is particularly nasty and I am surprised that you have not yet been given a leave of absence to enable you to collect your thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I meant to add in relation to the message to which I linked: when you contribute to this project you effectively give away all your rights to the text etc. Even in the unlikely event that the person concerned did operate that website, there is nothing wrong with them using your contributions there. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone even watching this shit? That is the 6th time that this editor has called an opponent a terrorist and he now claims it is justified. This account needs to be blocked. Doc Tropics 17:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a few of us. I've added to an npa warning already present on BrownyCat's talk page; we can go to ANI if they continue. Nobody Ent 17:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you NE, this has gotten frustrating as it continues and even escalates, but your effort is appreciated. Doc Tropics 17:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
OK let me chip-in my bit. I'm afraid that it is very likely that my following comments might seem too pessimistic (most probably because they are). I am aware that this proceeding is about a user's inappropriate comments alone but this post got to dwell a little into the article in question. The article (Velankanni Town) is on a popular pilgrimage center among Indian Catholics (and many non-Catholics too) which lends the title Lourdes of the East. User:BrownyCat seem to judge that any comment or action (including mine) that differs in his/her view has a conspiracy to sabotage the article. This is especially sad since in the past I have extensively worked and improved on quite a few Christianity related articles (most significantly on Catholicism in India and Tamil Nadu - where the town Velankanni is part of). My problem is: if the user is really this much short-sighted, refusing to cooperate/talk and going too far to an extent to include me as one of the parties who are trying to sabotage this article, how much can this user be of use to the wikipedia project? Of course, as I mentioned earlier, this is a very pessimistic outlook towards this issue. However, it is my honest opinion that a more cooperative and friendly outlook is pivotal on this project more than anything else. --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
And now they're back, calling the removal of what is mostly irrelevant & unsourced content "vandalism" - see here. This misuse of the "vandal" word has been explained previously. I have the distinct impression that someone is simply not getting it. - Sitush (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_false_accusations_of_vandalism Nobody Ent 14:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Update total collection

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 120.60.145.4 (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Ra.one is going to release in Taiwan on 3rd Feb,2012. So its total collection will be more. Hence, requesting you to update the total collection of Ra.one after it has done with it in Taiwan.

Potential incivility and poor assumption of good faith in regards to Fedora

There has been a content dispute over inclusion of notable wearers of Fedoras to the article Fedora. The conflict was reported at WP:DRN before I became involved. It appeared that some editors had wanted a list of notable wearers and some (including Djathinkimacowboy) were opposed to such a list (rightfully, per WP:TRIVIA and were happy with listing certain notable wearers in the Prose. Almost immediately from my involvement, I believe I was given an uncivil tone from Djathinkimacowboy and was treated to a lack of assumption of good faith. Honestly, I feel bullied and that one editor is trying to sully my good name.

Below I've included the relevant posts that I've been upset by, as well (in the interest of full disclosure) included my edits where I may have gotten frustrated and crossed the line. I've included timestamps to demonstrate the escalation of the issue, all posts are from Talk:Fedora unless designated (DRN).

Honestly, all I'm looking for is outside advice. I am quite frustrated by the editor's actions and wish to avail myself of any way the community has in dealing with this kind of behavior, because I feel most editors wouldn't continue to weather this kind of abuse and stay constructive. Achowat (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion Rather than trying to extract a pound of flesh for civility issues, how about letting the issue die a natural death. It's obvious Djathinkimacoyboy (hereafter referred to as Djathink) was trying to change the viewpoint (and getting no support for it) and that many editors around the situation are fed up with it currently. If it's a systemic problem with Djathink, there needs to be more demonstrations of imtemporate behavior as the WP community really doesn't like to take action on civility issues. Hasteur (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
A quick look through the Editor's talk page history shows an escalating problem. The user has only been active since November, has had 3 WP:ANI requests against him (all for personal attacks and harassment) and has been blocked for incivility. Honest question, not intended to be socratic, at what level of action does the community identify a growing and likely unstoppable problem? Achowat (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at this current RfArb case to get an idea of how much the Community will put up with incivil behavior. Hasteur (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Quite a bit it seems, and that's a shame for a community-based project. I am worried that I may have gotten frustrated and overly-ambitious in my dealings with Cowboy's posts. Would you (or any disinterest party) be willing to look at the relevant posts and let me know whether my actions (specifically taking the discussion here) is in keeping with the Community's expectations? I understand that I was frustrated and may have had too short a trigger finger and I would very much like to know how the community would like editors to deal with situations of this nature. More pertinently, did I do the right thing or was their a better way I could have handled this dispute? Achowat (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If I may comment: I admit I have been harsh with Achowat. Much of the language is personal and I regret it. I am sorry it happened. However, here, for example the citation of what amounted to scurrilous ANI against me, is the type of reaction from Achowat that angers me. Achowat also crosses the line a bit too often in other ways. If I may respond in kind, I often feel Achowat is on the verge of hounding me when he refuses to be attentive to issues, and repeatedly asks for the same information. Still, I have no doubt he has his heart in the right place. I want to extend an olive branch and put this behind us, as I often try to do... or is no one interested in that?--Djathinkimacowboy 16:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Apology (here, on my user talk, and on the relevant talk page) was well accepted. Consider the hatchet buried and this 'case' (if that's even the right term) to be resolved. Achowat (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

