Welcome to uiboss.com on July 6 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive54

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Contents

User:Goodmorningworld

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved. Complainant unfortunately misread humour not directed at them. And the perp apologizes.

This user made this baiting comment[[1]] on a discussion about John Wilkes Booth. The comment doesn't seem troubling until one notices the striken out sentence at the end. That was perplexing since, 1. I'm male. and 2. That user had never commented on this discsuion before. I did not have any reason to believe that that user and I had ever crossed paths before, until I remembered that I made a comment here [[2]] on the ANI page a few days ago. I did not add anything further to the discussion, nor did I think that I was offending anyone. Apparently that user did not like my comment. Most likely using my edit history, he followed me to another discussion to take an opposite side. Although not exactly against policy, since wikipedia is open to all, his reasons for doing so seem vexing, based on the final striken line.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, that depends on who Ms Hutton is? A user? An outing of a user? A historical figure related to the article? Some other cultural reference? It was stricken out by the user because you're NOT supposed to delete comments from Talk pages - it appears he thought twice about his post already. -t BMW c- 11:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
GMW added it with the comment struck out to begin with, so it's not that he/she added it and then thought better of it... it appears GMW decided to put in something that he/she felt was maybe a bit cheeky or naughty, and to indicate awareness of such with the strikeout.
If it was an attempted WP:OUTING, it appears to have failed, since you indicate GMW got yer gender wrong :D I was expecting to find a Booth scholar with the name of Jo Hutton or something, which would explain the case of mistaken identity, but nada. The few "Jo Hutton"s that are out on the web, I have no idea why anyone would say "Eureka! That must be the person editing the John Wilkes Booth article!" So I'm kinda scratching my head...
Have you contacted GMW for an explanation of the comment? --Jaysweet (talk)
I have not had any contact with that editor. I decided that it may be best to just not say anything at all. I did this so that the situation would not get worse, but if you are recommending that I do contact that editor then I will.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, this is my bad. First, I failed to notice that the complainant did not try and resolve the supposed issue with the other editor (always the first step). Next, I did not notice that the complainant did not notify the other editor of this WQA complaint. As per the rest of the commentary, it appears that there was no incivility by any means. Marked closed -t BMW c- 12:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Umm, other than that how was the play Mrs Lincoln ring a bell? User was trying to make a funny. And indeed I laughed. Actually, its appearance here on WQA is pretty funny too. Eusebeus (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry!!

I had a hunch that I should be looking for something like this, and sure enough... I knew that it was in somewhat questionable taste, that's why the strikethrough and the picture of me with a band-aid covering my mouth (3x). It was nothing at all to do with Jojhutton's comment on a recent AN/I thread, I did not follow him around, I got to the Booth page via the Fringe Theories Noticeboard where I commented on Nov 11 (diff) , whereas Jojhutton's comment on the AN/I thread came a day later ([3]), also I found his comment there totally unobjectionable. I also apologize to the descendants of President and Ms. Lincoln. It won't happen again, I promise.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Calendar pages

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. 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, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereEditor is taking it to WT:DAYS

I am having a problem with the Calendar pages. The thing is on the page September 11, there are four items on the intro part, especially as one might expect, the WTC bombing. I place some important events on other pages, such as December 7 being Pearl Harbor, June 6 D-Day, etc. Another user has started reverting this. To my mind, we have to be consistent. Either we have intros, or we do not.

Comments please.

Wallie (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wallie ... as this really doesn't fall under the category of "incivility", I'm not sure what we can do in this forum. If you want to give me some better article examples on my talkpage, I'll have a look -t BMW c- 17:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying to prevent it from coming to this stage (of incivility). Wallie (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Miranda is randomly removing legitimate references by Editor Jake Sturm

User Miranda has accused me of "spamming" because I have been adding legitimate references to the published work of author/journalist Kira Salak over the last weeks. As I have explained to her, I am adding references to works that I have read, and I have begun with the author Kira Salak. I am not "spamming" this author, I am simply adding references to Wikipedia from Salak's large resource of articles published in National Geographic and in her two books. To my knowledge, the user Miranda has not read any of the articles or books, and so has no knowledge as to whether they are legitimate or not. It would appear that she has arbitrarily decided they are not relevant and is removing them. As I explained to Miranda, these articles and references meet the critera for references according to Wikipedia guidelines. I had intended to move on and not go to the trouble of arbitrating, but then I saw that she added a comment into the Editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Spamming books on Mali and other African countries) section accusing me of "spamming". I have tried every way I could to resolve this without involving administrators, but she simply refuses to stop. She has put me in a position where I can no longer add useful content to Wikipedia as she will remove it. She has also added inappropriate tags into the Kira Salak page (see discussion page for more details). She has removed entries of mine from Mali, Tripoli ‎, Leptis Magna, Huichol, Real de Catorce. She has also removed an entry that I made for West Africa when I forgot to login under IPaddress 69.202.73.21. Could you please review the references that I added, that Miranda has removed, and give a third party opinion as to their relevance. Thank you. JakeSturm (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You should first read instructions for pages before posting. Several points listed at #Procedure for this page were not met, including informing Miranda of this post. Regardless, she's not randomly removing legitimate references. You have not provided references. Please see WP:CITE as well as WP:RS. By our project standards, you are spamming. Miranda explained this to you. If you have questions about using references, feel free to ask on my talk page, but Miranda has not shown poor Wikiquette here. لennavecia 17:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that this is 'spamming', spamming is done in bad faith and to accuse an editor of such is not assuming good faith. The edits by JakeSturm are clearly good faith edits that need to be sourced. Both editors need to use the talk page to discuss content disputes and to assume good faith. User:Miranda needs to be more patient, be open to compromise and help new editors rather than 'biting' them. --neon white talk 18:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a perhaps more important issue; conflict of interest. Though the credit has been removed recently, the Google cache for the official website kirasalak.com here shows "This website was created by Kira Salak and Jake Sturm". On this basis, Jake Sturm should not be directly editing material relating to Kira Salak. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Please read conflict of interest carefully. A conflict of interest is not the act of editing a subject one is involved with but doing so "in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups". On this point we must assume good faith. Involvement with a subject does not prohibit an editor from contributing to an article, it merely means they should be very careful, open about their involvment and accept more objective views. --neon white talk 12:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Clearly these edits were placed to promote. Thus, spamming and COI, as is now revealed. In fact, if you read below, Jake Sturm writes, "I am fairly certain she has not read the book and has no idea as to whether it, or any of Salak's works, are relevant references." The fact remains that his addition of these books are not appropriate. They are not being used as references, rather he is simply inserting the information to advertise. Were it a reference, he would be citing specific pages to indicate precisely what information is being cited. Instead, he enjoyed the book, in the case of the Mali article, and wants others to read it as well. General references to books not used to write the article are not appropriate. لennavecia 04:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
That isn't assuming good faith and that is very likely the reason why this ended up as a wikiquette alert. There is no evidence that this editor acted in bad faith. In future if you assume good faith and alert the editor to their mistakes in a helpful manner without resorting to unecessary bad faith accusations, you'll probably find communicating with editors a lot easier and less abrasive. --neon white talk 22:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate both of you responding to this. I did realize my error in including the Amazon references, which is why on my last addition to the Mali page, when I added "The Cruelest Journey" to "Additional Reading" I used the standard book tag. The author link part of the tag did not work (it displayed the link incorrectly), and so I put the author link outside of the tag. Miranda immediately removed this reference even though it was in the correct format as you suggested and is a legitimate reference for the country of Mali. She is just removing my references indiscriminately, I am fairly certain she has not read the book and has no idea as to whether it, or any of Salak's works, are relevant references. I will go back through my edits and remove any Amazon reference I put in when I have time over the next week and add in page numbers for any book references. I have tried to communicate with Miranda through her talk page, but instead of responding, she simply removes more of my entries or adds inappropriate tags to pages I have created. I did not realize that I was supposed to contact Miranda when putting the complaint on this page (though she did contact me when she put complaints about me on other pages), and I will be more careful in the future. But, I know she is monitoring every entry I make, so I am certain she is aware of it.
As for the conflict of interest entry, I will include here what I included on that page:I am a professional website designer and it is true that I did contribute to the construction of the Salak website. I found Salak's articles to be well researched, well written and informative but unfortunately, on the National Geographic webiste, only the first few paragraphs of most of her articles are available to readers. There was no place on or off the Internet to find the entire articles. As I believed that the articles should be available to the general public, as they are good references, I suggested that they be put on her website and I would assist her with this. Thank you for alerting me that my email link on the bottom of the Salak homepage was missing, I have reinserted it.JakeSturm (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, you can provide the diff of this edit, secondly, if the articles on the webiste have been previously published in national geogaphic then it is acceptable to use them as sources and link to the full articles for verfiablity. --neon white talk 13:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly. I don't see how she can be considered as a scholar if she visited Mali and took notes on people. Can "John Doe" go to Mali and take notes on the Malians and have his opinion placed on here by an associate who is closely identified with the author? No. We are promoting scholarly articles on a scholarly topic. I suggest to you, neonwhite, to take an article related to a place, country, and/or topic which has significant core value to the world, and add scholarly referenced material, instead of using one person's opinion, who has no scholarly knowledge on the field, and use that person's "knowledge" as a major source on this article. I suggest all parties re-read section 2 of RS. Thanks. miranda 00:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
If John Doe has his work published by a reputable publisher (i.e. not a vanity press) then yes. Sourcing is not limited to academic sources as the term is purely subjective. Anyone doing a study can be called an academic. Wikipedia sourcing is based on verifiablity, editor's should not make personal decisions on whether they think sources are 'scholarly' enough. This is not policy here. It is not being used as a major source on the article and the .WP:RS is a guideline only (and a heavily disputed one. However, considering that you appear to be thoroughly familiar with it, you cannot have failed to noticed the line which clearly states "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly material from reputable mainstream publications". Any article published by National Geographic passes all wikipedia standards by a mile. This isn't the first time you have misrepresented this policy. For now i will assume good faith and deem that you have not followed your own advice and re-read the guideline. I ask you again to step back and consider this objectively rather than allowing personal feelings about another editor to cloud your judgment. --neon white talk 21:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I agree with Jennavecia and Miranda. Whether the edits are good faith or not, and the sources reliable or not, Jake Sturm now has a disclosed conflict of interest - see WP:COIN#Kira Salak - and should not be making the call about inclusion.
I also agree with the argument that we should seek references that maximise accepted reliability. Reliability isn't just a binary issue (unreliable vs. reliable for all purposes); "horses for courses" applies. If we want a source about hands-on exploration, Kira Salak is an excellent source. But if we want one about, say, ancient history of a region, a scholarly source from someone with a reputation as a historian is much preferable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Daphne-3 and her behavior

Resolved. The only Wikiquette issue I see here is the bogus sockpuppet case opened by Willking1979 --Jaysweet (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Daphne-3 has been questioning my intelligence and has been lying about my behavior. Here is my comment on the sockpuppetry page about Teleology:

  • Just because it is a verifiable edit does not mean it is good for Wikipedia.

And here is what she said about me on the bottom of Talk:Teleology:

  • In a subsequent exchange, the person "monitoring" this page explained that he deleted my edits because they were based on "personal opinion" and were not "good for Wikipedia".

The truth: the first quote was not necessarily about Daphne-3's edits. I was the one that reported the case, which is still open. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daphne-3 for more info. Notice that she has neglected to sign her own comments on many occasions.

Please investigate this ASAP. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is the incivility here? Can we have some diffs? --neon white talk 01:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I have gone through all of Daphne-3's talk space contribs, and I see no civility violations whatsoever. She appears to be critical of the Wiki concept, but that's just fine. She could probably use a little bit of coaching about the difference between truth and verifiability, but so could a lot of other new editors.
The only uncouth thing I see here is Willking1979's bogus sockpuppetry report. Daphne-3 was editing from an IP, then chose to register. She did not at any time attempt to conceal this. That is not sockpuppetry by any stretch of the imagination. I would caution Willking1979 to be careful of wikilawyering to gain leverage in a content dispute. It ain't gonna work.
Marking as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Manipulation and Editing Control: Alastairward (talk · contribs)

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewherePlease reach consensus on article talkpage

The archive can be found here. I guess out of all reactions presented in this discussion, Anthony Cargile's points that he is clearly the only person that truly understands South Park and its cultural influence on the general public. One of the cornerstones of Trey and Matt's sense of humor is poking fun at those who need guidance to understand the obvious. I'm not going to back up my "speculations" with any cites right now - this is not what this post is about. As I already wrote to one of Alastairward's accomplices, it would take a Tibetan monk not to recognize Michael Jackson in The Jeffersons or Sally Struthers being Jabba the Hutt in Starvin' Marvin in Space. As Anthony stated numerous times, this information is vital to South Park fans and removing it hinders everything South Park stands for, as far as the fans (without whom there is no South Park) are concerned. Therefore, I firmly believe that the sentence "rules were meant to be broken" applies here. The "no original research" ground rule exists to prevent ridiculous crackpot theories from being included in WP articles. However, if it looks like a duck... you know. Some things are universally recognized, which is a cite for itself. Moreover, parodies do not really need citation as they were meant to mock a certain piece of artwork by mimicking elements - which are, again, universally recognized and therefore, constitute a cite for themselves. I would like a response from an administrator, since users such as Alastairward are much like a cop that would fine a ragged beggar for jaywalking and arrest him if his loose change is insufficient to cover the ticket, using "reasonable violence" if needed. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Checking the archive linked to above I quote, (neon white) "Alastairward's edits seem to be in good faith so i fail to see an etiquette issue here. It's a content dispute use the dispute resolution."
Further to that (and if you really want to bore yourself silly) you can read another Admin's comments here. The Admin overlooking the article's talk page at that time didn't see a problem with what I was doing either.
NotAnotherAliGFan and I were both blocked for 24hrs after an edit war broke out over the article About Last Night... (South Park). After that, I consulted an Admin and went with their suggestion that I try a third party to give a point of view and ask NotAnotherAliGFan to discuss the issue. They (AliGFan) haven't really done that, I'd be happy to discuss this here if it's appropriate. Alastairward (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I've tried discussing, but you seem to duck my main question in an utmost professional manner. I await your response - you know perfectly well what I am talking about. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I've left links to wikipolicies and my own points of view on our talk pages and on the talk pages of the articles of which you disagree with my editing. But since we're here on the Wikiquette page, why don't you point out what you want me to stop doing and why you think I should stop it.
"Some things are universally recognized, which is a cite for itself. Moreover, parodies do not really need citation as they were meant to mock a certain piece of artwork by mimicking elements - which are, again, universally recognized and therefore, constitute a cite for themselves." An Admin disagreed with this, having sought advice from Jimbo Wales and other Admins.
Since I have nothing to answer for here, I'm wondering what the point of this nomination of sort is. Is there a specific question you have in mind? All your accusation was based on was the point of view of another user. Alastairward (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's take one step at a time. Please supply a simple yes/no answer as for the Michael Jackson and Jabba the Hutt issues. I'm urging you to be honest - remember, no playing dumb... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You have asked me not to "play dumb" and linked that to WP:Civility. Does that mean that if I disagree with you I am not being civil? I think you misunderstand that policy.
In any case, what you seem to be suggesting (that you have seen two characters in two different shows and believe one to be a reference to the other) goes against WP:SYNTH unless you have a cite to show the intent of the show's creators. Alastairward (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This is still not an answer - you seem to have invented the Chewbacca defense! NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Ignoratio elenchi; "presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question".
Please explain why this does not address this issue. WP:SYNTH advises against the suggestion you make. If you'd like a specific quote; "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article".
You suggest something basic along those lines, two characters appear (in your opinion) similar, therefore one must refer to the other. I disagree, as the onus is on you to prove what you assert, as suggested in WP:PROVEIT.
I'd also like to know why I am accused of manipulating and editing articles, isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Alastairward (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a parrot, please don't make me repeat my question. Just try giving a simple, honest answer. Re-read my original post and find the question, as I'm already starting to grow tired of asking. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I have given a simple honest answer, with my point of view, WP:Policies I have read stated and a link to some opinions given by Admins.
If you are tired of asking, why do so? Why did you open this discussion here in this part of Wikipedia? What Wikiquette have I broken?
To counterbalance things, do you see any WP:Policies I have gone against, any that might apply to support your argument? Alastairward (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, as you wish. I was asking if "it would take a Tibetan monk not to recognize Michael Jackson in The Jeffersons or Sally Struthers being Jabba the Hutt in Starvin' Marvin in Space" makes sense to you. By the way, I've backed up Jabba the Hutt by finding a reference on Comedy Central's website - I hope Your Majesty approves... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Strangest thing, that article has been tagged since Feb 2008 for not having adequate cites. And yet it's only now, that you're trying to put me on the spot for asking for a cite, that you come up with one yourself. Hey, I don't mind, if it gets you to cite something, let's continue!
I don't mind saying I have a fondness for the geeky references in South Park, not one bit. I can laugh at them as much as anyone else. Thing is, if you want to share them on Wikipedia, you must be able (and ideally willing) to provide a verifiable source for that information. It tells you so just above the edit summary box each time you go to add or take away something.
So, not a perfect cite, but a heck of a lot better than adding and running. Now, have you got one for the Jeffersons? Alastairward (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow... even Comedy Central, the company that owns South Park's franchise, is "not a perfect cite" for you. Additionally, I've found a cite for Michael Jackson on IMDb. Still, it is not the issue - why do you keep failing to admit the obvious? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Gentlemen, without getting into the merits of the debate, I can say that this is not a wikiquette issue (although I note that NotAliGFan's tone is descending into regrettable snideness (I hope Your Majesty approves) which he would be best advised to curtail). You should take this back to the talk page of the article in question. You may find it agreeable to try some kind of informal dispute resolution or post this at the South Park project for more eyeballs. Either way, this is not an appropriate venue and comes across, unintentionally although it may be, as forum shopping. Eusebeus (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User :Alex contributing from L.A.

Resolved. Seems resolved. See also ANI thread. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User :Alex contributing from L.A., a Romanian user who only cares for the Romanian etymology, is definitly uncivil.

He wrote:

No dickface, it's from Hungarian, then from Romanian, then from Latin. This is seen in the way the word changed forms. A is putting the smack down (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC) 14:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC) at [4]

Whenever there is a disagreement or a misunderstanding whith this guy, he will insult people.

Later he made some other changes and wrote in the edit summary, being uncivil again:

(what is confusing? are you a dingbat? the German word is directly from Czech, not from Hungarian. The Czech word is from Hungarian, the Hungarian word from Romanian etc. It is linear) (undo) at [5][[6]].

(His information is not entirely sure, because I also checked the word Palachinke’s (Austrian pancake) etymology, and the German etymology website states the following:

(sind was K.undK.-Österreichisch-Ungarisches. Der Name kommt aus von ung. 'palacsinta', das seinerseits den Umweg über Rumänisch und lat. 'placenta')

wich means translated that the word has a Hungarian origin, not Czech.


I am tired about uncivil editors who make Wikipedia into an unpleasant place to edit, and do so for many people I know or got in contact with. Discussing things whit people who use insults is not nice.


His personal interests and editing style after editing an article, often makes the article hard to read and understand, for other contributors and other readers.

For examle: the article looking like this [7] and after his edits looking like this [8], where the article has no lead section any more, which would explain what Palachinke is. It is also possible that he uses several accounts. (like user:Bogdangiusca)


Warrington (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note we cannot resolve content disputes here. You can use dispute resolution for that. There is clear evidence of some personal attacks and incivility by this user so i have posted a reminder about policy on personal attacks. Also remember to inform the user of the alert. --neon white talk 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


I do not want that you should resolve the content dispute. That was a minor problem, which probably could have been solved, if discussed in a civil way. His incivility was the issue. If you reminded him about that than I am very thankful for that. I find his behavior really unpleasant and disturbing. Thank you.

Warrington (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This user seems familiar. I wonder is he is the same person as user:Decius, user:Alexandru, User:Alexander 007, and User:Winona Gone Shopping (there's a confusing sequence of name changes, socks, page moves and deletions). If so, the user has been blocked indefinitely for incivility. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
On further research, it is apparent that this is the same user who's already blocked indefinitely. I've blocked the new account. If anyone sees a new incarnation please alert me or another admin. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


If I make those clarifying changes I made before in the Palatschinken article and a new user will revert it or change it, than that user will probably be him again. (The change is by no means incorrect, it was just disturbing him for some reason, probably because I edited his edits.)


Warrington (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:TehFreezer

Resolved. User was blocked 24 hours. If it starts again, warn and then consider reporting to WP:AIV. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lazylaces&oldid=252461114. Lazylaces (Talk to me 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't so much a "Wikiquette" problem as it is outright vandalism of your user page. The user was blocked for 24 hours shortly after the edits in question (I personally would have blocked for longer if I were an admin, but hey, what do I know) so this is more or less resolved.
If this user pesters you again, issue a "final warning" to his talk page and then report it to WP:AIV. In cases of blatant vandalism like this, you can get a much faster response by posting to WP:AIV. Thanks, and good luck! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

user:Theplaintruth

Resolved. User is clearly a revenge sock, but he/she only made one edit. It is up to Magnificient Clean-keeper whether he wants to report the sock.

What to do with such [9] behavior? I don't even know what edit and talk page s/he is referring to since I didn't make any edit that would fit in his/her criteria. FYI, the Youtube link is about Obama and taxes.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Egads, what a piece of work. Well, since that was the user's only edit, you can probably ignore it. You could also consider reporting to WP:SSP, since the user is clearly a sockpuppet being used in order to threaten you.
Do you have any idea whose edit you reverted? The reason I ask is because the user's main account should be blocked too for abusing multiple accounts.. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I couldn't care less about those kind of "editors" while on the other hand, who knows what else s/he is doing. By now I have a clue who it could be and will search a bit around (with more time on hand). If I find him/her I might go to the "hassle" and file a report. Again, thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Verbal removed my questions from his talk page

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

Further discussion here is unlikely to be productive. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.

User:Verbal had put a lot of alerts onto my talk page, but did not answer my questions about this his action. I also asked him to help me to understand his point of view. Than I wrote this message on his talk page but he deleted this my message. Is it civil Wiki work?--Tim32 (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to give Tim details of my publications. I have given him advice on various talk pages (specifically to start an RfC about his failure to accept consensus on the Graph isomorphism article). Removing messages means I've read them. I have not been uncivil in response to this users hounding. Note that this is a user who previously here called (update: or at least strongly implied that, see link below) an established editor of good standing a "racist" because he said some Russian journals during the cold war are not reliable sources. Verbal chat 16:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Where I wrote "racist"? Give a link, please!--Tim32 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
About publications by Verbal. Yes, I asked his to help me to understand his point of view. I wrote in GI talk page: "There is no attack. However, if you have printed any paper about GI problem or about graph's applications, please, give me a link - perhaps, it will help me to understand your point of view. For example, this paper helps me to understand some passages by David Eppstein. Thanks! --Tim32 (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)" Is it forbidden to ask help?--Tim32 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Racism allegations: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive52#Arthur Rubin. I will only respond on the article talk page to article related discussions. Verbal chat 19:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC) (link corrected [53/52] Verbal chat 19:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC))
Your link does not work! Cite, please. I know I did not write "racist", moreover I wrote: "Very important to note, if I said that somebody words look like racism, then it did not mean that I think that he/she is racist, moreover, I do not think that somebody here is racist, I do hope that he or she does not understand his/her words, and does not understand why these words are so insulted for me." (Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive52#Arthur Rubin)--Tim32 (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Users can remove whatever they like from their own talk pages. Dismissing this alert without prejudice. --neon white talk 21:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
So, can I remove the alerts of Verbal from my talk page? Than he will set the same alerts and I will remove it again... But at the same time he must not answer my question why he did it. Very absurd strategy.--Tim32 (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
It's up to the individual to manage his/her own talk page as he/she chooses. If a user removes an alert or warning we assume it is recieved and read. It shouldn't be replaced. No editor is obliged to answer any personal talk page messages or questions. If you are involved in a content dispute use the article talk page to discuss it and dispute resolution is a consensus cannot be reached. --neon white talk 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
So, somebody can put a lot of alerts onto my talk page, but nobody is obliged to answer any question about. Is it right?--Tim32 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, Verbal wrote here about me: "Note that this is a user who previously here called an established editor of good standing a "racist"", but he seem is not obliged to answer my question: where I wrote it. Is it right?--Tim32 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
As i said no editor is obligated to answer any questions. It's their choice to either involve themselves in discussions or not. We cannot force anyone to. However if you feel that an editor is misusing templates then that would be an issue for here. Previous alerts have nothing to do with this one. --neon white talk 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Well !! As you said: no editor is obligated to answer any questions. In this section Verbal wrote here about me: "Note that this is a user who previously here called an established editor of good standing a "racist"", but he seem is not obliged to answer my question: where I wrote it. So, for example, may I say that you called me a "racist"", and I would not be not obliged to answer any of your question? Or, for example, may I wrote that you are "racist" etc.? It would be absurd anyhow! --Tim32 (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
As an editor, you can say whatever you like. As an admin, I have the technical ability to block you from editing. Other users have the ability to remove my admin tools. We are all of us free to act, and accountable for our actions. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Well !! As an editor, Verbal can say whatever he likes. As an admin, Verbal has the technical ability to block me from editing. Wow!!! --Tim32 (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. Let me try to put it more simply: On Wikipedia, we are not obliged to do anything, but we are held responsible for what we do choose to do. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually i may not have been correct here as Wikipedia:Etiquette lists "Do not ignore questions. If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate." as a principle of Wikipedia etiquette. --neon white talk 21:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This really isn't getting us anywhere. I'm not going to reply to questions about myself if I don't want to. I have already give Tim my advice about how to proceed on the article. This alert is down to Tim misunderstanding what removal of comments from talk pages means. I have fixed the reference above, which was an answer to a question, but it is irrelevant anyway. I'm sorry that everyone's time here is being wasted. I would like Tim to stop arguing from authority and questioning others credentials, and just to present reliable sources and justifications for his arguments, and if they fail to gain consensus create an RfC if he is unsatisfied. I should have ignored his initial post here, so sorry for not doing that. Verbal chat 21:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In my talk page you wrote: "This discussion isn't good for the project, so I suggest we stop it. I note now that you said Rasism not racist. Verbal chat 21:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)" So, I uderstand this as you are sorry for this your Defamation here "Note that this is a user who previously here called (update: or at least strongly implied that, see link below) an established editor of good standing a "racist"". However, you still did not answer why you had put a lot of alerts onto my talk page, one of them because I asked your help to understand your point of view. I agree that it looks like time wasted, but you, not me, selected this way: to put non reasonable alerts, defamation, keeping silence and so on. Perhaps, you will stop this practice in future? because such your actions obviously are not good for the project! Also, if you can say something useful for Graph isomorphism article, then, please, go on talking about the subject on this talk page, not about me... For example, in your alert you wrote "You haven't proved anything on this page" -- do you understand that you have to prove this statement, otherwise without strong reasons, this your statement is invalid, it is noice (and time wasted) only in GI talk page?--Tim32 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Can this be achieved please? It might diffuse this situation. Verbal chat 08:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User restores unsourced claims in an article, does not explain and reverts "disputed" tag