PGPirate

I am not sure this is the correct place, but I believe I am being WP:HOUND by another user. I won't put too many details now, in case this is the wrong place. But this user is scouring through my history and deleting everything he feels is not notable. I will admit, during my younger Wikipedia days, that I added pictures that I did not take. But some I've added, I thought had good fair use with them. Also, there are multiple pages that I created that he wants deleted. I just feel suffocated and the whole experience is pushing me away from contributing to Wikipedia again. So is this the place to receive help? PGPirate 15:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a good place to start. We can refer you somewhere else if it's appropriate to do so. Nobody Ent 15:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm scared to put anything on my talk page, cause he will see it posted there. I'm actually under a time-restraint because he is trying to delete many of my pages. PGPirate 22:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
You need to replace "user name" with the real one of the user in question in the template on the top. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to explain yourself now? I noticed you've been taking articles to AfD on a mass scale, at least one of which was speedily kept with the explanation "Bad-faith mass nomination". Want to tell us what's going on here?
With regards to the user you believe is wikihounding you: I've done similar things myself, when I've come across an editor who's latest contributions seem problematic, then I've also checked their history for any past mis-doings. This is completely justified, as long as they're not acting like a dick about it.
With regards to any image problems, it would show good faith of you to help out with sorting through your earlier uploads and pointing out which ones you didn't actually hold the copyright to (as you said, "I will admit, during my younger Wikipedia days, that I added pictures that I did not take." -- even if it was done a while ago it's still a copyright violation today).
Three of your pages are currently in AfD, am I right? If you believe the user may take any other of your pages to AfD very soon, it might help to just ask him to slow down a bit. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
"I'm scared to put anything on my talk page, cause he will see it posted there." - One of the steps listed at the top of this page when requesting assistance is to notify the other involved user(s). He should see that it has been posted, and should be given the opportunity to provide his side. I don't see a problem with their actions up to this point. A few good faith AfDs started. A few good faith copyright tags added. I'll notify them now. --Onorem♠Dil 08:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
PGPirate hasn't started a proper case yet, you should've given him the chance to decide whether he really wants to make an issue out of this here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose that's true. My apologies to PGPirate for calling him out on not notifying GrapedApe. I'd somehow convinced myself last night that he was specific with the complaint...probably because it was immediately obvious after a glance at his talk page. You are correct though. --Onorem♠Dil 14:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Incivility issues with user Trust is All You Need

User:Trust Is All You Need has repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL by being rude and condescending on my talk page. I told him repeatedly to cease this behaviour, but he keeps doing it. I addressed an issue of WP:COMMON NAME to which he responded to me "who cares?" and then said "yes i'm being rude so sorry" - but then he kept on being rude saying "why do I even bother??? I know you won't listen"; he then criticized me about a mistake I made earlier that had nothing to do with the content about what I was discussing by suggesting that I am prone to error and directly and aggressively suggesting that I am ignorant about Iraq, saying "Do you actually know anything about Iraq??? First you try to label it a client state of the USSR, and now this?? Come on!"; then an aggressive emotional rhetorical response saying "Are you kidding me???" and then lastly saying "Either give me facts, or give up." - suggesting that I owe him out of subservience to give him facts so that he can decide what is fact or not - that is not how Wikipedia works, no user owes another user something - they provide facts to the Wikipedia community. All of these incivil quotes by this user are available to be seen on my talk page here: [78].--R-41 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You are claiming be of being uncivil? Thats ludicrous, if someone is uncivil here, its you! And really, thats the way I talk and write to others everyday. If you are not able to have a proper discussion with me, and prove you're assertion with sources, why do you even bother to start discussions with me? I've tried to help, I've even proven to you that you're assertions are wrong. But you seem to be pushing on and on you're view, without any sources... If I'm being rude, sorry, that was not my goal with this message (but I understand if it could be misinterpreted). I'm having problems discussing the issues with R-41 with regards to the History of Iraq (1968–2003) article. If someone wants to join the discussion, please do. --TIAYN (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I've provided sources to you now, plus Wikipedia policy states that a user is not to respond to a complaint about behaviour by bringing up another person's behaviour - the issue is about the behaviour of the user in issue of the complaint. If you wish to file your own complaint about me, you can.--R-41 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
"plus Wikipedia policy states that a user is not to respond to a complaint about behaviour by bringing up another person's behaviour" -- where did you read that? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy states that users are to focus on their behaviour as addressed in a complaint raised about them, and not distract the issue of their behaviour by bringing up that of others in a discussion focused on their own behaviour - there is a way for TIAYN to address his allegations against me, and that is to open a section such as this one for me. The topic of this section is TIAYN'S behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
No, you're mistaken. Your behavior can become part of the discussion just as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright then, you can examine my behaviour. Now what about TIAYN's behaviour that I have addressed here.--R-41 (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Niteshift36 at Chuck Norris

A new editor comes to asks that a statement assumably from one of Norris's biographies (we don't really know, because the section is not sourced) be clarified. While he gives speculative and questionable reasons, the initial request, that the statement be properly attributed, was reasonable. Niteshift36 only points out where the new editor is wrong (in areas that the editor, nor any other editor but Niteshift36 can be expected to know because we didn't write the section) without helping.

Though silly, the new editor pointed out that the sources's first edition publication was in 1987, rather than the 1988 date given in the article. Niteshift36 initially partially agreed (claiming that 1988 was "splitting the difference" between the hardcover and softcover publication dates, like that's any good reason), but then started to insist that the first edition was published in 1988 because his copy was from 1988. I found three sources giving a 1987 first edition publication date, Amazon, Goodreads, and a newspaper. Niteshift36 is quite antagonistic to the idea that he might have a reprint.

I confirmed that the article section in question does not have a citation (and have since tagged it with a CN tag), and that some of the book citations lacked page numbers. I explained that to properly source the article, the paragraph needs to be sourced, and the book citations need page numbers for what they're citing.

Niteshift36 called my request for citations "dickish." It may just be my experience with every other article and editor on the site, but usually, when an editor is asked to provide a proper citation for a section they failed to cite and they proudly boast of having the book to do so, they go on and do it. It's curious that Niteshift36 is outright combative to changing the article, such that he fails to see the plain absense of a citation in the section in question.

In short, Niteshift36 enjoyed biting a newcomer so much that he couldn't see past the blood to the confirmed problems, and when I confirmed those problems and found more he got rather defensive about the state of the article, going as far as engage in personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, I classified your response as dickish. I stand by it. I don't have a reprint. I have a first edition. I provided you with a photo of the page showing a 1988 copyright and that it is a first edition. Regardless, that is the book that was used to make the citation, therefore the 1988 date is correct to put in it. Further, I already explained my "splitting the differnce" comment, which you have continued harping on even after I explained that you were taking it out of context and why I made it. But you continue making an issue of it, as if I've continued using it. THAT is part of your dickish behavior. Likewise, your needless comment about needing page numbers was dickish. The citations I put in it HAVE page numbers. I challenged you to show where I failed to do so. Your response was to come here are whine instead of show where I had failed to put a page number in. Seriously, if you're going to whine about my bahvior, at least get it right. Aside from that.......I just don't care enough about this complaint to continue the discussion.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Now I see, you are trying to blame someone elses failure on me. I cited that book ONCE, for two uses about his birthdate. That citation has a page and has always had a page. Your telling me to include page numbers was totally pointless....and dickish. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Including page numbers is not "totally pointless", it helps others verify the information you add to an article using the sources you cite. Including page numbers shows that you've taken the next step, likely read the book and didn't just find the book in a Google book search. Oh and the name calling is unnecessary and you know it.--RadioFan (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't say including page numbers was pointless. I said TELLING ME to include them is pointless, since I've always included them and I challenged Ian to show where I had ever failed to include the page number when citing a book. He has tried to make it sound like I didn't include the page number before and that is false. I used the book as a citation once, to validate the birth date. It has always had the page number. Thus, telling me to "include the page number" is pointless, since I've already demonstrated not only the knowledge that it is needed, but have demonstrated that I would do it. Perhaps you missed where I actually took a picture of the copyright page.....which clearly wasn't just from some search. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The section that started the discussion, about Norris's childhood, is unsourced, but you insisted to another user that the autobiography covered it ("Apparently you've never read his autobiography"). It doesn't seem likely that page 6 sources all of that information. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I didn't put that passage in the article. I haven't added a citation regarding it. I DID state on the talk page that I'd read it in his autobiography and even explained some of it to the editor who raised it. Since I haven't put it in, nor have I made any edits at all, EVER, to that passage in the article, why are you holding me responsible for it being uncited? Everything I have EVER put in that article has been properly cited. I defy you to show me any addition I've made to the article that wasn't. Further, your whole thing about page 6 shows you aren't paying attention. That is used twice in the article, both times for his date of birth. I never used it anywhere else in the article.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Severe personal attack