Hiberniantears restores controversial information in article Roman consul [10], which has been tagged for lack of reference since at least July 2007 and does not explain his edits. He also removed a "disputed" tag from the article [11]. He accused me in vandalism, sockpuppetry and placed a "last warning" on my talk page [12], accusing me in "original research", so I think he will block me if I make any edit on the topic of Roman consuls. I requested a third opinion and another user fully supported [13] my cause. This was not very helpful though. --Dojarca (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly notify the user. The last warning is claearly inappropriate, it should not be issued until other warnings have failed. After reviewing the discussions on the page. I recommend Hiberniantears be reminded of the core polices of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:CONSENSUS and the principle of assuming good faith. It doesnt seem the user has much respect for any of them. Also recommend that all parties continue the discussion and dispute resolution and do not edit the article until a consensus is reached. The third opinion has remarked on the etiquette issues and i suggest that they should continue to 'mediate' things. --neon white talk 02:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
He's a sock who just enjoys playing various editors off against each other. See User:Certh. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to the case? --neon white talk 13:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I have not filed a case because it was obvious and that is the one point that both Dojarca (currently) and Certh (in October) have not argued with. Were it untrue, I would suspect one of them would have raised the issue. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What about User:Certh? The general policy with accusations of sockpuppetry is, to put it bluntly, "put up or shut up". To put it more tactfully, you are expected to substantiate any claims of sockpuppetry or trolling that you may make, rather than throwing around accusations. In many circumstances, it is appropriate to withhold labelling of sockpuppetry and/or trolling, even though you may feel such accusations are justified. In these circumstances, it appears to be an assumption of bad faith on the part of the person who you are accusing, and we do try to avoid those. Comment on the content, and not on the contributor. — Werdna • talk 10:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith?! You guys are getting tooled on by this guy. If I'm a bad admin for not letting an editor try to reestablish the Western Roman Empire in the middle ages, than this place is a joke. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Although this is not really the place to discuss content disputes, it seems to me that Dojarca is backing up facts with sources and attempting to discuss this properly whereas you are stating a personal opinion that you believe to be true without backing it up with sources. As you well know this is not how wikipedia is sourced and i don't need to point to the quote concerning "'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information" by Jimmy Wales on WP:V. Please remember that there is no 'truth' when it comes to historical events, there are only theories and often they will disagree and change over time so we must represent all views equally and in proportion. It may well be the case that something you learnt as the 'truth' years ago may not now be the consensus amongst historians. The third opinion has also seem to agree with this. --neon white talk 13:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Funny. I've only removed uncited (and incorrect) claims, and you accuse me in "re-establishing Roman empire". Very funny.--Dojarca (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
You are correct Dojarca that this is extremely funny. It is largely why Wikipedia isn't taken very seriously in the academic world. You did not just remove unsourced material. You removed material that is unsourced because it is commonly accepted and replaced it with an alternate view of history which is entirely valid and open for debate, but which is supported by sources that only work when taken out of context. I first encountered this issue over the summer when the subjects of a large number of articles on nobility in Medieval Italy started entering the ranks of the ancient and defunct cursus honorum. Now, I understand that an extreme take on policy guidelines means that all unsourced material can be yanked and replaced with sourced content. However, if the new "sourced" content contradicts the views of mainstream history, I do not believe that I, acting in the role of an administrator, am out of line for trying to enforce the status quo in an article when edits are made that I know to be tendentious. In October a number of neutral editors weighed in on the topic and gave constructive suggestions which were incorporated into a variety of articles related to the debate surrounding the parameters of a "Roman consul" versus a "consul" who happens to be in Rome. That was in the debate with User:Certh, who based on a very casual review of editing topics, content, style, and method will demonstrate is an obvious sock of Dojarca. Dojarca stayed out of the debate over October, and in fact did not edit until Certh got himself blocked for some bizarre edits to John McCain. Later that day, Dajorca came back, waited a bit, and then jumped back into the Certh style of editing. Yesterday, in a belated spirit of good faith for an obvious sockpuppet, I even left a note at the Wikiproject for Classical Greece and Rome requesting the opinions of editors more expert than I am. I am wholly cognizant that the Byzantine Empire is in fact the Eastern Roman Empire, and that this fact is the connection Dojarca and Certh are using to indicate that various people in the middle ages are Roman Consuls. As I argued, and as other editors also agreed throughout October, these "Roman Consuls" are something different than the office of "Roman Consul" that is described in the Roman Consul article, which is a part of the Cursus Honorum. There may be a factual cut off earlier than what even I have suggested as the offices of the Roman Republic were neutralized by the Principate. However, people that were declared Hypatus during the Byzantine era, or who were proclaimed, or claimed the title of, "Consul" while living in Medieval Rome are not part of the continuity of the title as it relates to the Cursus Honorum. I am open to debate on where to draw the line, and am actively seeking the facts. With all of this in mind the short term solution is not to create an alternative history of Late Antiquity, nor is it to take pot shots (some of which are surprisingly personal from people with whom I have had no prior interaction) at me for defending the status quo view of history found in any reputable source. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Removing unsourced info is not an 'extreme take on policy', it's a fundamental part of verifiability policy. "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source", "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". --neon white talk 21:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
And I have since removed it. Once again, I will point out that that line of text is not what this issue is actually about. It just happens to be that I reverted to a version with that line. It was not my content. I did not add it. I simply caused it to go back into the article whilst rolling back the content which is actually at the heart of this issue; what constitutes a Roman Consul. Admitting my mistake, I have removed it. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Provide a source that "modern history" believes that after 476 (or 480) only one consul was appointed each year as yiou claim. As I know (and as say sources), modern history believes just an opposite thing: for most years until the reign of Justinian there were two consuls, and Decius Paulinus Iunior was the last consul in the West. Or in your view Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius is something different than Roman consul? This is original research. If you believe it, you'd need not only change this article, but also many other articles in Wikipedia to push your claim. There are many sources that he was a Roman consul of 510 and himself wrote a book about life of Roman consuls. His sons were co-consuls in 522. Learn history first.--Dojarca (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
That is not the argument here. Nor are any of the other "provide a source why you think x y or z" responses you make to every reasonable explanation I make. The problem is your definition of Roman Consul, not whether people had the title, or how many there were at any given time. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
You insert the controversial passage, not me. Can you provide ANY source that after 476 there was only one consul each year? I already gave you many sources that there were two consuls.--Dojarca (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Look at this list of consuls for example: [14]--Dojarca (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Please remember that this is not the place to resolve content disputes, this is for commenting on etiquette issues and incivility. There may be serious problems with Hiberniantears's arguments but that is an issue for dispute resolution. All we can really do here to ask that Hiberniantears respects the consensus when it is established and the third opinion already given on the talk page. --neon white talk 21:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved

Not resolved at all. This issue now also entails the total lack of civility shown to me by Werdna and Neon White. If you are going to just relentlessly criticize my actions take the time to educate yourself on the larger issue being discussed. The sockpuppet issues are central to this problem, as is the fact that this has been going on since October. My reversion of the article was just back to another version; neither my version, nor my preferred version, just one that is less fantastical. My actions over the past months, which you are so clearly ignorant of will demonstrate that I have sought a better definition of how to historically discuss Roman Consuls. In fact, despite your disrespect here, I am still seeking additional editors to weigh in on that discussion. Even more in fact, I have previously asked for a neutral admin to step in and help out, a request which went without answer. Werdna was a driveby, and I can overlook that, but I take serious exception to the attitude shown by Neon White. Consistently dismissing my explanation while passive aggressively discussing my actions as though I am not present in this thread are contemptible. I am uncertain if you were just getting your rocks off pushing me around, or if you actually believe that you are setting an example of "Wikiquette" that is better than my own. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa now, please read the top of the page where it says "If you're filing a report to complain about a WQA editor who responded to a previous WQA alert, please stop now, and think. If you were contacted by a WQA volunteer based on a previously filed alert, they were acting as a neutral third party and probably have no interest in personally entering into a dispute with you." ►BMW◄ 22:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
We cannot resolve content disputes here, so there is nothing more to say really. Persue dispute resolution. --neon white talk 23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Decline the opportunity to apologize. Agree to take it elsewhere, as I had originally suggested. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikiquette alerts are for the purpose of commenting on difficult communications with an editor. Your allegations of sockpuppetry seem to be a major part of the difficulty (which is now being compounded by personal attacks on the commenting editors). You really need to either post a sockpuppet alert and resolve the matter or assume good faith. You cannot continue to throw around allegations of sockpuppetry and refuse to discuss a dispute properly. "seeking additional editors to weigh in on that discussion" is a bad idea and may be interpreted as canvassing. Dispute resolution is underway with a third opinion already offered. Continue to persue dispute resolution. --neon white talk 23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Still haven't done the background reading, have you? Hiberniantears (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No background is needed, we have all the necessary info concerning this alert. It is a concern that so far you have expressed no interest in improving the civility points mentioned. --neon white talk 04:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it polite to use such expressions in edit summaries: throwing Dojarca a bone.'[15]. Am I a dog or something?--Dojarca (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: To throw a bone is an idiom for an altruistic act for a colleague's benefit. I'm not convinced the cited edit summary was intended to be offensive. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 06:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
It was not meant offensively. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:124.189.16.15

While this editor is pretty new, he/she has a habit of using profanity and personal insults, referring to at least one editor as a "homo" while editing the Tupac Shakur discography, in edit summaries regarding edits of others he/she doesn't agree with. I messaged the user on his/her discussion page and advised against that sort of behavior and suggested that he/she bone up on the civility policy. The response I received on my own discussion page waswas "thanx for the advise but fuck you".Odin's Beard (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure much can be done about an ip that hasnt made that many edits. --neon white talk 01:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I left a message linking the policy on civility with a kind explanation and offer to answer any question they have. Of course, it is an IP and if they don't use cookies they won't know there is a message, but likely they will. Let's see what they do next. If you wanted to place a subst:vandal2 template on their page for the talk page rudeness, that would be fine with me. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:AvatarMN

I am concerned about this person's comments about LGBT issues in Talk with other users. Perhaps I am incorrect, but there seems to be some personal attacks going on with this issue and several others in Talk pages. I also wonder about their motives and reasoning in editing others work, but that's a different issue. May I please ask that someone look at their Talk contributions, and let them know if they need to change their behavior? I don't really need an answer. Remaining anonymous as I do not want to be the target of this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.141.198 (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of personal attacks and also notify the user of this alert? --neon white talk 17:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we definitely need diffs. I did a spot-check of the user's contribs and found nothing untowards. (That doesn't mean there isn't a problem, it just means that in 90 seconds or so of poking around I couldn't find anything wrong) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I can do is direct you to their Talk page and discussion with another user on LGBT that took place almost a month ago. I may be incorrect, but I interpret some of this person's comments as extremely uncivil. Again, I don't want to be this person's target, so I do not want to be the person who notifies them of the alert. 06:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.49.251 (talk)
P.S. I'm not only referring to the exchange with a now-blocked user. Comments to others on that subject concerned me also. But I'll drop it if nobody agrees. 76.193.49.251 (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I would like to look further into this. However, even though you're editing anonymously you still refuse to advise the other party of this alert. You also fail to provide any diff's whatsoever. A casual glance is giving us nothing. Throw us a bone here, would you please? ►BMW◄ 12:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
PS: I advised the editor of this WQA, and advised that "hey, you might have been bad...but I'm not sure...so be careful anyway" which is pretty watery, but what else can one do without evidence? ►BMW◄ 12:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Seicer

Resolved. Nothing to see here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I notified Seicer (talk · contribs) that a warning he placed on several user pages did not say what he seemed to mean; he removed my comment with the edit summary "Removed post; after reviewing prior contribs., I'm pretty sure this is a trolling/gaming attempt". When I informed him that he was mistaken, asked him to "AGF", pointed out that he had provided no evidence to back up his mistaken conclusion, and asked for an apology, he removed my new comment with the one-word edit summary "nope". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