In the edit of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rind_et_al._controversy&oldid=472640765 the user resorted to calling another user a pedophile, without any justification for it. It is my hope that a formal warning will be issued and if the behavior continues, the user will be blocked from further editing.

Editing history of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rind_et_al._controversy&action=history The comment was on edit 17:27, 22 January 2012‎ Juice Leskinen (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have 'revdel'd' the edit in question, as it does appear to be a personal attack. IP has disappeared for now, so a block is probably moot. Skier Dude (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

abuser replaced my user page with ...

I hope you can help me. For the past few months, User:Al_Villarruel has been vandalizing random pages in wiki. Most recently a series of changes to the population figures of Eureka, California where previous vandalisms had included putting Eureka in a category of cities with Hispanic majority populations. Both myself and User:Norcalal have reverted these edits which never seemed important enough to involve an administrator or outside party.

During that time, I have left quiet notes encouraging him to contribute effectively to wiki on User_talk:Al_Villarruel, but when I arrived this morning my user page, User:Ellin Beltz , had been totally blanked out, and User:Al_Villarruel wrote this instead:

"fuck the shit of you, eureka is my hometown, and stay out of our business focus on your city like ukiah, los angeles, or fresno, or san francisco, so im going to put it back to 43,000 whether you like it or not

His previous change to my user page read: "i live in eureka, so stop it eureka is the popluation of 43,108, so wikipedia is a free wiki so get out of wikipedia, or i'l come to your house and get you when youre asleep"

Regardless of the threats, I reverted the population of Eureka to the U.S. Census figures which were there when this problem started.

I need help to revert my page to what was useful for me and also to get some administrator help with User:Al_Villarruel. This has never happened to me before and I do not know how to proceed. Thank you.Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw the "... when you're asleep" comment at EB's talk page and an admin's notice on AV's talk page saying he would be warned only once before being blocked. Frankly, I don't think a warning is strong enough in this situation. It looks like a believable threat of personal violence. I'm sorry I don't know all the details of the WP:NPA and its usual enforcement, so I'm not complaining about the admin, but just think a serious, believable threat should be dealt with in a very serious decisive manner, e.g. block now, and ask for a complete explanation and apology before reinstating editing privileges. I ask that an admin watch this very closely and take it very seriously. I'll also suggest that EB report this to the local police, just in case. No - I don't think he'll actually follow through, but better safe than sorry. Smallbones (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Report to [[WP:ANI} if it occurs again. The administrator should have blocked him. TFD (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Incivil edit comment at Austrian School

I have no interest in the substance of dispute between User:The Four Deuces and User:Byelf2007; however, User:Byelf2007's edit comment appeared in my watchlist for Revision history of Talk:Austrian School that I found very uncivil and not substantive towards advancing the quality of the article. The comment seemed to be directed towards User:The Four Deuces; in any case, their user talk pages would be more appropriate for the elevated uncivil nature of their exchange rather than the public comment space that contributing editors to Talk:Austrian School use. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 23:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. You haven't notified the editors you're discussing.
  2. "vandalism; jesus fucking christ who did this?" is not incivility. The community has repeatedly rejected language gags, and there is no personal attack element to this conduct. Byelf2007 was in fact discussing his removal of this diff that is a personal attack. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Kjmonkey, are you talking about "jesus fucking christ who did this?" That wasn't directed at Four Deuces. If you had checked out the edit, you'd know that I was eliminating: " Wow, what a fucking dipshit... [etc.] " on the talk page which was unsigned and put in front of a comment of mine, apparently to lead users to believe I wrote it. I haven't checked into who wrote that yet (I assume it's a nameless IP). Anyway, I can refrain from using profanity in cases such as these, but I hope you understand that I was quite upset about this. Byelf2007 (talk) 24 January 2012
Got it. I don't have a lot of time to edit wikipedia. Your comment on the edit stood out like something a vandal would write. I didn't look into it much further. That sort of language does put off serious editors that have any inclination to contributing to the article in a substantial manner like myself. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 23:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Your point about language has also been extensively discussed; and the concept of limiting wikipedia's discussion to a certain restricted forms of English is currently broadly rejected. In particular you may not realise that other editors experience attempts or actual language gags as monstrous impositions. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Fifelfoo, your point is understood. It doesn't however jive with the wiki policy set at WP:NICE that I looked at before coming to this forum. In particular, the section that discusses "Direct rudeness" and "gross profanity." There may have been a consensus here in this forum on the protocol to deal with this wiki policy, but I did not search for it. It should not be hard or too obtuse to follow stated wiki policies for a casual wiki editor looking for guidance on how to interpret wiki policy. I believe my point was valid about how some editors may be put off by that sort of language on the particular article of Austrian School. It is well enough that Byelf2007 recognizes the unintended reactions from his fellow editors. It was to this end that I pursued a course of action in this forum and if the ends justifies the means, it ought be given due consideration. Perceived civility can foster a positive environment for editing. K♪monkey@('_')@ Talk⇉✌ 00:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:CIVILITY mentions profanity three times. On all three occasions it covers profanity directed at other users only. I suggest you reread WP:CIVILITY more closely and get back to us. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
There's no evidence a more close reading of civility is necessary, or that the editor kjmonkey didn't read it closely in the first place. Nobody Ent 01:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The current consensus is that no words are inherently forbidden on Wikipedia, it is the context of use that determines whether they are appropriate. As Byte007 has indicated they can refrain from future use of such words, and edit summaries cannot be edited, there's probably not much more that can be done here. Nobody Ent 01:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

none have accused tfd of being civil and using a religious icon and the f-bomb in the same sentence is less than "brilliant prose". Since i often recruit students to participate in the WP, it would be a personal favor to me if TDF would clean up the language a tad, thanks in advance. Mohammad faggot fucker, Mother Mary bloody bitch, and Bush lick my balls you later. See, now that really isn't the best way to grow WP is it? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
It would help if you improved the cogency of your swearing, particularly as your second last sentence appears to be "noun phrase", "noun phrase" and "noun phrase" you later. It would also help if you pointed to diffs of behaviour you have trouble with. But, as has been repeatedly emphasised here, you are responsible for your response to swearing that is not a personal attack; students you recruit would be responsible for their own response to swearing that is not a personal attack. You could also double check that you've correctly entered other users' names or the contractions of their names before saving your contribution. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
jesus fucking christ fifelfoo, hyperbole much? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
educators often point out the flaws in WP, even to the point of blocking the site, shitspeech like tfuckingd'z is just killing the good gaddamn will here, get it for fucking fuck sake? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The community has repeatedly rejected your position, you are welcome to try to build, yet again, consensus around this at the Village Pump, but the last rejection of your position was in November so many would consider an attempt to be "too soon." Your arguments duplicate those previously considered at the last attempt to form consensus around the position you advocate, so I'd suggest you bring better arguments to the village pump than those you're using here. Your emphatic swearing is now comprehensible, thanks! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
maybe you are fucking right, may the blood of 1000 vagina's fill your cup. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo; you wrote: WP:CIVILITY mentions profanity three times. On all three occasions it covers profanity directed at other users only. The first two times do cover profanity directed at other users; the third time covers profanity in general:

The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness

  • (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
  • (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
  • (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;
  • (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap");

To habitually commit the foregoing is not conducive to a collegial atmosphere. Incivility is not limited to personal attacks. I trust we all understand what good manners are and why they are required at WP. Let's not interrupt WP now to make a point, but get back on track with improvements, supporting all five pillars. Yopienso (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • The community has regularly discussed profanity; and rejected language gags. The last time it did this was in November. You are welcome to try to modify the community's views at the Village Pump. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Um, Yopienso never said anything like "... and that's why we must have language gags". --JaGatalk 04:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Either I can use the natural emphatics of my mother tongue on occasion, or they are "not conductive to a collegial atmosphere." You don't get to let me say cunt because we lack a language gag, but then ban it because it is "non-collegial." The community has indicated very recently what its opinion is. And I'm not going to retreat from my language when it is apposite. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I'm amazed at how much discussion this has already caused (in a good way). Byelf2007 (talk) 25 January 2012
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive114&oldid=1252143695"