After noting this idle threat on my discussion page, and taking this to review with other administrators, I came to the conclusion that this was another of Pigsonthewing's attempts to harass and disrupt other administrators. I suspect that it is in relation to the current MOSDATES issue. Pigsonthewing's extensive block log has noted numerous sanctions for disruptive editing/edit warring, personal attacks, and harassment. He was also the subject of a ban for one year, as noted here. seicer | talk | contribs 13:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
There was no threat; I see you'd rather resort to ad hominem than address the real issue. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, you removed my initial comment 2 minutes after I added it; where was it reviewed by other admins, in that time? Please provide a URL. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Your suspicions with regard to "the current MOSDATES issue" are also bogus; please provide evidence to support them, or retract. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I see no WQA issue here. It is true that Andy has an extensive record of disruptive and harassing edits, gaming the system, false accusation, etc.. etc..., which as I recall led to a lengthy editing ban. While that does not permit other editors to engage in uncivil behaviour, it also means that he doesn't get cut much slack and I don't see anything worth bringing to WQA here. Eusebeus (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)Andy, are we really back here demanding apologies again for valid warnings? Besides the fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy that crow-bars apologies out of people, you have been admonished in the past for edit warring and for conduct, being one of the most blocked editors in the history of Wikipedia. Time and time again administrators have submitted their conduct w.r.t. you at AN and been found to be proper. I believe it is best if for you to cease filing such questionable complaints. MBisanz talk 14:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    • More ad hominem. Who is edit warring? Which "valid warning" do you imagine that I asking for an apology over? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with the above, I don't see any "violations" here. Much ado about nothing. Additionally, removing talk in your own space only demonstrates it has been read. Content type dispute being handled elsewhere. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I suggest you refer to the cited edit summaries, which do far more than "only demonstrate it has been read" Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. Andy, any user is welcome to remove commentary from their talk page. Seicer responded to you and then removed the post indicating that he was no longer interested in discussing it for "reason X" (in edit summary). You could've politely requested him to clarify what he meant by "X", or you could've apologized and clarified that it wasn't your intention to appear that way. Instead, you were confrontational and demanded an apology, and Seicer responded by deleting your message again. I don't think I'm the only one who does not see a Wikiquette issue here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

←[General comment] I think the community response to attacks against me is quite clear from the above comments, and that I can expect no even-handedness here. What isn't clear is which policy allows an editor (an admin?) to make a false accusation of "a trolling/gaming attempt" against any' editor, and to be allowed to do so with impunity. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's come to the crux of the issue here for a moment: do you believe his removal of your text from his Talkpage is uncivil, or the edit summary "Removed post; after reviewing prior contribs., I'm pretty sure this is a trolling/gaming attempt", or is it something else. Please be clear with what you want a response to while you also WP:AGF on this forum please. ►BMW◄ 16:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The edit summary, of course. I would also remind you that the requirement to "AGF" does not apply in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that ANY of the WQA volunteers who have responded above have any desire to enter into any form of argument with you, and as such, you must AGF. Unfortunately, I am going to also disagree with the concept that there is any form of contravention of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. In both those cases, the civility or attack must be easily and directly attributable towards a specific editor. I will try to break down the edit summary so that you see where I am coming from (remember, I'm a journalist here OK?):
  • "Removed post" - he doesn't say which post, so non-attributable unless you go through the diffs
  • "after reviewing prior contribs" - let's just say that a lot of people have contrib'd to his page, and is again therefore non-attributable.
  • "I'm pretty sure this is a trolling/gaming attempt" - first, it's not saying "I am being trolled/gamed", it says "I'm pretty sure that...", and secondly, based on the above, there is no direct attribution towards anyone in particular.
You would have to be paying extremely close attention to someone's userpage (read:Wikihounding) and already have some expectation that the editor might respond negatively towards your comments on their talkpage to have been able to remotely identify this as being directed at you. If you have a past history with the editor in question, then your comments may be percieved by some to have been "baiting" (note: I did not say that I see it that way). Please take a close look at both of the Wikipedia policies noted above. If this is a situation where you have past negative experiences with the editor in question, I would recommend that the two of you remain as far away from each other as possible. Please let me assure you that I am not in collusion with any other editor, I am merely looking at this from a completely neutral POV.
If you disagree, then please recall my first sentence: none of us have any desire to enter into any form of disagreement. Accusing them of doing so is uncivil in it's own right, and if I see further similar accusations I will be the first to make use of a warning template (and I personally reserve those for extreme situations). You are welcome to open an WP:RFC against this user, or if necessary take this to WP:ANI. If you pursue either option, please ensure to include a link to this WQA entry. ►BMW◄ 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I see what Andy is talking about in the edit summary. Certainly it could have been handled better IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Eklir

I tried and failed to explain user:Eklir that his actions against some fellow editors are causing more harm than justified, and on course it turned out that he insists to have a right to remove content from other people's talk page at his will, namely he declared that he is going to remove any non-english comment from the talk page of the editors he opposes [16] [17] [18] (user:Doncsecz and user:MagyarTürk seem to be in this set). Discussions (history is broken because they were copied 3 times by him): here. His actions are clearly violating the user page policy and not meet any reason to intervene based on Talk_page_guidelines (especially the section on user talk pages). I am not sure he is not involved in stalking, but I do not want to judge him in this way. I repeatedly requested difflinks to support his allegiations which he neglected to provide. I would like to know, however, who is right, and since I strongly believe that it is wrong to mess with other users talk page without explicite request to do so (and in this case the opposite is true, as he was asked to stop it) I'd like to persuade him to stop these actions immediately and avoid them in the future, and maybe stop reverting edits of the editors in question without inviting neutral third parties in the discussion. Thanks for your insights. --grin ✎ 21:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC) is true that users are asked to communicate in English only: Transparency is critical to the Wiki concept, and since this is English Wikipedia, communicating in another language means that your conversation is now secret from the vast majority of Wikipedians.

Whether Eklir's actions are justified or not depends a whole lot on context. If the users in question have been disruptive, colluded during edit warring for example, and they have been asked politely to communicate in English and consistently refused, Eklir's unilateral removal could be justified. Do you know if there has been a dialog about it at all? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I dont think removing talk page messages is the correct way to deal with such issues and whilst english is prefered no-one is going to get blocked for not using english, it just doesnt help an editor not to communicate well. --neon white talk 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
If communicating in another language is the only issue, I absolutely agree with you. That's why I sorta want more context. If the users in question have been disruptive in other ways, I could potentially see some value in an inflexible application of the rules. Maybe...
Has Eklir been notified of this thread? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The issues involved have been amply discussed here. In short:
  • Translation request. Grin (d)'s protégé Doncsecz (d) has been warned repeatedly, on his talk page here and elsewhere, of the consequences of not adhering to guidelines. Translation request served: 01:16, 13 September 2008; last notice: 22:42, 15 November 2008. (As it is, he still ignores all translation requests and continues his use of languages other than English, no explanation offered.)
  • Statistics: 50% of Doncsecz (d)'s edits which are not language-neutral (14 out of 27 of the last 50 at the time of probing) are consistently in a language other than English, no translation intended or even any criterion of "unavoidability" suggested. That's disruptive enough by any standards of WP policies. As for the other edits, they are indicative of the cooperation he is willing to offer on WP: None to people who are not of his mind:
    • 13 of his contributions were affectively in English. Of these, three were insults (dull, nonsense, history faker allegation, etc.), eight were reverted (two by myself, six by others), and two barely survived WP criteria for retention;
    • 23 of his contributions concern the editing of graphics, tags and the adding of reference sources in languages other tban English or one of the major publishing languages. Except for the eight edits on his own page, most of them were reverted as being either unsourced or inappropriate by editors other than me;
  • My reverts: My decision to revert on Battle of Petrovaradin which Grin (d) qualifies as "starting an edit war" were based on the same motives as the decision to revert on Battle of Grocka: Putting a definite stop to unsourced attempts, based on bias and edit warring, to modify the list of belligerents in battles which all can be subsumed under the historically accepted heading of Ottoman-Habsburg wars. If Grin (d) is not not satisfied with my handling the case, he is not only disaggreeing with my own decisions but also with all those who have been involved in handling the case, faithless (speak) and Blueboy96; and notably with Blueboy96's decision to block his protégé under 3RR.
  • Non-English contribs: Consistent non-English editing can be reverted whether it occurs on talk pages or not and this not only because of English language guidelines. Comments on talk pages have to conform to the WP core principle of civility and in this respect have to meet the threshold of verifiability. If comments are consistently not in English nor in a major publishing language, there is no way to reasonably encact and act on WP concerns. In the present case, the comments are eminently written in a language no one understands and eminently offensive to one who does; and it is upon the offending editor to act and demonstrate, within the 5 day grace period I granted (added to the 66 days he already had to act), that his non English edits are not offensive.
  • What Grin (d) calls mediation attempts: On one hand, what there is to see, judging from his own editorial biases, is that Grin (d) is supporting firmly one party's right to act without concern for WP-friendlyness; On the other hand, doing my job on WP has been bringing me into direct conflict with a particularly difficult user, Doncsecz (d), where I could use some support myself. One doesn't see how Grin (d) could have mediated anything here: Nemo iudex in parte sua.
  • My alleged removing of reference sources: In a new intervention in favor of his protégé, Grin (d) holds me responsible for removing non-English reference sources. As it is, my editing history rather shows that I consistently revert the unmotivated blanking of non-English reference sources or non-English citations from authors writing in languages other than English. In this particular case (Republic of Prekmurje), I asked for reliable and verifiable references written in a language or a translation that is accessible to those who will audit the article under criteria of WP admissibility. An auditor may be expected to be capable of verifying sources written in a major publishing language such as French, German and so on, but not sources written in Prekmurian. What I suggested and continue to suggest is that articles which cannot be audited according to WP standards of reliability and verifiabilty are elligible for deletion under one of the deletion processes that are available.
As I said, I will eventually have to do what I'm here for without reckoning on support from editors like Grin (d). Best, Eklir (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think neon white had it right. The discussion Eklir is pointing to, and the guideline it refers to is about talk pages on articles, not user space. In user space, there has always been greater leniency about content, and as she states, while English is preferred, it is not required to prevent being blocked. Reading WP:user page also makes no reference to English being the only language. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree, i cannot find or concieve of any reason why non english shouldn't be ok on user and user talk pages. --neon white talk 01:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I would respectfully ask that Eklir consider acknowledging a misunderstanding of this one policy, which would address one of the two issues here. Non-English doesn't appear to violate any policies for user talk pages and I am absolutely confident it is fine for sources, even if English is strongly preferred. For the record, I think Eklir's deletions of user space talk sections were mistakes but they don't seem to be in bad faith, just a mistaken understanding of existing policy, which is why I would be happy for a simple "Ok, now I understand. Sorry." so we can move on. If in doubt, ask an admin before you do wholesale reversions. As for the content dispute, this really isn't the right forum. I would strongly suggest Eklir and grin go to Wikipedia:Third opinion as the next step. This is exactly what they do best over there. You guys are adults and all are trying to make the articles better, even if you disagree on methods. I am confident you can hash it out there, all you need is someone to mediate a bit. We all need that sometimes, which is why it is there. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Dennis Brown and neon white, but I am a little concerned about Eklir's implication that the non-English content may be offensive. I have seen cases arise at ANI where a non-English comment was added on another user's talk page, and it turned out to be a rather vile epithet. Eklir is right when he/she says the verifiability principle comes into play even when we are talking about user talk pages... If both editors are consenting, I'd usually be inclined to let it go -- but if Eklir has evidence that the non-English comments have WP:CIV or WP:NPA problems, for example, it would be valid to both admonish the user(s) for that and strictly forbid them from communicating in non-English in the future.
I may have misunderstood Eklir's implication, though; or the implication may be false. If the comments are inoffensive, then I am inclined to agree -- I would rather users communicate only in English for the sake of transparency, but in that case Eklir's reversion does not appear to be necessary and is likely only to stir up more controversy. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
To clarify: The reason I am much more willing to entertain the idea of forbidding non-English communication on talk pages is because multiple times I have seen people using non-English communication to avoid scrutiny while making comments they know are wholly inappropriate. Also, my interpretation of the cited passage from WP:TALK is that while it does not explicitly call out User Talk pages, the same logic applies (that the information be understood by the community at large) so while I would typically not make a stink about two consenting users communicating in another language, I would discourage the practice. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
We can't "consider" forbidding English. Even Jimbo Wales can't at this forum either. The policy on Wikipedia allows non-English and simply put, we can only interpret the policy and apply it to the current situation. Telling someone they must use English here at Wikiquette violates a whole host of policies, including assuming good faith and I am not remotely considering that. If you want to change that policy, this is the wrong page. As for this current situation, I would suggest translate.google.com to translate just about any language. I would first try that. The "offense" would be the content of the message. It can never be the language it was spoken in. IE: you simply cannot say "No Spanish/French/German because you might say something offensive", as that is against everything we stand for here. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion in any language is still public. There are enough editors who can translate where needed. If two Serbs discuss an issue in non-English on their usertalk pages and actually come up a solution for something to solve world peace, we'd all be pleased. Talk on article Talk pages should always be in English. ►BMW◄ 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you point me to the policy or guideline that shows this? I have seriously looked for it and can't seem to find it. If that is the case, I would want to know what it is. Otherwise, it is only an opinion, which doesn't help the issue. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I do not see any of the original parties contributing, nor anyone demonstrating a policy that Wikipedia user pages are English only. Does this need to be bumped up to ANI? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't be the right place for it. A better venue would be The village pump policy page. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I entirely support the views of Jaysweet (talk). In this particular case:
  • Satisfying translation requests is clearly mandatory for Wikipedia talk pages. The offending user has consistently ignored such requests.
  • Profanity and insults are being used as I pointed out already. However, my assertion of this is no proof in the absence of an authorized translation.
I therfore must insist: Either all the incriminated comments are translated; or they are deleted. Best, Eklir (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately that is not current policy. --neon white talk 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ: It is current policy. Satisfying translation requests is mandatory and comments using profanity or insult are deletable. Eklir (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The current policy has already been pointed out above. Using english only applies to article space. User pages are a very different space to article space. Policies/guidelines that apply to article space do not apply to user space. That's the bottom line and it's not up for debate here. According to user space guidelines you can request that a user remove content that you feel may be inappropriate but ultimately removing it requires some community consensus that it is inappropriate. You cannot simply make unilateral decisions about the suitability of content. (unless the content violates WP:BLP which can be removed without discussion) See Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content. If you think there is offensive content or personal attacks i recommend asking an admin to check it out or posting an WP:ANI report.--neon white talk 17:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Eklir

I tried and failed to explain user:Eklir that his actions against some fellow editors are causing more harm than justified, and on course it turned out that he insists to have a right to remove content from other people's talk page at his will, namely he declared that he is going to remove any non-english comment from the talk page of the editors he opposes [19] [20] [21] (user:Doncsecz and user:MagyarTürk seem to be in this set). Discussions (history is broken because they were copied 3 times by him): here. His actions are clearly violating the user page policy and not meet any reason to intervene based on Talk_page_guidelines (especially the section on user talk pages). I am not sure he is not involved in stalking, but I do not want to judge him in this way. I repeatedly requested difflinks to support his allegiations which he neglected to provide. I would like to know, however, who is right, and since I strongly believe that it is wrong to mess with other users talk page without explicite request to do so (and in this case the opposite is true, as he was asked to stop it) I'd like to persuade him to stop these actions immediately and avoid them in the future, and maybe stop reverting edits of the editors in question without inviting neutral third parties in the discussion. Thanks for your insights. --grin ✎ 21:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC) is true that users are asked to communicate in English only: Transparency is critical to the Wiki concept, and since this is English Wikipedia, communicating in another language means that your conversation is now secret from the vast majority of Wikipedians.

Whether Eklir's actions are justified or not depends a whole lot on context. If the users in question have been disruptive, colluded during edit warring for example, and they have been asked politely to communicate in English and consistently refused, Eklir's unilateral removal could be justified. Do you know if there has been a dialog about it at all? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I dont think removing talk page messages is the correct way to deal with such issues and whilst english is prefered no-one is going to get blocked for not using english, it just doesnt help an editor not to communicate well. --neon white talk 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
If communicating in another language is the only issue, I absolutely agree with you. That's why I sorta want more context. If the users in question have been disruptive in other ways, I could potentially see some value in an inflexible application of the rules. Maybe...
Has Eklir been notified of this thread? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The issues involved have been amply discussed here. In short:
  • Translation request. Grin (d)'s protégé Doncsecz (d) has been warned repeatedly, on his talk page here and elsewhere, of the consequences of not adhering to guidelines. Translation request served: 01:16, 13 September 2008; last notice: 22:42, 15 November 2008. (As it is, he still ignores all translation requests and continues his use of languages other than English, no explanation offered.)
  • Statistics: 50% of Doncsecz (d)'s edits which are not language-neutral (14 out of 27 of the last 50 at the time of probing) are consistently in a language other than English, no translation intended or even any criterion of "unavoidability" suggested. That's disruptive enough by any standards of WP policies. As for the other edits, they are indicative of the cooperation he is willing to offer on WP: None to people who are not of his mind:
    • 13 of his contributions were affectively in English. Of these, three were insults (dull, nonsense, history faker allegation, etc.), eight were reverted (two by myself, six by others), and two barely survived WP criteria for retention;
    • 23 of his contributions concern the editing of graphics, tags and the adding of reference sources in languages other tban English or one of the major publishing languages. Except for the eight edits on his own page, most of them were reverted as being either unsourced or inappropriate by editors other than me;
  • My reverts: My decision to revert on Battle of Petrovaradin which Grin (d) qualifies as "starting an edit war" were based on the same motives as the decision to revert on Battle of Grocka: Putting a definite stop to unsourced attempts, based on bias and edit warring, to modify the list of belligerents in battles which all can be subsumed under the historically accepted heading of Ottoman-Habsburg wars. If Grin (d) is not not satisfied with my handling the case, he is not only disaggreeing with my own decisions but also with all those who have been involved in handling the case, faithless (speak) and Blueboy96; and notably with Blueboy96's decision to block his protégé under 3RR.
  • Non-English contribs: Consistent non-English editing can be reverted whether it occurs on talk pages or not and this not only because of English language guidelines. Comments on talk pages have to conform to the WP core principle of civility and in this respect have to meet the threshold of verifiability. If comments are consistently not in English nor in a major publishing language, there is no way to reasonably encact and act on WP concerns. In the present case, the comments are eminently written in a language no one understands and eminently offensive to one who does; and it is upon the offending editor to act and demonstrate, within the 5 day grace period I granted (added to the 66 days he already had to act), that his non English edits are not offensive.
  • What Grin (d) calls mediation attempts: On one hand, what there is to see, judging from his own editorial biases, is that Grin (d) is supporting firmly one party's right to act without concern for WP-friendlyness; On the other hand, doing my job on WP has been bringing me into direct conflict with a particularly difficult user, Doncsecz (d), where I could use some support myself. One doesn't see how Grin (d) could have mediated anything here: Nemo iudex in parte sua.
  • My alleged removing of reference sources: In a new intervention in favor of his protégé, Grin (d) holds me responsible for removing non-English reference sources. As it is, my editing history rather shows that I consistently revert the unmotivated blanking of non-English reference sources or non-English citations from authors writing in languages other than English. In this particular case (Republic of Prekmurje), I asked for reliable and verifiable references written in a language or a translation that is accessible to those who will audit the article under criteria of WP admissibility. An auditor may be expected to be capable of verifying sources written in a major publishing language such as French, German and so on, but not sources written in Prekmurian. What I suggested and continue to suggest is that articles which cannot be audited according to WP standards of reliability and verifiabilty are elligible for deletion under one of the deletion processes that are available.
As I said, I will eventually have to do what I'm here for without reckoning on support from editors like Grin (d). Best, Eklir (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think neon white had it right. The discussion Eklir is pointing to, and the guideline it refers to is about talk pages on articles, not user space. In user space, there has always been greater leniency about content, and as she states, while English is preferred, it is not required to prevent being blocked. Reading WP:user page also makes no reference to English being the only language. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree, i cannot find or concieve of any reason why non english shouldn't be ok on user and user talk pages. --neon white talk 01:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I would respectfully ask that Eklir consider acknowledging a misunderstanding of this one policy, which would address one of the two issues here. Non-English doesn't appear to violate any policies for user talk pages and I am absolutely confident it is fine for sources, even if English is strongly preferred. For the record, I think Eklir's deletions of user space talk sections were mistakes but they don't seem to be in bad faith, just a mistaken understanding of existing policy, which is why I would be happy for a simple "Ok, now I understand. Sorry." so we can move on. If in doubt, ask an admin before you do wholesale reversions. As for the content dispute, this really isn't the right forum. I would strongly suggest Eklir and grin go to Wikipedia:Third opinion as the next step. This is exactly what they do best over there. You guys are adults and all are trying to make the articles better, even if you disagree on methods. I am confident you can hash it out there, all you need is someone to mediate a bit. We all need that sometimes, which is why it is there. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Dennis Brown and neon white, but I am a little concerned about Eklir's implication that the non-English content may be offensive. I have seen cases arise at ANI where a non-English comment was added on another user's talk page, and it turned out to be a rather vile epithet. Eklir is right when he/she says the verifiability principle comes into play even when we are talking about user talk pages... If both editors are consenting, I'd usually be inclined to let it go -- but if Eklir has evidence that the non-English comments have WP:CIV or WP:NPA problems, for example, it would be valid to both admonish the user(s) for that and strictly forbid them from communicating in non-English in the future.
I may have misunderstood Eklir's implication, though; or the implication may be false. If the comments are inoffensive, then I am inclined to agree -- I would rather users communicate only in English for the sake of transparency, but in that case Eklir's reversion does not appear to be necessary and is likely only to stir up more controversy. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
To clarify: The reason I am much more willing to entertain the idea of forbidding non-English communication on talk pages is because multiple times I have seen people using non-English communication to avoid scrutiny while making comments they know are wholly inappropriate. Also, my interpretation of the cited passage from WP:TALK is that while it does not explicitly call out User Talk pages, the same logic applies (that the information be understood by the community at large) so while I would typically not make a stink about two consenting users communicating in another language, I would discourage the practice. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
We can't "consider" forbidding English. Even Jimbo Wales can't at this forum either. The policy on Wikipedia allows non-English and simply put, we can only interpret the policy and apply it to the current situation. Telling someone they must use English here at Wikiquette violates a whole host of policies, including assuming good faith and I am not remotely considering that. If you want to change that policy, this is the wrong page. As for this current situation, I would suggest translate.google.com to translate just about any language. I would first try that. The "offense" would be the content of the message. It can never be the language it was spoken in. IE: you simply cannot say "No Spanish/French/German because you might say something offensive", as that is against everything we stand for here. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion in any language is still public. There are enough editors who can translate where needed. If two Serbs discuss an issue in non-English on their usertalk pages and actually come up a solution for something to solve world peace, we'd all be pleased. Talk on article Talk pages should always be in English. ►BMW◄ 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Can you point me to the policy or guideline that shows this? I have seriously looked for it and can't seem to find it. If that is the case, I would want to know what it is. Otherwise, it is only an opinion, which doesn't help the issue. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I do not see any of the original parties contributing, nor anyone demonstrating a policy that Wikipedia user pages are English only. Does this need to be bumped up to ANI? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't be the right place for it. A better venue would be The village pump policy page. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I entirely support the views of Jaysweet (talk). In this particular case:
  • Satisfying translation requests is clearly mandatory for Wikipedia talk pages. The offending user has consistently ignored such requests.
  • Profanity and insults are being used as I pointed out already. However, my assertion of this is no proof in the absence of an authorized translation.
I therfore must insist: Either all the incriminated comments are translated; or they are deleted. Best, Eklir (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately that is not current policy. --neon white talk 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ: It is current policy. Satisfying translation requests is mandatory and comments using profanity or insult are deletable. Eklir (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The current policy has already been pointed out above. Using english only applies to article space. User pages are a very different space to article space. Policies/guidelines that apply to article space do not apply to user space. That's the bottom line and it's not up for debate here. According to user space guidelines you can request that a user remove content that you feel may be inappropriate but ultimately removing it requires some community consensus that it is inappropriate. You cannot simply make unilateral decisions about the suitability of content. (unless the content violates WP:BLP which can be removed without discussion) See Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content. If you think there is offensive content or personal attacks i recommend asking an admin to check it out or posting an WP:ANI report.--neon white talk 17:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

HD86

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereUser has forum-shopped this one, and it has also been posted in ANI

First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response. Ninevite (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineveh 209 (talk • contribs)

Need help

user:Faustian trace my edits and put own vision of my words and edits [22] [23] Failed to proved any AD REM comments [24] he/she put other in misconseption about existing dispute on articles content by distoring the mean of issue - [25]

  • It’s achieving by a vary simple but durable way – if nominate an Abwehr Major General Erwin Von Lahausen, Abwehr Division I Head as “Austrian officer” forgot to note what it happened in Hitler special train were actually Hitler present. And a cherish point – to stress the reliability of data – “conversations between German officials recalled six years after the conversation”. So the reader easily forgot what here is spoken not about hearing at Pip-Creek County court but about International Military Tribunal Trails on Major War Criminals. And refuse to follow the reccomendation [26] by possible involving of tWikipedia:SOCK and WP:MEAT - to simply revert my edits. Jo0doe (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
See my reply at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Can someone help me to comprehend. —BradV 18:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You reply is not help - becouse it does not provide nor advice, nor explanation. Administrator still keep silence [27] while I've read at Wikipedia:Administrators - [28] - [Wikipedia:Administrators]Jo0doe (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette violations from MickMacNee

User:MickMacNee has been very rude to me at a certain AfD. After reviewing some of his past correspondences I see that this incivility is a pattern with this editor. Diffs here, here, here, and here correspond to his action against me at the AfD. His pattern of incivility can be seen by a threat here, editor harrassment here, an accusation here, an insult here, some belittlement here, calling another user a "drama whore" here, calling somebody ignorant here etc... All of these within the past four days!

I would like input about what can be done with this type of user who freely allows his/her temper to leak into Wikipedia. I would also like a direct, sincere apology from User:MickMacNee. We can still respect each other if we have different interpretations of policy. Themfromspace (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, I am being stalked for opinions at an AFD about cake. Wow. As for the Ireland edits, these are all likely to soon go to full arbitration, and if you don't understand the full timeline/context, it isn't realy sensible to cite one small part of out of context. But anyway, as for cake, anybody who thinks my comments are unreasonable will be entertained to the full extent of my abilities without laughing too much, I promise. MickMacNee (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment I believe the example given for "accusation" above makes more sense if read in conjunction with User talk:Sladen#A picture of a box no less, a previous thread—and when done so, the accusation of an accusation is somewhat less tenuous. (I have not evaluated any of the other edits). —Sladen (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, first I read the cake page (oh my god, delete it already - and don't "threaten" DRV because that's disruption, pure and simple). Then I read the diffs provided. As of this point, I really only see one case of "incivility". Snarkiness, maybe. I'm not a big fan of the shotgun approach here. I'm going to give you a chance to re-read your diff's and determine which actually violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. ►BMW◄ 12:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor2020

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Editor2020 reverted pedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophia_(wisdom)&diff=249772507&oldid=249731570 this user's edit without an explanation. That's the kind of crap that keeps new editors from coming back. —Werson (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an etiquette issue. Editor2020 has already explained the edit here --neon white talk 00:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt57 (talk · contribs)

User:Matt57 has spent the last day doing nothing but harassing me. It began when he

Why dont you also mention:
You reverted an admin's edit, after he explained what he was going to do. In the same article, you revert warred a couple of times [29],[30],[31] trying to maintain the single line article which everyone thinks should be merged.
You removed the SPA warning I had put in. When I reverted the edit, you reverted back again calling it vandalism in your edit summary. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The issue here is your civility problems. You have yet to strike your personal attack, insulting two editors, at Talk:November_2008_Mumbai_attacks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Deleted my comment, if that makes you happy. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
It makes me very happy, but more importantly, it pleases the Wikipedia community which whom you interact. Hopefully, future comments on talk pages will comment on content, not contributors. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that no personal attack applies to yourself as well, accusations of incivility and vandalism are not civil and only inflame a situation. In future consider a polite word with the editor. --neon white talk 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Redirects and merges do not need to be discussed, editors are allowed to be bold and i can see how an editor would consider this uncontroverial so this is not a breach of etiquette rules. Accusations of vandalism are not assuming good faith. Content disputes are not etiquette issues, remind all involved editors to discuss in a civil manner and use dispuite resolution if necessary or in this case an afd. --neon white talk 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Billyca (talk · contribs)

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

User:Billyca had repeatedly added WP:POV to "Mypods and Boomsticks",1 no matter how many warnings we give him.2 Where do I settle this? -- A talk/contribs 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This board is for etiquette issues only. In this case the editor has breached the 3 revert rule, give him/her a final warning about edit warring and then is it happend again report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --neon white talk 05:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for advice User:HPJoker

Resolved. 2 separate warnings to HPJoker

After reviewing some talk page comments from a fellow editor of an article, I noticed that HPJoker has shown quite a bit of incivility (possibly bordering on personal attacks) in talk page comments and edit summaries, and seems to be using his userpage as a blog or form of social networking, which Wikipedia does not allow. Here are the diffs that I found to be concerning: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]

I was just wondering if there are any more experienced editors or even admins that would be able to sufficiently remind or warn the editor of the policies, as I would rather not be the target of the editor's wrath from what I've read of his comments. Atlantabravz (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Warned for both the improper humour/incivility with his "friend" and using the userpage as a social network. While I was there, I noticed that you had not advised them of this WQA filing. Please remember you are required to do so. ►BMW◄ 13:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that this situation is resolved. The editor in question has responded in this way: Here and Here. Maybe an admin needs to take a look at this editor's behavior. Atlantabravz (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd say his 72 hr block because of his replies makes it more resolved. Let's just say that the warnings "resolved" it to the level that WQA can, because we generally are unable to put blocks. ►BMW◄ 12:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Readin and uncivil comments

Resolved. No incivility

User:Readin made the following comments against me on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), which I don't find particularly civil.

Now we've each had a chance to state a view. How cutting our your trial lawyering for a bit (we know from your user page you have legal training) and let people put in their opinions. You seem to have too much time to spend endlessly arguing with and reverting people you disagree with. Give some other people a chance to respond.

As you can tell from the page as well as my edit logs, I did not make any comments to stop anyone from expressing their opinion. And what does the fact that I have received legal training got to do with anything? Please let me have your comments.--pyl (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that you and Readin have a history here. In fact,because of this history, as an attempt to stimulate discussion from others (rather than just he focus of the arguments of the two of you), Readin requested input from others before the two of you started arguing. Regardless, Readin has not said that being law-trained was bad, or that lawyers are bad, or indeed that you are bad. Wikilawyering of any type is a bad bad thing. He does, obviously, recognize that your "strength" is an your ability to argue a position (whihc perhaps comes from your legal training). Please allow others input when it is requested, and WP:AGF. ►BMW◄ 12:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess Wikipedia has a very curious standard towards "civility", and I guess I should not expect Readin to be polite to me since we "have a history". Ever since the last discussion on this board, I have been acting as if the "history" never happened, but it now appears to me that the history is what I am stuck with.
If the logs are examined, I fail to see how I should be talked the way I was talked to by Readin. Is it civil in real life to accuse someone of having "too much time to spend endlessly arguing with and reverting people [he] disagree[s] with" and "How cutting our your trial lawyering for a bit"? What have I done to deserve that kind of comments? What sort of "good faith" am I supposed to assume by these comments?
Are you saying that Readin can present half a picture, then request for others to comments, and I am not supposed to make my own case? I don't think I prevented anyone from commenting by me making my case.--pyl (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You completely miss the point, and by doing so you're also not AGF towards me. History has nothing to do with it, it was simply a side-note. If I'm chairing a meeting, and I ask for a roundtable discussion starting on my right, everyone (including you) will get to make their comment. However, if YOU decide to start instead, it may actually change the nature of everyone else's comments. Not soing so is like treating it like the discussion was ONLY you vs Readin and was simply like acting as if only the Crown and the Defense lawyers ever get to talk. This time, he was asking you to let the jury speak too. THAT is trying to elicit DISCUSSION and CONSENSUS and not simply make it an argument between 2 people. ►BMW◄ 13:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You completely miss the point, and by doing so you're also not AGF towards me. When the "history" is mentioned at the first place, I am not sure if any reasonable person would take it as a "sidenote".
It is not hard to tell that Readin's comments about lawyers was simply a smart arse comment. It is beyond me how this kind of smart arse comments are considered to be accepted in Wikipedia.
If the log and discussions are examined, it is clear that I simply just made my case and left it at that. I was happy to hear other editors to make comments. Using your example, I would say that it is unfair to invite the jury to make a comment when only half of the story is told. The discussion clearly showed that I was not arguing with Readin. I don't think good faith was assumed for my benefit.--pyl (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The fact that you felt that your comment deserved to be heard before others has just proven my point. Thanks. Every so often, it would be wise to site back and listen to others first. ►BMW◄ 14:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is, the very function of this forum is to deal with the complaints of people's uncivil conduct. The decision gives out the message that it is ok to make sarcastic comments against another editor if they don't listen to you. Indeed, any reasonable person in the real world would interpret Readin's sarcastic comment as saying that lawyers and legal training are bad. If you disagree with me, make those comments to your lawyer next time and ask your lawyer if he or she considers those comments civil. You then made a general comment that "Wikilawyering of any type is a bad bad thing". I am not sure what that means in this case, but I would find it offensive if being a lawyer means I am presumed to be doing Wikilawyering. If the logs are checked, it would be clear that there is absolutely no such evidence.

I am not sure what sort of point you are trying to prove here. It appears that you are saying I am not wise by not letting others speak first. If you check my logs, it would be clear that I do, and I understand your piece of wisdom. In the current situation, Readin presents a case that was biased - a story half told, and the requested comments would then serve less value. However, as I said above I believe this issue is outside the function of this forum.--pyl (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the bottom line is this: I was unable to see the purported sarcasm; I saw someone asking you to lay off what has appeared to be a history of "wikilawyering" for a few minutes in order to gain comments from other editors in order to try and gain broad WP:CONSENSUS (which was going to include your commentary as well). ►BMW◄ 12:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That's the point. That was no history of "wikilawyering". That's why I found the comments insulting and sarcastic. According to WP:LAWYER, wikilawyering means:-
Wikilawyering (and the related legal term pettifogging) is a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of judging other Wikipedians' actions. It may refer to certain quasi-legal practices, including:
1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy;
2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its principles;
3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express;
4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
Check my logs and you will see that I don't engage in this type of practice. It appears that Readin has successfully used the fact that I'm a lawyer to make people assume or even presume that I do "wikilawyering".--pyl (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I provided specific instances above. I'll say no more on this issue other than say to work nicely and cooperatively with others, and they will respect and work nicely with you. It sure wouldn't have killed you to wait for a couple of other people to reply first, when you were recommended to do so. ►BMW◄ 14:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Cerejota (talk · contribs)

User:Cerejota had proposed a title move of the article November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Cerejota made the following edit in which they uploaded an image to ridicule one editor's comment in the discussion. I reverted the edit here. Cerejota commented on my talk page here and re-added their image here describing it as a valid counterpoint. User:Cerejota's actions are not a civil way to conduct a title move request and I am requesting an uninvolved editor to comment on the handling of the proposal. Switzpaw (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Whilst i don't think this is necessarily uncivil, it does give undue prominence to one editors POV and therefore seems inappropriate. I think this could reasonable be considered under the same guidelines as 'Avoid excessive markup' on talk page guidelines. --neon white talk 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
OMG, what a misuse of process! Ridiculous arguments warrant ridiculous responses, and this is a classic case. There is no un-civility, only disagreement, expressed in such a way as to demonstrate the incredible stupidity of the argument. BTW, other editors agree with me. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's true that this may not be a civility issue, and it may have been possible to solve this issue by asking for it to be removed. However accusing editors of a 'misuse of process' in an etiquette alert is hardly recommended. I doubt that guidelines agrees with you as i have pointed out, for now we are assuming good faith to the point that we believe that you had no intention of being disruptive, just take note that giving prominence to points in this way may lead to misunderstanding of the consensus and that it may become a civility issue. --neon white talk 04:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
But other editors disagree with you too. It may not be uncivil per se, but it was undeniable rudeness to a constructive editor trying to make a point. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not as rude as removing content, or doing wiki alerts without so much as approaching me for clarification and comment. And of course others disagree, however, this just means things are not as clear cut as you try to make them seem in your original post. Perhaps a little less self-righteousness might be in order. Also, get a sense of humor. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Once again, I did not remove your content; I've already stated this. I was trying to get you to do it yourself. A little self-righteousness (even false self-righteousness, as in this case) is necessary to combat the original self-righteous offense (see taste of your own medicine). I have a sense of humor, and your move could have been funny, but in this context it was rude and uncalled for (I feel like I'm in middle school all over again), especially when after forceful removal, you reinstated your comments multiple times as if you were trying to prove some unnecessary point..? ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a polite word and an assumption of good faith would have been a better course of action. Just to be clear i don't have a problemn with the use of humour or the image, the issue i have is it's placement outside of the normal text flow, there is a danger that it may be misunderstood for instance it may be seen incorrectly as a summary of a section or consensus. Also consider what would become of talk pages if everyone contributing did a similar thing. --neon white talk 04:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
OK Switzpaw (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this image inserted by Cerejota is just rude and unneccesary. He inserted the image again after you removed it and I've removed it again. Being polite and appropriate comes first and having a sense of hmor comes later. As you said too, it wouldnt look pretty if everyone started using images in talk pages like this. Infact Cerejota, it makes your argument look weaker. Dont reinsert the image again. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"Being polite and appropriate comes first and having a sense of humor comes later." should be a Wikipedia mantra. Nicely said, Matt57. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Molobo

In this thread [38], started by this account, User:Molobo is accusing me of revisionism despite my request to stop this insult. The article (Drang nach Osten) gives sourced information about the use of the slogan, some of which was introduced by me. Molobo seems to regard the slogan as a historical truth, however he has provided no sources at all, calls the sources in the article fringe and accuses me of OR without providing anything that would back his allegations. Note also the sophisticated way he puts his revisionism/fringe/OR insult as a lecture about how "we on wiki" handle issues like that. Molobo has a disruptive history and is on civility and NPA parol [39]. I do not want to have my name smeared and ask you for intervention. Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Sudharsansn

Resolved. Blocked for short duration. Filing party blocked for an extended duration following ANI discussion.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sudharsansn uses very bad uncivil language (latest being today at 1, 2, and 3), against me, simply because I dont agree with his revert-war-style of functioning. This is not the first time he is uncivil either, being a longtime wikipedia user, and his latest remarks are totally disgusting, to say the least. ­ Kris (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is definite issues with personal attacks, not assuming good faith and general incivility here. I've warned two users about edit warring on this article. Hopefully dispute resolution can now begin. --neon white talk 18:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
To let Srkris repeatedly talk about my profession, 1, 2 and 3 which he inferred from my mention of that in another talk page, and let him bash me is what is actually disgusting. It is nearly pointless to have a system, like Wikipedia, to work on the consensus gained by POV mongers, including having a Wikiquette page in which editors like Srkris, with absolutely no regard for anything in WP, report this here. He just wanted to get me blocked because he was blocked a few days earlier and he was involved in an edit war with in the Sanskrit article. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop whining here. Your basic intention is to intimidate editors and quite obviously you jump on them before they jump on you. You'd have been the object of this ban if I had reported about your repeated intimidations and uncivility. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


I like to appeal this ban, although it has been imposed, with the intention of clearing it off my block log. This was my post:

"Srkris, stop acting like you are drunk and berserk. Being a ruthless POV monger does not give you the right to talk about my profession or my field of study again and again"

These were his posts that preceded mine:

He has goaded me into asking him stop the nonsense and quoted me off the context to simply go on a rampage and get everyone against his POV banned. Although the block has passed, I would like the ban to be reconsidered and that removed off my block-log. A look into this is very, very relevant. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 05:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You were banned for your personal attacks at 1, 2, and 3 just two days back, and after coming back out of the ban, you again repeat the action yesterday, so your first ban didnt apparently help you, and you need probably another ban for the second offence. Me calling you a linguist or a sociolinguistics professor does not amount to any incivility and cannot have goaded you into using foul language against me, so your reasoning is amusing at best. ­ Kris (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly what is being explained as a frivolous charge. To call someone a troll does not indicate a personal attack and this has been pointed out by several other admins and editors in the sections of this same page in which you have frivolous charges against other editors. Trolling indicates editing patterns and NOT the hairy creature from Norse mythology. Just because you cite something as a personal attack does not make it one. It has to be accounted for as a personal attack and consensus gained to establish it. You cannot unilaterally establish consensus that it is a personal attack.

You repeatedly talking about my profession in the disparaging sense and mapping that to what you consider as 'incompetence' thereby degrading me, my profession and my professional competence is what called goading someone. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 05:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your completely missing the point here. Simply saying "but he started it" doesn't justify the personal attacks above. From WP:NPA - it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. It may well be that Kris is using this as a way to get at you but just bare in mind that he wouldnt have been able to had you not responded. --neon white talk 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'd agree with the comment that personal attacks are not justified and Sudharsansn should not have responded as he did. However, a prolonged period of goading through personal attacks should be taken into account. I did contemplate suggesting that Sudharsansn should think about his response to baiting in future, in particular to use the dispute resolution process rather than responding in kind. Justin talk 19:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at that text again, if that was the post that resulted in a block, then to my mind the actions of the blocking admin were not entirely correct. The correct sanction (in my opinion) would have been to block both editors to allow them to cool off. Having blocked only one, the action seems punitive rather than preventative and blocks should never be used as a punishment. I can see how Sudharsansn might feel aggrieved, particular in light of the sustained personal attacks that preceded his outburst. Justin talk 19:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it was a harsh decision but a 12 hour isnt that big a deal, more of a cool off maybe. In my experience User:William M. Connolley is a reliable admin. He explains the block here. A particular part stands out - "Su knows WP:CIVIL well enough" this seems to me to suggest that Sudharsansn may have been warned before by this admin previously. In the end, as User:William M. Connolley points out on his talk page, he wasnt informed of the behaviour of Kris. Nobody posted any alert or report about it. We can't expect admins to be omniscient.--neon white talk 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I shared Justin's concerns. I didn't find any real warning issued on a brief look through the talk page history, but given that both editors ended up being blocked for incivility, this is now just a moot point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is still a bit unfair that I was blocked for an outburst in which all I did was to ask Srkris to stop talking about my profession and equate it with what he considered 'incompetence', in a very strong, but not so inappropriate way. He was waiting for me to post something since he knew that attacks against one's profession would warrant something. Even if I had simply asked him to 'stop doing it', he would have reported it here by quoting me off context.

Quoting what I wrote, "stop acting like you are drunk and berserk", all I was suggesting was for him to stop goading me with personal uncivility. He was basically disparaging me, my profession and my competence in a talk page edit-war and I seriously do not appreciate it. The worst part is that I had not even mentioned about my profession in that talk page but only in another talk page, as a casual mention to another editor. Now, he reads it from there ans talks about my profession five times in this thread. Now seriously, please put yourself in my position. I have had no instances of any civility, no blocks for more than two years, hassle-free editing and a moderately decent edit record. And now, because of a frivolous charge against me, I have a 12h block in my block log. All I did ask him was to outrightly stop going on a rampage against me and my profession. I do not appreciate even this 12h block. I have maintained my cool, engaged in constructive discussions, engaged in consensus seeking processes for more than two years only to follow the guidelines and policies. Now having this block feels like a blot in my record. I am really concerned.

These were his posts that preceded mine:

He has goaded me into asking him stop the nonsense and quoted me off the context to simply go on a rampage and get everyone against his POV banned.

Now I know that Srkris is blocked for three months and that is not the point. I am asking for my ban to be reconsidered in spite of the fact that it has passed. I sincerely appreciate some form of construction which would motivate me to continue being the constructive editor I have been all this time. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 09:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It might seem harsh but your outburst would probably have resulted in a block. As I said above the goading does make it understandable but really it shouldn't excuse it. Again as I noted above, in the same position I'd have expected both of you to be blocked. Whilst SrKris may have got away with his behaviour previously, his behaviour has certainly caught up with him now. About the best you could really hope for is to ask the blocking admin to add a note to your block log that a period of abuse had preceded your outburst that the blocking admin was unaware of. To be honest I'd suggest that you put this behind you, you can at the moment edit without harassment. Justin talk 10:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate it. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 10:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Justin's comments. I think we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ncmvocalist

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereFrivolous; taken to AN/I; filing party blocked for extended duration.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user is stalking me and makes disruptive edits to articles I contribute, apart from general revert warring to delete academically referenced content. The pages where he has been stalking me within the last 24 hrs are [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] & [46]. His edit remarks at [47] are uncivil too, to say the least. ­ Kris (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Yet another frivolous report by a manipulative tendentious problem editor - within a few days, he's managed to file 3 complaints which should say something on its own. Srkris has engaged in a variety of misconduct.
  • He failed to provide any basis for the claim he made about the image (he makes a frivolous allegation that there was incivility). Per [48] [49], his own incivility has been a problem recently too as found by a few admins already, and these diffs further demonstrate the problem [50], [51] [52] and [53].
  • He's been disruptively editing at Carnatic music, Sanskrit, and areas in which he's never edited before (see for example [54] and stuff I've created; namely [55], [56] and [57]). In effect, he has been wikihounding me for an extended period of time - the fact I was busy or on a wikibreak so when I returned, all these pages on my watchlist indicate the edits he's made. His first block was in 2006 for repeatedly and disruptively filing frivolous complaints against me and another user (despite being told that there has been no wikistalking) and he was recently blocked for disruptive edit-warring. Clearly these blocks have had 0 effect on him.
  • His content contributions have not been entirely helpful (if at all) given that when his content additions are disputed, he fails to attribute reliable sources to the content he produces. Most problematic of all, he fails to adhere to NPOV: he makes bold edits and when they are reverted, instead of discussing disputed edits, he continually revert wars in favour of his bold version which act as nothing but POV pushing.
  • To summarise, his tendentious editing style has contributed to the burn out of a few editors and admins as it is, and it's time he be prevented from doing so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I see this as a frivolous request. I see nothing of stalking or any other violations that may be construed as uncivil or as a personal attack. Looking back on the contributions and the blocks, I am leaning on taking this report with a grain of salt. seicer | talk | contribs 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I remind editors responding to Wikiquette alerts to remain civil and assume good faith. Start by assuming that the nominationg editor has legitimate concerns about the civility of another editor. This page is not for resolving or continuing disputes nor is it for deciding wrongs and rights, it's purely for dealing with incivil communications. Ncmvocalist has demonstrated quite a hostile attitude in responding to this alert. I remind him/her to avoid personal attacks, assume good faith and avoid making unecessary accusations of improprietary, use dispute resolution to solve disputes and the edit war noticeboard for reports of edit warring. Throwing around accusations is not helpful and only create more resentment. On the stalking allegations, because the articles posted above are on related topics we assume good faith and understand that editors will often be involved with multiple articles related to the same subject and if you are editing related articles it is likely will come across other editors doing the same, therefore i do not believe there is any basis to that allegation. Whilst Kris's editing practices have not always been ideal, there is evidence of valuable contributions. I have seen no evidence of any editors attempting to help this editor improve his/her behaviour nor understand policy. Please consider that when an editor is met only with hostility and opposition rather than help it simply sets the stage for 'war' and disputes. I think mentorship should be consider for this editor.--neon white talk 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
By all means assume good faith, however a few minutes spent looking through the history page of that user's talk page has already shown me that this user has had multiple issues going back to 2005. There are numerous examples of various editors and admins attempting to lead this editor into improving his behaviour and achieving a better understanding of policy. In that light and following an entirely frivolous complaint Ncmvocalist's response is perfectly understandable and positively restrained in many respects. I'd endorse Seicer's comment that this appears to be an entirely frivolous request. I would suggest this be raised at WP:AN/I as an abuse of the Wikiquetter process to make a point. I'd also suggest that User:Neon white should take the time and look into this a bit deeper and consider redacting the comments about Ncmvocalist. Justin talk 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, the comments are filled with inflammatory rhetoric that is not helpful the situation. The point of a wikiquette alert is to try and calm a situation not to inflame it. This is not the place to reel off multiple counter allegations in retaliation, many of which are not civility issues. I suggested that Ncmvocalist use the appropriate boards to deal with those issues and was correct. The response that is expected of Ncmvocalist is a brief explaination of why the stalking allegations are unfounded. This would have been sufficient. No request is considered 'frivolous' to suggest so is not assuming good faith, we need to begin with the assumption that all alerts are important to the editor posting them, this is required by behavioral guidelines regardless of the editors history. There is a worrying trend emerging of some editors condemning others based on past behaviour. This totally flies in the face of Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy and does not help editor advance and improve which is the goal of this page. --neon white talk 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's start from square one then. At first glance, the first link has nothing to do with you, Srkris. The second appears to be removing repeat wikilinks. The 3rd, he removed something from his Talk page that Srkris put there (even though I believe we sometimes DO template the regualars, this was pretty obviously not one of those times). The fourth and 5th, the lack of references tag is valid. The 6th, although I don't personally see the references, I see no issue with removing some of the tags. 7th was removing an unreferenced edit. The 8th (first claim of incivility) does not appear uncivil in any way - perhaps "wtf" is not an appropriate edit summary, but it does not violate either WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL.
I will personally try to WP:AGF and not call for admin action against Srkris at this point in time - this is, after all, the first time this person has come to my attention. I would suggest to them some clear reviewing of Wikipedia policies, and perhaps a better understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and the requirement for valid REF's for any edit. I see absolutely no need for action against Ncmvocalist ATM.►BMW◄ 18:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I love how other editors will jump in, cry that others are not assuming good faith or are being uncivil, in a reply to a frivolous request from a user they did zero background check on. When no such "uncivil" comments were made in said replies. seicer | talk | contribs 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You can dismiss the alert or even state it is unfounded if there is no evidence to back it up but to suggest it is 'frivolous', worthless or otherwise belittle an alert or the editor posting it is not acceptable behaviour. Assuming good faith is not really an option, it's required if w alerts are to serve any purpose and achieve their aim. --neon white talk 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
My experience in editing the article Carnatic music pointed to the futility of contributing, precisely because of the uncivil and friviolous behaviour of people like user Kris. I commend the contributions made by user Ncmvocalist to Carnatic music article. I think user Kris should stop making this kind of frivolous complaints. Actually, I believe, if user Kris does not improve and engage in civil discussions, reasonably evaluating the comments, he should be considered for being blocked permanantly. He is disruptive and offensive. --Aadal (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Haven't yet taken a close look at Srkris' diffs, but Ncmvocalist's "He's been disruptively editing at Carnatic music.." is laughable. Disruption, if any, on Carnatic music has largely been Ncmvocalist's own contribution in the last couple of years - evidence for which can also be found in his own block log! Ncmvocalist has also been an exceptionally rude editor in his interactions with not just me but various other editors too. Many have cautioned him to tone down and not assume airs (no time to dig for diffs atm). It is hardly surprising that he is being reported here. And having known Srkris' editing on Carnatic music related articles for a while, I can attest to the fact that he is anything but a disruptive editor on the Carnatic music related articles that he edits.

Ncmvocalist also claims that Srkris has been "disruptively editing" on these pages -- [58], [59], [60] and [61]. Now that he has made the tall claim, I'd like to see him point to a specific diff which he thinks is "disruptive". If anything, I have myself got some of Ncmvocalist's copyvio images deleted in the past. Accusing others falsely is a personal attack and rank incivility. And for the uninitiated, those articles are directly related to Carnatic music and are well within the area that Srkris has historically edited. Putting a spin on it and calling it "...areas in which he's never edited before..." is plain dishonest. Sarvagnya 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The assertions of stalking are clearly nonsense. I've looked at the first 3 only: on Carnatic, N first edited this more than a year ago [62]; on Chemblai its the same (also note this edit [63] by Sk where he inappropriately accuses N of vandalism). And the third is N's own talk page. At that point it all became so silly I gave up William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • To add to the incivility already shown User:Ncmvocalist has now taken to attacks on myself for contributing to this alert. [64] --neon white talk 03:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Requesting comments on the idea of Involuntary mentorship for Kris. The other option would be a topic ban. The current problems seem to be grounded in disputes with other editors in particular articles and topics. --neon white talk 03:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Where is the personal attack in this? Suggesting that you enter into dispute resolution and handle these situations in a better manner is good advise, which you would be wise to take note. seicer | talk | contribs 03:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No-one suggested there was one. --neon white talk 04:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
"...User:Ncmvocalist has now taken to attacks on myself for contributing to this alert. [67]..." Attacks on yourself can be construed as a personal attack, which did not occur. seicer | talk | contribs 04:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That was simply a figure of speech, i didn't mean to imply that the comments were a breach of WP:NPA policy but obviously reacting in that way towards an univolved editor who is attmepting to help is not reallt appropriate, it does not help the case in any way and i do consider it an 'attack'. Editors are free to disagree with any comments made here by any editors univolved or otherwise but i think it's fair to require them to do so in a civil manner on this page where the matter is being discussed. --neon white talk 04:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems, from the above response, that we've found the crux of the problem: neon white fails to understand what is considered civil on Wikipedia. Looks like a separate form of dispute resolution will be needed against this editor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Rudeness is considered incivil, as is using a judgemental tone, taunting and belittling other editors contributions, politeness goes a long way, i apologise for any offense i ahve caused you personally and i will accept without question a similar apology for the incivil comments made on my talk page. Remember to comment on the contributions not the contributor. Please discuss the issue in question in a civil manner without resorting to commentary on contributors who are attempting in good faith to help. --neon white talk 04:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
As I told you on the message I left you on the talk page, all good faith attempts at helping out are appreciated. However, regularly and repeatedly providing opinions that are not in sync with our policies, guidelines or norms act to disrupt the dispute resolution process. In this case, repeatedly insisting that personal attacks or incivility occurred when they haven't is simply disruptive, and it doesn't seem like you're using personal attacks as a 'figure of speech'. I haven't seen any uninvolved user agree with your frivolous claims, and this is not the first time you've been told that you should handle these in a better manner - your refusal to even acknowledge the problem leads us to a separate form of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that is completely unfounded, i am a experienced editor who has not only contributed here with a great degree of success but also provide several third opinions with equal success. Asd i have said you are free to disagree with my opinion but these continuing personal attacks and accusations of bad faith against me without the slightest bit of supporting evidence and belittling of my contributions are offensive and not acceptable. I am requesting that you withdraw them and cease these attacks and it will be taken no further. Consider this a final warning on this matter. There has never been any instance that i recall of any editor questioning the worth of my contributions regardless you cannot post here and expect everyone to agree with you. I have made this clear. I am extremely disappionted that you think reacting to good faith advice in such a negative and confrontational manner is proper behaviour. You could have easily asked for an explaination or clarfication of my advice but instead you chose to escalate the situation in this way which hints at why the situation on the sanskrit page may have occured and backs up my original comments that there seem to be elements of your civil that could be improved. Again i am happy to resolve our disagreement on this matter and will withdraw from this discussion in order to 'keep the peace' if you request. --neon white talk 05:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist has made edits just after I did even in articles to which his content contribution is nil, just as a mode of retaliation and stalking. The latest example of his retaliatory behaviour is to tag a 1916 public domain image uploaded by User:Sarvagna as copyvio simply and purely because Sarvagna has testified against Ncmvocalist here; similar is the case of Neon White above. Just see the articles for which I've given the diffs in the first post here above. The facts speak for themselves, dont they? ­ Kris (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

One more example of Ncmvocalist's retaliation is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Srkris. ­ Kris (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This issue was raised before the ANI issue. Who is gaming the system? ­ Kris (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That's not "gaming the system", that's bringing to Admin attention an apparent disruption to the Wikipedia project. As an uninvolved, thouroughly neutral editor, I clearly pointed out via all of the diff's you provided that there was no incivility. At that point, you had an opportunity to revisit your concerns from a different light. You have edited here long enough to know that making "false accusations" against another editor considered just as bad as actually doing bad things around here. I honestly beleived that you could/would take the high road. ►BMW◄ 11:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dbachmann

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereFrivolous; taken to AN/I; filing party blocked for extended duration.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user agrees with another uncivil user in calling me "a troll". If that is not incivility, what is? ­ Kris (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

See here. Synergy 16:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
How about everybody read the wiki article about trolls and review their personal actions. If you were being referred to as an overly-hairy creature that hides under bridges and eats goats, then I can understand some incivility. However, being accused of someone who disrupts Wikipedia is something different. ►BMW◄ 18:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Another frivolous request? Don't clutter WQA with this; this is not a personal attack, nor is it an uncivil comment. seicer | talk | contribs 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me.. but calling someone a "troll" is not a Personal Attack?! Whatever happened to "comment on content, not contributor"? Sarvagnya 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A "troll" is actually considered to be a reasonably polite (and shortened) method of describing a series of actions. It comes from the fishing term "to troll", and not from the Fairy Tale version of the word. ►BMW◄ 22:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For all your patronizing and condescension, the wikipedia community has traditionally demanded that people comment on "content".. not the "contributor". You don't believe me, you can start by reading one of our core policies -- WP:NPA before you dive headlong into meta.wiki essays. I'd have thought an "Administrator hopeful" would be familiar with our policies. Sarvagnya 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's not get UNCIVIL towards an uninvolved editor here. I'm being neither patronizing nor condescending - I'm pointing out that "to be, or to act like a troll" MEANS to engage in a series of specific editing actions on a wiki. It's far easier than saying "you do this, and you do that, and you do the other thing", and is well-known across the wiki to NOT be an insult, and is only taken to be an insult by someone who has actually been CAUGHT doing it, or by someone who has been grossly misaccused of doing so. That does not make it an insult per se, as it's perception based on deeds. I urge you to retract your own incivility here. I quite possibly have a better understanding of WP:CIVIL than you, as I clearly understand the policy and it appears that you may possibly have missed out on some of the wording. ►BMW◄ 12:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
As a upstanding administrator, you should be aware that the word "trolling" can be used as an accurate description for a person's edits. Other similar words and phrases include, "fishing for trouble," "troublemaker," and on. And judging from the ANI response, it is well warranted. seicer | talk | contribs 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That might be true but it's not unreasonable that an editor might take offense. The term is pejorative and it's origin is as an insult. --neon white talk 04:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope we dont need to consult wikipedia to understand whether calling someone a troll would amount to an insult and is considered a pejorative, or not. There are a lot of ways you can disagree with someone's edits without using personal attacks like that. Wikipedia doesn't authorize someone to insult people, does it? Someone says above calling someone a troll is a polite way of describing actions, lol!!!! ­ Kris (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and considering your background of gross incivility, abusing sockpuppets, edit warring... trolling would be a polite word. My suggestion is to drop it. seicer | talk | contribs 05:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
So if you engage in edit warring, and you are blocked for that, everyone on wikipedia is entitled thereafter to attack you personally, is it? That is very indicative of your sense of fairplay. I dont think everyone here thinks that way ­ Kris (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
And you think editors mean the hairy creature that eats goats when they mean troll? One is indicative of an editing pattern and the other is a personal attack. Except for you and your customer-support, everyone, including the policies and guidelines seem to think otherwise. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 05:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know I am not a mythological creature, I didnt think you meant that anyway. Thanks also for speaking out what the wikipedia guidelines out to think about calling someone a troll. Let me repeat my earlier post here in case you didnt read it: "I hope we dont need to consult wikipedia to understand whether calling someone a troll would amount to an insult and is considered a pejorative, or not. There are a lot of ways you can disagree with someone's edits without using personal attacks like that. Wikipedia doesn't authorize someone to insult people, does it? Someone says above calling someone a troll is a polite way of describing actions, lol!!!!" ­ Kris (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment to Kris. WP:WQA is designed to allow editors to have reviewed in an informal capacity issues relating to decorum and civility. It is, however, not a place for a passive-aggressive gaming of the system designed to engage in harassment by other means. Even a cursory review of the discussion you link to above makes it abundantly clear that you are insistently pushing a POV that is not mainstream and, in the face of reasonable opposition, are resorting to an unacceptable display of pointy and disruptive behavior. This is called trolling. People who engage in it are called, reasonably enough, trolls. WP:WQA is diminished by attempts, such as this one, to distort it to make a point and the misuse of WQA for such purposes is a breach of decorum an order of magnitude greater than using direct language to deal with a querulous or vexatious editor who single-mindedly pushes their POV. You should stop or you will likely end up blocked. Eusebeus (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Is using such a term commenting on a pattern of contributions or on the contributors themselves though? It's certainly not a straight forward issue this. It seems that describing editing practices as 'trolling' is ok but calling an editor a 'troll' wouldn't be under the 'Comment on content, not on the contributor' rule. --neon white talk 06:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Polite does not mean one has to be addressed in honorifics or romantic terms. It only means content void of personal attacks. Contrary to your dubious assumption, it does take Wikipedia to determine whether a 'troll' is a personal attack or not, or otherwise you wouldn't be posting things here. Otherwise troll has a definitive connotation of a goat eating Norse creature. 'Trolling' is a term used in the strict sense of Wikipedia editing patterns, if you still want to stick to your drama-queen way of describing things, perhaps, you will understand how things are done here. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 06:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This issue was raised before the ANI issue. Who is gaming the system? ­ Kris (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You are gaming the system and there seems to be unanimous consensus about that. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 09:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rodhullandemu

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved. Potential issues with manner in which filing anon handled this; no issues with admin conduct of subject.

Rodhullandemu seems to think that calling people who complain about being subject to a IP range block (a.k.a collective punishment) a 'whiner', is appropriate behaviour for a WP admin. I tolerated the rubbish like 'toys out the pram' etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rodhullandemu#You_are_blocking_a_dynamic_IP_range_FFS.21.21.21

The use of 'collateral damage' is pretty ironic since there is no legal basis as a defence in International Law for targeting innocent parties to kill a combatant. Collective punishment is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Charles_Matthews#Is_this_the_right_door_to_knock_on.3F

All in all, I think this person is not good admin material. 88.111.37.94 (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this may be the first time a Wikipedia admin has been accused of war crimes. Unfortunately, the above IP's contributions are far from civil (note the "...FFS" on their very first post). Given this apparent willingness to escalate rather than defuse the drama level, I'm not sure that this thread is going to be productive. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Was just dotting the i in someone else's metaphor! I'm supposed to thank someone who has banned my IP for no fault of my own??? 88.111.37.94 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We have a doctrine of assume good faith - following that, and discussing it a little more calmly would not have been a bad idea. I don't see anything that substantially requires any sort of action here and suggest closing this thread rather than creating more unnecessary (& unhelpful) drama. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a very good reason for blocking this range of IPs as User:Rodhullandemu has pointed out. If a persistant vandal is using dynamic ips to disrupt then this action may be judged to outweigh the disruption caused to others using the address who can still edit by creating an account. This isn't a war and no-one is going to die as a result. If you do want to challenge the policy of range blocks then you woulds probably have to go to the village pump. Ultimately there is nothing we can do about this policy here. --neon white talk 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL! No wonder you have persistent vandals with admins like this! Goodbye! 88.111.37.94 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notification; it would have been appreciated as a courtesy. Looks like I have nothing to add to the above. --Rodhullandemu 19:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
i have asked the admin if he has followed the advice at WP:RANGE. Have you considered creating an account? there are many benefits from doing so. --neon white talk 19:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has still got the facility for open anonymous access, and while it does I will continue to use it. When it stops having that I will stop. I think 'viva voce' works so much better when people are arguing the message and not the messenger. I have no desire 'play with' my ego.

What would be next, people needing scan their bona fides and present them on their user pages???

So, no, I see no reason why I should be rail-roaded into a scheme I don't like. Good luck with this place if it ever goes 'logged in' only. It'll be just another authoritarian site.

Banning people's IP addresses "pre-emptively" is an aggressive act- the original act in this instance as far I am concerned; I am not answerable fro the crimes of others. Expect the usual retorts to aggression to transpire.

And by excluding masses of people willy-nilly you are, of course, letting the trolls win.

88.111.37.94 (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of trolling, the thread on RodHull's talk page (linked above in the original post) looks more and more like trolling by the IP the more I read of it. I don't think this thread is going anywhere. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Just close ranks! This thread was doomed before it was posted! 88.111.37.94 (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:EuroHistoryTeacher

I'm repeatedly getting insults from this (new) user.

  • [65] "you are clearly a hispanophobe" (for the second time, even though I've already told him I'm half Spanish)
  • [66] "you just can't accept the facts , im not going to waste my time explaining this subject (which i clearly dominate over you)"
  • [67] "i wont even waste my time with you explaining something which is clearly above your intelectual level"
  • [68] "we need somebody else instead of Ferrick here , someone more lenient and who has a little more insight into this subject"

I've been struggling with trying to get them to understand the policies of WP:V and WP:NOR but I just get insults in return. As my requests for no personal attacks are falling on deaf ears, I would appreciate it if someone could put a polite note on their talk page to request they cease this behaviour. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can give the user a friendly warning about policy on etiquette. --neon white talk 19:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm still getting the insults - [69]. The user in question seems to think it's OK to put "no attack intended" after making the attack. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this a pattern or just this one insult? It does seem that there is progress with this editor's method of discussing matters. Let's wait and see what other contributors think and if this behaviour becomes a pattern again. --neon white talk 14:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive54"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs