Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive92

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Toa Nidhiki05 ... difficult communications

After requesting that User:Toa Nidhiki05 desist in continually posting WP:OR at the Libertarianism talk page, he explicitly refused.

He also seems to have templated me for soapboxing. I seriously doubt he can post a diff of me soapboxing, and I request that he either revert the template off of my talk page with an appropriate edit comment or that he provide diffs that are 'actually relevant to the allegation. Personally, I believe he templated me as some sort of WP:POINT. An editor (not myself) templated some of the people with whom he agrees (for their repeated soapboxing). My guess is that it made him feel better to exact a measure of revenge ... though we'll see what diffs he may have.

Anyways ... given the diff I linked above, I believe he certainly could use some outside opinion on the policies I've cited for him (WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:TPG, and WP:NOR). BigK HeX (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


UPDATE: His current explanation of his rationale for templating me seems to indicate an unproductive WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, citing my "buddies" to describe editors with whom I have little familiarity with. BigK HeX (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05 is advised that the purpose of a talk page is to discuss the article, not the topic. Any changes to an article must be based on reliable sources, so talk page discussion that makes no reference to sources is futile and counterproductive. If material of this sort is added repeatedly in spite of requests to stop, it can be removed, and eventually the editor who adds it can be banned from the page or blocked for disruption. That's a last resort, though. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for giving us input, Looie496. Do other WQA'ers concur with Looie496 or have other input to add? BigK HeX (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest everyone read the current debate going on that page before making any brash judgements on this ridiculous nomination. OR is not prohibited on talk pages, and I have made a grand total of one edit to the main page, to remove disputed material that was not sourced. On the other hand, BigX HeX's repeated Wikilawyering of those who oppose his view is the real etiquette issue; I believe this is the 4th or 5th AN/I nomination he has made against those who hold views oppose of his. Also, he has conveniently declined to post this edit I made, which posted the diffs in question, 6 minutes before he posted this thread; he must have clearly known this either before posting this, and neglected to post it, probably to boost his argument or something. Toa Nidhiki05 18:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
RE: "remove disputed material that was not sourced"
By "not sourced", are you referring to the line in the lede clearly accompanied by FOUR sources? And well-sourced throughout the article body???
List of sources
  • Sapon, Vladimir; Robino, Sam (2010). "Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism". Canadian Social Science. 5 (6).
  • Roderick T. Long, Tibor R. Machan, Anarchism/minarchism: is a government part of a free country?, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2008, p.90, ISBN
  • Edward Stringham, Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice, Transaction Publishers, 2007 p. 504 & 517, ISBN 1412805791,
  • Ronald Hamowy, Editor, The encyclopedia of libertarianism], Sage, 2008, p. 13-15, ISBN 1412965802, 9781412965804.
Ummm .... BigK HeX (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


RE: "he has conveniently declined to post this edit I made"
You are incorrect in that assertion. BigK HeX (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


In any case, back to the topic at hand. User:Toa Nidhiki05 has not acknowledged any intention to cease posting WP:OR. Nor have there yet been any diffs posted that are relevant to his allegation that I've been "soapboxing". BigK HeX (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, my experience is that WQA never accomplishes anything if people get into a back-and-forth that just carries on the dispute that started elsewhere. It would be best if you could avoid adding posts unless they are responsive to points raised by other editors commenting here. Looie496 (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure thing. His claim that the material was unsourced caught me by surprise, though. His assertion that I did not post his reply to my request for diffs was simply incorrect. But, I'll leave Toa's future comments to stand. BigK HeX (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I have directly asked Toa to avoid making controversial warnings like this; admittedly I could have asked more carefully ;) but it is done. Lets see how it goes again now. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 19:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I find the allegations made against Toa Nidhiki05, by Errant(tmorton166), to be both ironic and surreal. Toa Nidhiki05 has consistently been a productive, helpful and civil contributor to the Talk:Libertarianism page. However, the contributions of Errant(tmorton166) to that page over the last day are little better than wanton vandalism, where he has wilfully manipulated and controlled the Talk:Libertarianism page like his personal play toy until all discussion stopped.
As for BigK HeX, he is, without question, Talk:Libertarianism's resident serial-Wikilawyer. If he wasn't here to support an yet another Wiki-attack against a fellow editor, we would have to start checking the hospitals to find out how sick he is, (you might think I'm kidding. But, I'm not. He is always heavily involved in these petty litigations.) BlueRobe (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
BlueRobe; I have made no comment on Toa's contribution to the talk page. I refer only to his non-constructive templating of BKH - which was just not helpful. I ask that you refrain from referring to my attempts to reign in that talk page as vandalism; I am, in good faith, trying to end this ceaseless battle between you two groups. if you feel that is inappropriate take it to the community - if they decide I am interfering inappropriately then, ok, I will happily stop. Right now I believe I am helping. you're attitude in this is quickly expiring my allowance of good faith for you; if you're willing to be constructive over this I'm willing to help as I can. If you battle over it, well, it's all just going to go down the pan isn't it? We made reasonable progress today - there was only a couple of incidents of incivility and off topicness and those have been killed off . BKH has agreed to let me deal with off topic behaviour. Things are progressing in the content discussions. Don't derail it now. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 21:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Errant(tmorton166), your "attempts to reign in that talk page"? Was that a Freudian slip? As for your "help" in the Talk:Libertarianism page, you have effectively terminated all discussion. That page is dead, at what is traditionally its busiest time of the day. I suspect that editors are either intimidated by your constant threats, or can't be bothered making posts that arbitrarily disappear at your discretion.
Errant(tmorton166), your thinly-veiled threat against me ("you're attitude in this is quickly expiring my allowance of good faith for you; if you're willing to be constructive over this I'm willing to help as I can. If you battle over it, well, it's all just going to go down the pan isn't it?") is a violation of a range of WP policies, (WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASSMENT, etc). Contrary to what you believe, issuing an ultimatum of my-way-or-else is inappropriate behaviour within Wikipaedia's editorial community. I respectfully ask that you STOP THREATENING ME. BlueRobe (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you see it that way; in fact what I did today (to my recollection) is a) collapse an off-topic thread that was discussing editors b) close a debate that had made its point and was unrelated to the article c) tried to bring a discussion of a source back onto the rails by suggesting that one line of reasoning was not going to help and d) prompted someone to provide sources for their rationale argument. If that is killing things then there is, surely, not much to discuss. I am not issuing ultimatums or threats, or at least not attempting to - but everyone has verged on constructive today until you threw a vandalism warning on my page... rather than do this why not grab some sources and continue talk page discussions? And I am quite serious; you came online and instead of jumping into the content issues you have just commented on other editors... that is not going to help matters, that is my point :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 21:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
In case it needs to be said, Errant's assistance in making sure the talk page policies are being recognized is a boon to the productivity at that difficult page. BigK HeX (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
BigK HeX, by "boon to the productivity", do you mean that all discussion has terminated since Errant began his reign of Talk:Libertarianism? What definition of "boon" are you using? BlueRobe (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I think he means that terminating soapboxing leaves room for actual discussion of article content. If you are silent about that topic, I wonder just what all the fuss is about. Yworo (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

While warning people about soapboxing on the Libertarianism talk page is long overdue and I'll start to use those warnings myself at some point, I do think removing soapboxing on talk pages is questionable. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments. However, collapsing them, when not a single reference to a WP:RS appears in a section, seems fine to me. Also, I thinking soapbox/advertising warnings for article spaces really is for specific people or organizations, not for views or ideologies (in an article about ideologies). POV related tags/warnings more appropriate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, not planning to remove comments at all. My plan at the moment is to only collapse parts of threads that become unproductive - i.e. commenting on editors not content, reliable source request circles, drama. I see no reason to put any formal warnings on user talks unless a) there is high levels of incivility or b) there is a persistent inability to work with content and sources. I've made a sort of general offer to a lot of the active contributors; what I have said is that I do not plan to take any real stance on the content dispute but am willing to informally moderate the page to the best of muy ability to help keep things focused. I've asked for a few days to see if this will help; if not, then fair enough, we can look to other venues (perhaps formal mediation) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 12:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
At this point, it seems to me that a handful of editors who have participated in this report, and who have filed other reports on one another in the very recent past at this page, have a rather longstanding and continuing problem between them at a certain article, which makes WQA not really the place to keep bringing these reports. I think you'll be happier with a more binding form of dispute resolution, perhaps mediation as Errant suggests. But this page just does not contemplate solutions to ongoing disputes of this nature. — e. ripley\talk 15:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI our informal mediator seems to have dropped out and once that is confirmed we'll ask for formal mediation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing difficulty, but for the most part, I merely wanted to seek outside opinion on User:Toa Nidhiki05's stance regarding WP:OR on the talk pages (see: here). There are other more difficult issues to resolve, but I'm pretty confident that some advisement on the WP:OR policy (which could improve communication on the talk page) is an opportunity for the WQA to excel. (Actually, I expected it to be more open-and-shut.) BigK HeX (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:OR is just a form of soapboxing, and that's the real problem. The different templates starting with Template:Uw-advert1 can be used for soapboxing, but the templates themselves do need to make it more explicit the warning is for soapboxing on talk pages and not just, for example, putting advertising external links in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
There is never any need for templates; everyone involved are reasonably established editors so a personal note is more appropriate --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 19:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hg shah

Resolved
 – Editor indef'ed, article salted. Looie496 (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User is under a jewish/Israel/anti-islam/anti-nazi persecution complex as evidenced by [1] [2] [3] and [4]. All this seems to revolve around the above mentioned article. I have applied the NPA3 warning to their talk page and would appreciate intercession from the the WQA group as to a positive resolution to this issue. Hasteur (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

After I speedied Meredith and Springlyn (fourth speedy deletion within the past 24 hours), Hg shah left me this message. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It appears that Hg shah has been blocked indefinitely, so this matter is probably moot. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths and 79.116.xxx.xxx

Two editors who have been sniping at each other continue to do so.

In this talk page entry, Romaniantruths calls IP 79.116.208.246 a liar. This IP is a dynamic one which changes frequently, but the person behind it continues to edit articles about Romanian aviation.

In this talk page entry, IP 79.116.208.234 writes to Romaniantruths "and i pass over your pathetic and comic hate and frustration toward Coanda, a sign of a small person, and this is no offence, is reality".

This level of personal attack should not be expressed. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it should not. But more importantly, they're messing up the article with their bickering. Looie496 (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Messing up the article? I don't see where trying to make it accurate is messing it up. If it's wrong it's wrong, And I don't see why I should quit trying to correct it if I can prove it's wrong. I posted a substantial body of references and evidence on the talk page over a considerable period of time before I made a single change. When I finally started editing all my edits were reverted and tagged as vandalism. No comment on my talk-page postings or edits was made on the talk page until well after an edit war warning was sent round because of the constant reversions. In fact after the edit war warning I took to asking myself On the talk page If I was in agreement with myself because at that point I was still the only person to have ever posted on the talk page. If that's not a consensus then what is?
I had a look at the definition of personal attack and don't see where calling a definite lie a lie constitutes a personal attack. can anyone specify where it says this?Romaniantruths (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph of the Later claims section that starts "Some of Coanda's supporters admit..." is incoherent junk; that's what I mean by messing up the article. Calling a statement a lie means not only that it is false but also that the person saying it knows that it is false. Unless you can read minds you should be very slow to use that word. I don't know who is right here on the facts because I don't know anything at all about Coanda, but I can see that both of you are behaving very much like nationalist POV warriors. Looie496 (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm the one who originally wrote that paragraph. On checking back I see that I inadvertently fused it to the next paragraph when deleting an ill-considered edit to that second paragraph.(That's where the existing paragraph suddenly changes from anti to pro) Are you saying that the inadvertent fusion of these paragraphs make it 'incoherent junk'? That was an editing error that I didn't notice(I was only on that page once between that edit and the page being locked). I suppose that on finding such an error, it is best dealt with by attacking the editor's work as 'incoherent junk'? You obviously have a great deal more experience in dealing with these situations, so If you think that this is an appropriate procedure, and within the bounds of Wikietiquette, I shall do my best to emulate your example in future.
I'm afraid I don't see how your comment of accusations of lying is responsive to my question: Is calling something a lie a personal attack per se? You tell me that I should be very slow to use that word. I was. The mysterious individual who added the reference in question to the page and later the talk page has asserted that the author was an aviation historian and a scientist. The author is neither of these and there is no way he could have come to that conclusion. The book is clearly a how-to book for helicopter pilots, and any attempt to check his credentials on the internet will show as the first hit his very detailed resume as a helicopter pilot, not an aviation historian or scientist. Obviously he just made this up and assumed that either no one would check, or that he could just make up another reference to replace it. When directly confronted as to this the individual in question still insisted that the author in the reference was an expert. The individual who made these claims has an ongoing history of making false claims of credentials for most of his references. And of making blanket assertions that the people he refers to have all examined unimpeachable evidence which proves his case. This has been accompanied by a constant patern of abuse. I believe he even accused Binksternet of being a 'retard' at one point (and no, I won't make the mistake of suggesting that this was a lie).Romaniantruths (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
When an article says something and then immediately contradicts itself, that's impossible for readers to make sense of, regardless of whether it's in one paragraph or two. Having a bunch of tags in the paragraph makes it even worse. Regarding the word "liar", it's just better not to use it. Instead of saying somebody is a liar, just say, "That statement is not true, and here is why." Looie496 (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that Wikipedia is concerned to a greater extent than I would have thought with labeling someone a liar, under any circumstances. However I didn't add any of those tags to that paragraph(I seldom add tags to anything). Additionally,when I wrote the paragraph starting "Some of Coanda's supporters admit.." there was no contradictory statement following it. When I created the 'Later Claims' section It had no contradictory statements in it. What was I supposed to do when they were added? Erase them? Or maybe just erase what I had written? Others have erased numerous unsupported contradictory statements from the 'Later Claims' section. I am glad they did so, but the claims erased were rapidly replaced with other unsupported contradictory claims. I was also reluctant to erase these claims because their poster seemed to me at the time to be in the habit of erasing references he disliked as a from of retaliation (of course this was only an impression I had formed when I did not appreciate the importance of assuming good faith; I now assume that he just accidentally erased references he disagreed with time after time, and far from ignoring warnings about it, just forgot about them, time after time.)
I would be fascinated to Know why you cheracterize me as a 'Nationalistic POV warrior'. Is this phraseology also within the bounds of Wikietiquette? If so I will hasten to add it to my verbal armamentarium!(As well as the 'incoherent junk' line) But since I have no conection whatsoever to any nation which claims priority in early jet developement, I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Romaniantruths (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

RS101

RS101 is repeatedly abrasive and hostile, especially at Talk page of Talk:Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel. For instance: [5]. Now RS101 is starting similar behavior on another article: [6]. They appear to be a new user, so if another user (other than me) could give RS101 some friendly suggestions on WP policy, maybe that will get them on the right track. Thanks. Noleander (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the Talk:Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel, RS101 has a fundamental mis-understanding of how WP works, and how to dialog on a Talk page to reach a consensus. If another editor could chime-in and suggest to RS101 to engage in constructive dialog, that would be much appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I am having difficulty seeing anything very problematic from RS101 in Talk:Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel. In Talk:Judaism and violence, the comment is definitely rude, but on the other hand you appear to be carrying on an obstinate battle against the consensus of other editors, and it is perhaps time for you to back down. In short, it seems to me that you are using this WQA as a weapon in your struggle, which is not the purpose of WQA. Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, you have misread the Talk page comments. The issue is that RS101 does not engage in constructive dialog in a reasonable manner. I requested help here not as a way of resolving the content dispute, but rather as a way to solicit independent editors to help RS101 understand the need to engage in civil dialog. But thanks for taking the time to look into it. --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Once again I'm going to inform you Noleander that just because someone refuses to see things your way and they get frustrated with having to keep telling you the same things over and over and over along with everyone else telling you the same things... does not mean they are being rude. It means you are not, as Looie496 pointed out, dropping your objections in face of consensus. Consensus does not require your consent, it is fine to note your objections but to be obstinate and continue to obstruct consensus puts yourself at fault.Camelbinky (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstand my request. I respect RS101's differing opinion. My simple request here was to ask other editors to facilitate a dialog on the Talk page. I'm having trouble getting RS101 to answer simple questions that could help us reach consensus. I have repeatedly asked RS101 a couple of simple questions, and cannot get a straight answer. You also are mistaken that there is consensus on the dispute: it is an on-going dispute that has not yet even gotten to the stage of a rational discussion. RS101 is editing in bad faith and treating WP like a battleground, rather than engaging in constructive dialog. If there is solid consensus against my content proposal, I have no problem dropping it. My complaint (that Im raising here) is that I cannot even get RS101 to engage in the discussion. --Noleander (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
And no one can force RS101 to talk to you if he doesnt want to. You can ask all the questions you want, but he (or she no offense) is under no obligation or responsibility to ever answer you in order to stay involved in the discussion. That user may state their opinions as cryptically as they want leaving others with many questions unanswered, but at no point does the user have to clarify or answer any questions. Other users will take RS101's comments and points as they want and if they agree that there are questions unanswered maybe they'll ask them and he'll answer them, if he doesnt answer them then I'm sure his point may fall on deaf ears. But it is not anything that can be dealt with at any noticeboard. State your points and let others judge them on their own merits as they will with RS101's.Camelbinky (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
My gosh, you seem to have a rather hostile attitude. The noticeboards are places where - among other things - early and informal dispute-resolution can take place. My good faith request for an independent editor to facilitate the Talk page discussion remains open. --Noleander (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I wasnt being hostile, but of course I'm Jewish, so I can understand you automatically not giving me AGF.Camelbinky (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ottawa South

The other day, User:HuntClubJoe decided to remove some content on the page in question. While his motives are fair, I took exception to the edits and we attempted to come up with a resolution on the talk page. However, I have found the user in question to be quite uncivil, and has resorted to personal attacks. I want to come up with a consensus to this article, but I don't want to deal with this person anymore. As an administrator, I have felt the urge to abuse my power and block him until he is willing to be civil, but I figured I should discuss the matter with an outside source. I would like to have the overseeing WikiProject to have a look at the issue, but so far no one has. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, HuntClubJoe is not behaving in a manner consistent with the WP:Civility policy. I'll join in the Talk page discussion and see if I can help improve the article, and ensure that the discussion stays civil. --Noleander (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
HuntClubJoe is making points that seem reasonable, but in a far too antagonistic way. Earl Andrew must not even consider personally imposing a block in this situation; even the suggestion that he is tempted to do so is worrisome. If he feels that a block is required, he must request one at ANI. Looie496 (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I realize that, hence why I didn't. I suppose it is worrisome, but that is just my instincts. :p -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

lawrencekhoo

Another user who's IP traces to some location in Georgia questioned the removal of material on the Koi article, since the removal of material was based on allegations on vandalism. The user claimed that they saw no evidence of vandalism. The material in question was originally placed by me. I responded noting that it was a good faith edit and there was no vandalism. When the version was restored the same user, lawrencekhoo reverted it again claiming that inaccuracies were introduced. Again, there were no inaccuracies and all edits were substantiated with references. This was also pointed out on the talk pages. In response to this, the user, lawrencekhoo, levelled personal attacks on the talk pages and madeunsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry (a simple check of my IP traces it to here in California, the IP he alleges is also me traces to Georgia, the other user made comments within hours of comments that I made, making it impossible for me to be at two ends of the country at the same time) [7]. The page was then protected by an admin, nihonjoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the claim of sockpuppetry. Attempts to contact the admin and advise him that the sockpuppetry allegations were untrue and requests of him to perform a checkuser to verify this were ignored. As it stands, the personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppetry are on the talk page and there is no way to respond to these allegations. The user, lawrencekhoo, also has not responded to the content issue itself as to what exactly did he find was vandalism or inaccuracies.153.48.52.241 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not ignore you. As already explained to you, the page protection had to do with disruption, not anything specifically about the discussion. And as you are using an IP address rather than creating an account (which would actually afford more anonymity than using an IP address), you can not be "personally" attacked. As for performing a checkuser, I have no way to do that, and even if I could perform said checkuser request, I wouldn't do it as it would be a fishing expedition. Checkuser can not be used to prove innocence like that. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Civility issues with Price Is Right-related articles

I recently standarized the succession boxes for various Price is Right-related entities, including Rod Roddy, Rich Fields, Michael G. Richards, Johnny Olson, Syd Vinnedge, among others. Upon doing so, User:Sottolacqua reverted all of my changes. I attempted to have a civil discussion with him on his own talk page, along with the talk page of Mike Richards.

After a minor edit war, Sottolacquafinally decided to enter the discussion and suggested that I standarize the boxes, which I did. Today, however, User:WikiLubber has reverted my changes multiple times, has vandalized my talk page, and has told me in revision comments for a few pages that "Sottolacqua is never wrong," or "Sottolacqua is always right." Additionally, User:MegastarLV has engaged in the same behavior.

I'm not sure what to do here. There is obvious sockpuppetry and/or collusion going on here. Nobody wants to discuss these changes civilly -- they just want erase content without discussion and attempt to show ownership of these Price is Right related pages. --70.242.164.14 (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User Glrx

Some Context:

There is an ongoing dispute at Talk:Genetic_algorithm#Should_all_reference_to_the_Generative_Fixation_Hypothesis_be_removed.3F about whether a new hypothesis about the workings of genetic algorithms should be mentioned in passing. The hypothesis in question was published in my dissertation (a WP:RS). The edit satisfies Wikipedia's three content policies, viz., WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. The dispute started between User:Oli Filth and me; however, after I issued an RFC, Oli Filth abandoned the discussion.

User Glrx's behavior:

The only opposition currently comes from User:Glrx, who got involved as a RFC editor, and has since reverted the edit on multiple occasions. Glrx accuses me of "pushing ... original research" (despite the edit being WP:V), and says that the COI inherent in writing about one's own work (a COI I made explicit from the start by posting under my real name) by definition makes me "too close" to my work to write about it on Wikipedia. I've asked him repeatedly to provide evidence that I cannot be objective about my work. He has not responded to these requests. I believe he does not respond because his conclusions are based on his feelings about me, and not an acquaintance with either the field of genetic algorithms or my work.

When pressed to provide evidence that I'm incapable of being objective about the edit, User:Glrx asks for evidence of "prominent adherents" of the the scientific hypothesis I've put forth, in other words of the WP:NOTABILITY of this hypothesis. In doing so, Glrx conflates the Wikipedia concepts of weight, which applies to article content, and notability, which applies to article existence. The nutshell box at the top of WP:NOTABILITY prominently states that the Wikipedia guideline on Notability applies to article existence, not article content. The filters for article content are WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, none of which are violated by the edit. Pointing this out to Glrx makes no difference.

Other neutral editors (User:Parent5446, and User:Chaosdruid) have agreed that the mere mention of the hypothesis does not violate any Wikipedia policy, and that readers might benefit from learning of it's existence. This makes no impression on Glrx, who, despite having a poor grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, acts like he is the final authority on what belongs in Wikipedia, and on who can post material to a given article. Additionally he feels no obligation to respond to my questions, or my invitations to him to enter into formal mediation WP:RFM. His one word response to the latter was "Sigh".

The heart of the matter is that Glrx does not subscribe to a core Wikipedia principle: "Assume good faith". In Glrx's cynical view of what constitutes effective community based encyclopedia editorship, one is guilty until proven innocent. Keki Burjorjee (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your dissertation is not an RS. There is no RS until the work is published in a reputable journal. Even then there is a high threshold for adding accounts of one's own work. In short, even if some other editors are naive enough to think that what you're doing is okay, I definitely don't. If you want further opinions about the usability of a dissertation as a source, you could ask at WP:RSN. Looie496 (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:RS#Scholarship, a Ph.D. dissertation is a reliable source. Keki Burjorjee (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Huh. Whoever wrote that doesn't know much about dissertations. Even the best of them usually contain some cruft; the worst ones that I have seen are pathetic. Anyway, why isn't there a journal paper about the work in question? Looie496 (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I've had other priorities. Regarding your comment about dissertations: the same can be said to apply to journal articles; I can point you to some doozies in the field of Evolutionary Computation. At least with dissertations one knows who the reviewers are. My point is that when evaluating the peer-reviewed publications of a given field, it's hard to determine what's reliable and what's not without at least some domain knowledge. Wikipedia's baseline policy of considering Ph.D. dissertations reliable makes sense to me. Keki Burjorjee (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of an individuals feelings the fact remains that a PhD dissertation is a reliable source. Not only that but the individuals sitting on the panel which have taken the dissertation are extremely notable in the field and in Artificial intelligence in general.
The matter should be weighted, verifiable and sourced correctly. The original statemenet included by KB was made and as a result GFH appeared as an alternative to the whole BBH subject matter. This was incorrect as the GFH is only a fix for the problem of "too many positivies" within BBH - this was remedied and the proposed material was reduced to a paragraph within the original section. I pointed out that a paragraph on GFH is probably too much at this point and proposed it should simply be a sentence tagged on the end of the BBH to state that it exists as a fix for the too many positives problem within BBH. This pretty much mirrors the proposal by KB which started the section in the talk page about should it be removed or not [8]. One sentence stating "A possible solution to the problem has been proposed in the GFH." and a reference citing the dissertation should not be a problem. The source is valid, the sentence is within weighting parameters, the theory exists and has been vetted by a panel of scientists in the top 10 of the field and as such I cannot see any reason for not including GFH as a possible solution to the problem.
User:Chaosdruid 05:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ohlly

Personal attacks by user

on my talk page.Carl Francis (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks by the user, but I'm assuming that you mean his "K.I.S.S" statement? That's not really a personal attack, since he's merely stating that things are better kept simple. I've noticed that he's attempting to talk to you about an article, so I would strongly encourage you to discuss your differences with him and work to reach a version that is acceptable to both. Netalarmtalk 00:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The edits on your Talk page by User:Ohlly don't constitute personal attacks. See EDITS. User:Ohlly is trying to work constructively with you. There is no need to feel he is attacking you.Dolphin (t) 00:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to presume that this is about K.I.S.S "Keep It Simple Stupid". That could certainly look like a personal attack to somebody who is unfamiliar with the expression, but I don't think it was intended as one. Still, Ohlly and everybody else should bear in mind that many people who contribute to Wikipedia are not native English speakers, and may very easily misunderstand slang or jargon. Looie496 (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

InaMaka

InaMaka has exhibited what I consider to be a long standing pattern of incivility and hostility towards other editors in both his edit summaries and talk page contributions. [9], [10], [11] Some of InaMaka's more heated interactions escalate to personal attacks and are overall disruptive to Wikipedia and run contrary to consensus building. The same concerns have been brought up by other editors in the past [12], [13], [14] and I have twice attempted to bring my concerns to InaMaka and was rebuffed both times. [15], [16] Recently InaMaka has been reposting other editors' comments on talk pages, characterizing them as hogwash, horse hockey and BS. Gobonobo T C 02:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Inamaka is very strongly advised to be less confrontational. There appears to be an escalating pattern of bad temper here that is bound to lead to long blocks if it continues to get worse. this edit in particular is far more confrontational than it needs to be. Inamaka, you've been a valued contributor for a long time, please find a way to get yourself under better control. Looie496 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Let me point out that my response was correct. My comments were badly mischaracterized. I did not in any way state that Dr. Alvida King's views on homosexuality were equal to the view of Fred Phelps. What I stated then and I will repeat here is that attempts to edit Dr. Alvida King's article and make the incorrect claim that Dr. King is a Republican is just as wrong as attempts to edit Fred Phelps article and state that Phelps is a Republican. Neither King or Phelps are Republicans. They are both conservative Democrats. Period. Now, Stonemason89's comment to me was just flat out wrong. He badly, blatantly mischaracterized what I said and called him on it. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I never said your response was incorrect. I just said you shouldn't have expressed it that way. Losing your temper is not a winning strategy. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The concerns I've raised were not about whose edits were factual, but about breaches of WP:CIVIL. I think that comments such as "You are a smartass," "Your comment above are not relevant to the article in any way so your comment should be eliminated. However, since you spouted off let me attempt to educate you.", "I've dealt with your type before. You are just one more blowhard trying to teach me a lesson." and "I will not apologize for what I wrote. NEVER." demonstrate an unwillingness to engage with other editors in a civil and productive manner. It seems to me that InaMaka treats Wikipedia as a battleground and has created numerous frustrating experiences for editors as evidenced by the issues recently raised at Editor assistance, ANI, WQA, and the BLP noticeboard. I brought this to WQA in the hopes of moving toward a more civil discourse where editorial disputes can be resolved without unnecessary hostility. Gobonobo T C 21:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Gobonobo, you're supposed to notify people if you open WQA sections concerning them -- in this case I've done it for you. Looie496 (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks like Gobonobo did notify InaMaka under User Talk:InaMaka#Civility. Either way, I wanted to loop this thread into the discussion. Best, Arbor832466 (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Katie Couric

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Content issues should be discussedon the relevant talk page. Eusebeus (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The section named "the Palin interviews" has been at dispute for a very long while now. The regular Couric fans/page watchers are in constant consensus of removing any material, even the most well-sourced, that might shed a negative light on the subject matter. This discussion is the latest example: no matter how well articulated the arguments in favor of including such material might be, there is always a counter-claim of "non-event" (without any actual basis), merely based on editorial POV. The string of excuses started with "YouTube is not a valid source", then, after a source was introduced, became "one source is not notable enough", then, after six more sources were introduced, became "this was only covered within a 24 hour news cycle". After the latest comment I made on that discussion, I left it for a month and no reply was posted ever since, with the discussion subsequently being archived. No group of editors should be allowed to back up their own nonsense (reasons stay consistent, while excuses constantly change to suit the goal) to keep articles biased in their own favor. I don't want to appear to be WP:CANVASSING, but I see no other choice, as this edit war has gone too far. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid this isn't something that can be handled with this noticeboard. This is more for lack of civility. What you have there is more of a content dispute. You probably need a different form of Dispute Resolution. Possibly an article request for comment.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
This is lack of etiquette. Editors are repeatedly calling the addition "smearing" just because it cites one fact that might present Couric from a non-fan POV. If you look closely, the whole article is written from a fan-like point. Nothing but her legacy, appraisals and awards. If this is not an etiquette issue, I don't know what is... Thanks in advance for helping clearing this out. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
From what I can see it's a minor content dispute that has run its course in talkpage discussions and at least two other noticeboards. I just watched the video and it even seems a stretch to say she was mocking the Palins -- "Where do they get these names?" Then there's a simple question of pronouncing Wasilla. Press coverage of it is much ado about nothing, hence its dismissal as tabloid-ish. -PrBeacon (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
All interpretations aside, the press coverage is more than sufficient to establish notability. If it only were covered by tabloids, you would have been dead on; sources like the LA Times turn this into a newsworthy article. The dispute is over a single sentence to be included in the otherwise impeccable appraisal of Katie Couric. If you look closely, even the reaction of the Palin camp is being removed as "biased" because it describes the interview as being from an extremely negative perspective. Basically, the evidence screams that Couric did her best to smear Palin, something a news reporter should never do, but everyone wants to cover it up because it would introduce a negative POV into the article, which is anything but neutral. Justice, anyone? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fakirbakir

User Fakirbakir after his edit war in article Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary left in talk page this personal attack: "You!!!! Yes You, 'historians' who teach in the schools, universities. You are foolish, You are not capable to solve problems. Wikipedia is for the layman (for everybody, not just your country). You do not want solutions. You want nothing. I am not able to know what was the true history because of your behaviors (I am not interested in just one historical possibility). I started to hate this system!"

Is here somebody neutral, who takes care of education in civility of this boy? He edited many articles about history and with his "unscholary view", it is hard work for repairing it. --Yopie (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"If I am new that does not mean I am stupid. Thank you for your help". The editor is new. He sounds more emotional than unreasonable. "Regardless of the bias I admit maybe Yopies's source is reliable I can accept that, however, I would like to see other point of views (If those sentences have to be here). Until It does not happen, please delete it".
An editor with more experience should first extend an olive branch. Be the better man. Time can be a tool for you, let him cool down and reassure him. Make an honest effort to find common ground. Educate and state how his goals can be achieved. Be kind when stating limitations. If sanctions are to be used sometime in the future you would first have to demonstrate that you have have made the effort. I would recommend a very kind note on his talk page and offer possible ways to go forward.--scuro (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger491127

Stuck
 – Taken to ANI. Eusebeus (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

At Talk:Gustave Whitehead, Roger491127 has directed condescending comments to User:Carroll F. Gray. The latest one is where Roger491127 modified one of his talk page entries to insult Carroll F. Gray by calling her uneducated and irrational. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger491127 definitely needs to discuss issues more calmly and refrain from insulting other people. Editors have been blocked in the past for personal attacks less aggressive than these. Looie496 (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Carroll F. Gray is not a "her", he is a "him". Binksternet, who reported me to this Wikiquette_alert is a very litigation eager participant in wikipedia who obviously is so eager that he can not even get the gender of the person right of the person he is starting this Wikiquette discussion on behalf of. Note that Binksternet is on the losing end of a discussion with me on the discussion page of Aviation history so instead of debating with me he has chosen to start a process against me here instead. Anyhow, I submit a discussion between me and Carroll F. Gray. Please decide for yourselves who is a more rational person with a sound judgment based on reason and common sense in this discussion.

I have said that Carroll F. Gray seems to lack reason and common sense, and I think that is a sound judgment of his reasoning. If he feels insulted by such criticism it can not be avoided. If you criticize a bad football player and point out his flaws and mistakes he will maybe feel insulted (if he is irrational or uneducated), or he can take the criticism as a rational person and learn something from it, but it must be allowed to criticize bad football players and illogical thinking and a lack of reason and good judgment in a wikipedia editor, in this case a person who call himself an "aviation historian" and has his own web page where the statement in question is the main argument. Here is his web page which is the basis for this conflict http://www.flyingmachines.org/gwhtd.html Roger491127 (talk) 12:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger states that my own personal web site page on Whitehead is the "basis for this conflict" - if so, then shouldn't he and I be e-mailing outside Wikipedia about my web site page ? Roger invited me into Wikipedia. Also, please note that I did not post the quote from my web site into the Whitehead Wiki article. I have understood that original research and self-referencing are not acceptable here.Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the article talk page entries that you brought here. We are not discussing the article topic, we are discussing your style of interaction. Above, you called me a "litigation eager participant" which I consider an insult. I brought this alert here because you tend to insult others in exactly this manner. Such interaction style will get you blocked, so I would recommend changing it. Binksternet (talk) 13:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have studied your talk page and found that you often use radical means and reports (ackusations) like this to subdue opponents you can not win rational arguments against, that's why I called you "litigation eager participant".

I think it is very unfair of you to delete my quotes which show why I question the rationality and sound judgement of Carroll F. Gray. By the way Carroll F. Gray is also the first person in 109 years to question if Dick Howells article in Bridgeport Sunday Herald was really written by Dick Howell, and he questions if the drawing which accompanies the article was really made by Dick Howell. To what purpose he questions this is beyond my imagination, but it is typical of the kind of thinking I have criticized Carroll F. Gray for. Roger491127 (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not bring article talk page material here. This place is only for discussion of your participation style. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that Doc9871 has deleted my text which I motivated with "To be able to discuss my participation style we need examples of my participation style, I therefor reinsert the example of my participation style you deleted earlier:"

Ok, you can study my participation style on the discussion page of Gustave Whitehead Roger491127 (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You can use WP:DIFFS here, but we don't paste a lengthy argument from a talk page (where content disputes belong anyway) to this board and then say, "You all analyze it." Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing content here. We are discussing if my style of participation is insulting or hostile, as Carroll F Gray expresses it. I would not react in that way to criticism of my way of argumentation or if my logic was questioned. I would use rational arguments, logic and sound judgement to try to explain my view to the other person, as I have done towards Carroll F Gray, but he takes that as insults and hostility. I have been active in wikipedia for 4-5 years, and in usenet for 20 years, but I have never used foul words or attacked people with insults or hostility. My way of discussion is based on logic, good arguments and knowledge, which sometimes have made a few people very angry, in usenet not in wikipedia, probably because they lack the ability to answer with the same tools. Roger491127 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"The problem is that you seem to have no ability to understand rational arguments and either reply with counter-arguments or admit that your statement is wrong." There's a lot of very smart and rational people on this project... it's a freaking encyclopedia! When dealing with other editors, it's best not to comment on them in a negative way at all. To basically call someone ignorant (but in more "flowery" language) is not acceptable. We are to comment on content, not contributors: it works best that way. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not dealing with an editor. I am dealing with an "aviation historian" who has his own web page about Gustave Whitehead, and who's main argument against Whitehead in his web page has been used in the wikipedia article about Gustave Whitehead. I am criticising his argument which is used in the article because it is illogical, strange, unreasonable, etc... This "aviation historian" has now also started to act as an editor of the Whitehead article, defending his own unreasonable argument in the discussion page. My criticism of his unreasonable argument has given him the impression that I am insulting and hostile, which I am not, I just point out how unreasonable his argument is, and because a quote from his web page is used in the article it is important to criticise that argument.Roger491127 (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If I cannot explain to the aviation historian Carroll F Gray that his argument should be removed from the article my argumentation is intended to explain to other editors why we should include quotes which shows how unreasonable this argument is. His argument is basically that Mrs. Whitehead should have the last word on if he flew or not. Other quotes show that she hated his aviation activities and that she had to take care of the children, the home, the cow, the chickens, the garden and she had to work outside the home too. So his argument is unreasonable because she had absolutely no interest in his aviation experiments and considering how much she had to do she could not have time to watch any flights. Roger491127 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You said "I am not dealing with an editor." This is insulting because Carroll F Gray is indeed an editor here. You put "aviation historian" in scare quotes which is insulting of Gray's on- and off-wiki activities which have to do with aviation history. Your style continues to insult, even here in this discussion of your style. Please adjust your style to a more collegial tone. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant Carroll F Gray is not first and foremost an editor, he is a source, a self-appointed aviation historian, and I am discussing if and how his arguments as an aviation historian should be included in the article about Whitehead. But as I explained he has now also become an editor who is defending his own views, which could be labeled as original research when he contributes as an editor. Roger491127 (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Both of you are working under the limitations of WP:COI, as both of you have a vested interest in the material. Read that guideline, please. Binksternet (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
While Roger certainly needs to work on the veiled insults, I do see one of his points that could explain his frustration here:
"Aviation historian Carroll Gray commented: 'Perhaps the last word in the matter should be left to Gustave Whitehead's wife, Louise Tuba Whitehead, who never recalled seeing her husband fly in his flying machines.'"[36]
Carroll F. Gray does not have a WP page, so it could be argued he fails WP:N as far as being able to be quoted as an aviation historian. The reference leads to his own website, which probably fails WP:SOURCES under both WP:POORSRC and WP:SELFPUBLISH. And the language of "Perhaps...should" definitely smacks of WP:SYNTH... Doc9871 (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I have just added a user page for my account where I have made "Significant editing disclosures." Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Namecalling is not acceptable. If somebody is behaving badly, Roger can ask for help here or at another appropriate noticeboard. Calling somebody uneducated, irrational, and lacking in common sense is a losing strategy: it won't change the mind of the person you are arguing with and will only prejudice other editors against you. Looie496 (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with that 100%, and certainly wasn't trying to deflect away from his incivility. The content issues absolutely need to be addressed - but the insults are what need to be discussed right now. Per the top of this board: "Avoid filing a WQA if... A3) You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures to be imposed/enforced." Can you two work this out on the talk page of the article? I noticed Carroll F. Gray has yet to say anything on the matter here... Doc9871 (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, note that Carroll F Gray has not asked Binksternet to start this formal accusation (investigation, or what you call it) against me. This is an initiative taken completely singlehandedly by Binksternet, who has chosen to start this process on behalf of somebody else who has not even asked for it. Roger491127 (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement for the abused party to initiate an alert. I saw bad behavior; I initiated the alert. Very simple. I am not taking this action on behalf of the party you insulted, who shrugged it off, I am taking it on your behalf, so that you can change your style and not get blocked for incivility. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of this whole scenario is that Binksternet found that he could not win a discussion with me in the discussion page of Aviation history, so he got angry and looked for a reason to start a formal procedure against me in the wikipedia administration structure. Note that my username Roger491127 is composed of my first name and the beginning of my Swedish identity number, where the first 6 figures gives my birth date, so I am 60 years old and a very experienced contributor in both usenet and wikipedia. My user names over the years have been Roger Johansson, Roger .J, Roger4911, and you can look me up on internet and find that my behavior has always been very factual and civilized. I use reason, logic and knowledge as my tools. I am the total opposite of a young hotspur who gets angry and uses foul words or starts formal processes to get back at somebody.

I can admit that I got a bit irritated at Carroll F Gray who totally ignores arguments based on reason, logic and sound judgement. And I can promise to be more careful with my choice of words in the future. Roger491127 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You will notice that this board is described above as an "informal" process, so suggesting this is a "formal procedure ... in the wikipedia administration structure" is simply incorrect. Beyond the fact that this is intended to be an informal spot to seek dispute resolution for civility issues, no one answering in this thread so far is an administrator, myself included. — e. ripley\talk 14:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know that. But it reminds me of Franz Kafka's book Der Process ("The trial" in English). The person in that book also had no idea if the process was formal or informal or what it was called, in any case it was some kind of process. Roger491127 (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Some of the people who participate on Wikipedia would probably agree with you about this noticeboard being Kafkaesque. ;) In any case, without passing judgment myself as I have not evaluated this report, the basic purpose of this report seems to be to have you acknowledge that you have engaged in difficult communications with people, which you have done and said you will work on fixing, so hopefully everybody can move on to building an encyclopedia in a fruitful way going forward. — e. ripley\talk 15:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to clear up the misapprehension that I was angry for any reason. I am not angry over any discussion with Roger nor have I ever been. I undertook this administrative action to assist Roger in gaining consensus, by notifying him that his style was not collegial, that it inspired opposition. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, All,
My participation here was sparked by a very heated and confrontational e-mail received from Roger. So, things began in a contentious atmosphere. It seems to me that Roger's ultimate objective is to have me remove my comment(s) from my web site, which he finds "ignorant." I came in good faith, with no axe to grind about Whitehead. Roger casts me as being "anti-Whitehead" yet my own view (which I have stated more than once in Discussion, is that Whitehead probably did make short hops - and so, was not a charlatan or a fraud. In his own mind, Whitehead might well have thought he "flew." I mention this as background.
I realized that the most productive thing for me - the objective being to produce a fair (non-advocating) and verifiable article on Gustave Whitehead - was to essentially ignore Roger's insults and pursue editing the article.
I have no interest in doing some form of verbal combat with Roger, yet he has repeatedly made personal attacks.
Please note that even as Roger has a strong reaction to my observation from my web site about Mrs. Whitehead not seeing her husband fly - writing on the Whitehead Discussion page that he finds my observation "one of the most irrational and outrageously confused statements ever made in the history of mankind." - he wants to keep it there, so people will know how irrational and illogical I am. Well, what is to be done with comments such as those Roger makes.
Please note, I have not posted any of my "original research" here - I know that is not to be done. It's ironic, therefore, that Roger has seen fit to post what he has from my web site.
I asked that his personal attacks on National Air and Space Museum Chair of Aeronautics Peter L. Jakab be removed from the Aviation Timeline Wiki entry - Roger had called Jakab a "liar" repeatedly in the discussion there about Whitehead - and an administrator did remove them. This might also be partly why Roger has such a bad reaction to me.
I am taking the approach that I will address matters of substance that Roger brings to the Whitehead article, but will not engage with him about his continuing insulting and - really what I find - abusive manner. To engage with Roger in some un-ending back-and-forth about my supposed lack of reason and logic is a rabbit hole with no end, and I don't care to fall down it.
It's amazing to me that even as Roger writes (above) he will be more careful with his "choice of words," he cannot help but insert "Carroll F Gray who totally ignores arguments based on reason, logic and sound judgement" as justification or as an explanation for his insulting manner. [User:Carroll F. Gray|Carroll F. Gray]] (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I will in the future avoid formulations like "Jakab must be either a liar or totally incompetent" and instead formulate myself like this: Jakab's statement that Whitehead did not mention to his wife that he had flown August 14 1901 is conflicting with the interview with Mrs. Whitehead made in 1940 which clearly states that he told his wife about it that day, which Jakab should have known about. But note that Jakab is not an editor in wikipedia, he is Dr. Peter L. Jakab, chairman of the Aeronautics Division at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum (NASM), (who should know what he is talking about), so my formulation about him can not be dealt with in this sort of process between wikipedia editors. Roger491127 (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The phrase "which Jakab should have known about" was an unnecessary jab, not required to make your point. Are you really examining your style with the goal of changing it? Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a big debate going on, both outside wikipedia and inside it, about how the Smithsonian sold their integrity for a replica of Wrights Flyer I in 1948 and signed a contract in which the Smithsonian promised to never mention any powered flights before Wrights flight in 1903, and several people in the Smithsonian joined Orville Wright in discrediting Whitehead using arguments which have been refuted one by one. The behavior of the Smithsonian towards Whitehead has been strange, evading and faulty. So when Carroll F. Gray demands that I should publically apologize to Jakab it is not an issue for wikipedia to get involved in, and I have no intention to do that. Binksternet's comment above is also nothing for wikipedia to get involved in, because Jakab is not a wikipedia editor, he is a chief in an institution which should have a high level of integrity and truthfulness, which has been severally compromised by people like Jakab. Roger491127 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, this is not the proper place to be having this discussion. I will say, here, that you have your facts wrong and you're seriously mistaken. If you would care to pursue this discussion in a proper forum I will accommodate you.
I also do not believe that Wikipedia is intended to be the site of a slug-fest where people take gratuitous swipes at other people who are not here to defend themselves.Carroll F. Gray (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we together have explained enough of what this conflict is really about. In the article Aviation history there has been a section about Whitehead's airplane flights in 1901 and 1902 for several years. Until recently this section used around 60% of the space of the section about the Wright brothers which follows it. Recently two editors, Bilcat and Binksternet cut the section about Whitehead down to a few sentences. I argued against that change. This is all a conflict between pro-Wright (and obviously anti-Whitehead) people and people who are trying to present Whitehead according to the verifiable sources. Carroll F. Gray is obviously defending the Smithsonian and Orville Wright and is working on the article about Gustave Whitehead, questioning all sources which say that Whitehead built and flew a motorized airplane years before 1903. A few days ago Binksternet started working on the Whitehead article too. It is not about my way of expressing myself, it is a conflict between Wright devotees and people who want to present the verifiable sources which say that Whitehead built and flew a motorized airplane years before the Wrights. Roger491127 (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, this is about the way you have expressed yourself. Control your impulse to make insulting remarks and let's work on the Whitehead article. You should know by now that a number of other people here see your comments as insulting and demeaning and unworthy of an editor.
As for questioning sources, I always make a point of checking sources and exploring assumptions. I also do not trust and repeat everything found on the internet without first questioning the source and the information. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As other participants have deleted many text by me from this process I should have the same right, so here we go. Roger491127 (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger, this is not appropriate for this page. If you have problems with me being cautious, you can discuss that on the article Discussion page. Plus, you've selectively edited the above. Carroll F. Gray (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the text taken away by Roger491127, which I do not see as equivalent to my removal, keeping this Wikiquette alert focused on his participation style. Instead, Roger's text removal eviscerated any reason why this alert should be in place, including the first entry stating the case. I cite WP:DISRUPT in pointing out to Roger that this action appears to me to be an escalation of rudeness into a wish to disrupt careful Wikipedia procedures. Consequently, I will bump this 'alert' up one level to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. See you there. Binksternet (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ed Corney

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
 – Issues with an article's content should be discussed on the article's talk page. Netalarmtalk 01:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dear Wiki Admins, I wrote that Ed Corney was married to sarah Daisey Van Diesel on JUne 8th 2009. Sarah Daisey and Ed were indeed married at the time, but now going through a horrific family entangled divorce. Sarah Daisey Van Diesel was indeed married to Ed Corney.Lived with Ed Corney and when the person edited OUT thathe was married. They wrote "this woman is a crazed stalker and was never married too him". I can present you with a wedding certificate, name of judge who married Sarah and Ed. Date ,time with pictures. Please delete this accusation that Sarah was a stalker and non exsistant. For she was married to Ed Corney. They are now divorced however.

Picture of Ed and Sarah Corney Happily Married in June.2009. Have tons more evidence as well. [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.61.173 (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 71.135.61.173 (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not an etiquette issue. Issues with an article should be discussed on the article's talk page. Netalarmtalk 01:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BilCat

Resolved
 – Doc Quintana blocked for 24 hours Nick-D (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved in a content dispute with two editors, one of which BilCat (talk · contribs) has been insanely incivil. In fact, I considered retiring until I saw this edit with their incivility with the edit summary "if it looks like a doc". The incivility ranged from claims of "stalking" on me (WP:OWN violation), to a threat that he would "block me" over what he considers an WP:NPA to me responding to his incivil comment to multiple WP:TALK violations of the removal of comments of others.

Perhaps the last one is understandable, since there are multiple complaints from other users on his talk page and in his talk page archives about his behavior.

This behiavor needs to be stopped immediately, he's destroyed the Wikipedia experience for me, and to be honest, the only thing keeping me here now is to make sure he doesn't ruin it for others. Doc Quintana (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of stepping back from the behavior, he's adding to it calling me "insane" at another talk page. I'm not sure how this can't be construed as a personal attack. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
That was a joke. It means it that we both see the issue so differently, one of must be crazy. "The little voices in my head" part implies that it must be me. THe "If it looks like a doc" is a play on "If it looks like a duck" and "What's up, Doc?", Bugs Bunny's signature line. Note that the talk page belonges to User:Baseball Bugs, who often leaves one-liners in his talk page summary. Just another of my innocent attempts at humor. The rest should be self-explanatory. - BilCat (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked Doc Quintana for 24 hours for attempting to harass BilCat - I've posted some of the relevant diffs on their talk page. The editor has since changed their user pages to indicate that they've retired from Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Calton

Resolved
 – Frivolous filing. Eusebeus (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

These edit summaries by Calton look rather uncivil:

  1. 15:12, 10 September 2010 (diff | hist) Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars ‎ (Undid revision 383994702 by Odokee (talk): not vandalism and romaji isn't the same as English, Sparky)
  1. 03:11, 15 August 2010 (diff | hist) N User talk:76.5.63.243 ‎ (Bye bye, Mr Kohs) (top)
  1. 19:03, 26 July 2010 (diff | hist) Countdown with Keith Olbermann ‎ (Reality check: it's conservative. No whitewashing, please.)
  1. 02:55, 25 July 2010 (diff | hist) Sylvia's Restaurant of Harlem ‎ (It's a reliable source. Don't like it? Not our problem.)
  1. 02:52, 25 July 2010 (diff | hist) Arthur Laffer ‎ (It's a reliable source. Don't like it? Not our problem.)

Special:Contributions/Calton

He has a history of this. While I agree that the edits themselves are ok, the rather uncivil summaries are problematic. Forgive me if this isn't in 100% correct format, I have bad arthritis and its difficult for me to type so I try to do it as simple as possible.

76.5.61.18 (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I find dubious here is "Sparky", but since the edit was in response to edit-warring, I think we have to cut Calton some slack on that one. By the way, it's up to you to notify Calton of this alert; see the page header. Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, nothing serious here. Before escalation one needs to demonstrate that you have made a reasonable attempt to solve this problem by communicating directly with Calton.--scuro (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:RelHistBuff

User RelHistBuff has exhibited what several editors claim to be bullying and claims of article ownership concerning the John Calvin article. Simply put, the article has a right-facing lead image placed on the left side of the article. (See MOS:IMAGES#Images.) Because many editors, both those who watch the John Calvin page and those who are random editors, find such an image odd, they either move it to the right side or replace it with another left-facing image on the right side. RelHistBuff, always careful to avoid the three-revert rule, replaces it with the image he likes best. This, however, leads to various minor edit wars every month or so. Some other editors suggested to put an end to this by replacing it permanently with a left-facing image on the right side. RelHistBuff refuses to consider any arguments in favor of either choice or placement of the lead image. He has used the argument that changes to the image can't be made because his image was used when the article was a featured article (like here and here, and several places on the talk pages). This goes against the very "Featured article banner" at the top of the page, which reads: "if you can update or improve it, please do so." He claims that his image is "classic" and others are not, because he has seen it on the cover of several biographies (like here, and several places on the talk pages). He has issued several hidden text, no edit orders (like here). He has accused other editors of fishing for votes, he has accused other editors of personally attacking him without cause, he has disregarded all attempts at a compromise, he has disregarded all attempts at choosing a different image, he has disregarded all arguments and debates, waited for a week or so, then reverted everything back to his version, claiming his arguments were superior and uncontroverted (see here). His bullying, his attempted ownership, and his attitude has had the effect of driving several editors away from this page. This dispute has been fully documented at Talk:John_Calvin#Image and Talk:John_Calvin#Consensus_for_change (and even Talk:John_Calvin/Archive2009#Image_.281.29). TuckerResearch (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In many-versus-one disputes, the most effective approach is for the many simply to impose consensus by reverting the one every time he violates consensus. This puts the recalcitrant editor in the position of either accepting the consensus or edit-warring to a degree that leads to a block. The group should be careful to have the reverting done by a different editor each time, because one-versus-one reverting typically leads to page protection rather than blocking. The advice that I am giving is officially frowned on, but in my experience it is the only efficient way of handling this sort of difficulty, and works pretty reliably. Note that it only works for N-vs-1 disputes; N-vs-M disputes can never be solved efficiently unless they involve BLP or other blatant policy violations. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to deny that there was any bullying on my part. My messages on the talk pages can be found here: [18], [19], [20], [21] (I even apologise to Tuckerresearch on this one for a case of mistaken identity). As one can see, I have always tried to use calm reasoning.
In contrast, please examine Tuckerresearch's posts and note the colourful language and his edit summaries: [22], [23], [24], [25]. I am not doing the bullying, but one might argue that Tuckerresearch may be going a bit over the top.
Secondly, I make no claim of owning the article. Many edits have been made to the article without my involvement and since it became a FA. In fact I even encouraged a recent editor (Ieuan Sant) to make changes!
The issue that Tuckerresearch raises here is simply a disagreement on the choice of the lead image. Only two users, Jonathunder and Tuckerresearch have really been pushing for a change, solely to satisfy a guideline. I have argued why the lead image of the FA version is better; the two have refused to address this argument and have thrown up two inferior images instead. When I noted that the first image that was put up had a dubious provenance and in fact was spoiled by a watermark from the image provider, they ignored my arguments and simply put up another image (which I argued was also inferior due to it being simply a woodcut). In contrast, the FA version image is used on the cover of the three major biographies of Calvin. This image was not chosen randomly as Jonathunder and Tuckerresearch would like to do.
Finally, I do not believe back-and-forth reversions are the solution to the problem. Discussing on the talk page is the solution. If I did revert, I always put edit summaries noting to discuss on the talk page. In contrast, Jonathunder did a reversion without an edit summary: see [26], and even worse he did a rollback, which is supposed to be reserved for only vandalism cases, see [27]. Using a rollback simply to revert and it is obviously NOT a case of vandalism is a violation of the rules for the holder of rollback rights. I will continue to address the disagreement with these two calmly on the talk page. --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is troubling to see Tuckerresearch using WQA to attempt to advance his cause in a silly dispute over a guideline, specifically a guideline that is laden with contradictions and requires common sense. Perhaps he can find another area to edit, and let writers of featured articles concentrate on more important matters? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I have fully documented RelHistBuff's actions on the John Calvin talk page. Reverts, hidden text no-edit orders. Read the criteria for bullying:

  • Asserting ownership, some examples of which include:
1. An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim the right, whether openly or implicitly, to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include egregious formatting errors.)
2. Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)
  • Making "no-edit" orders, such as "hidden text that would not be missed if one attempts to edit the article or section" telling folks "not to edit at all or in a particular manner, or not to edit a particular page or part of a page at all or in a particular manner."

He has told people several times, in edit summaries and on the talk page, not to change things because "his" image was on the page when it was a featured article. (Examples: "The image was accepted as a Featured Article. There is no 'fixing' needed." or "The consensus for the image placement was achieved during the FA process.") This violates the very principle of Wikipedia, and is indicative of ownership behavior. It scares away any unseasoned editor.

Look at one of his reverts here, done unilaterally, with a no-edit order in hidden text. His edit summary stated: "see talk, this is under discussion." Since this has been "under discussion" for awhile now, and every time someone changes the image, he has asserted that in the meantime we must go back to his version. Since the image may always be "under discussion," a perpetual meantime, the implication is that it must always stay his way. Look at some of criteria again for Wikipedia:Ownership of articles: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim the right, whether openly or implicitly, to review any changes before they can be added to the article." This is typical of his behavior.

He has accused me of attacking him personally, with no evidence. When I pointed this out, he simply stopped accusing me of attacking him personally. He did not apologize. He apologized for accusing me of canvassing, again with no evidence, but failed to strikethrough the offending passage as requested. Now, on this very page, he accuses me and other editors of not being "real editors" ("No real editors to the content of the article have been chased away"). This is all part of the implications running through his entire edit history and talk page history that he is just a better editor and his opinion is automatically better than anyone else's.

I am troubled too by the elitist and condescending statement of SandyGeorgia that I just go "find another area to edit, and let writers of featured articles concentrate on more important matters." This implies, again, that some editors are just better than others, and how dare we peons disagree with RelHistBuff. SandyGeorgia would rather I go fly a kite, it seems, than deign to think Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit." TuckerResearch (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would rather you focus your efforts on something that makes a difference, and is not a vague and contradictory guideline, where common sense should prevail. This horse is dead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Let us all calm down and gather verifiable facts should we? Obviously, the choice of facts you decide to present will determine what happens next. After seeing all this heat I imagine that wikipedia will be fairly peppered with RfC's and the like regarding this particular alignment of an image in a lead. I leave others to find such discussions. In the meantime, let me start off:
  1. The John Calvin article had a left-facing right-aligned lead image during peer-review started 27 November 2008 by RelHistBuff (talk · contribs) as these show: submitted for review and review closed
  2. The FAC for this John Calvin article is often cited as agreement that the lead image should remain left-aligned. All parties should carefully read the featured article candidacy submitted by RelHistBuff (talk · contribs) on 14 January 2009 where left-alignment was indeed discussed
  3. The John Calvin article had a right-facing right-aligned lead image when presented on 12:49, 27 November 2008, Thursday 08:43, 14 January 2009 as a FAC as this shows. When the FAC closed on 19:14, 10 February 2009 it had a right-facing left-aligned lead image like this
  4. The image review during the FAC process was done by Awadewit (talk · contribs)
  5. Two other wikipedia articles are often cited as having left-aligned lead images. They are
The frustrations on both sides of this debate can be clearly seen. All parties should withdraw and consider if this really is improving the encyclopaedia. On the one hand, those editors remaining calm yet dogmatically refusing to consider alternatives in the face of overwhelming pressure really do need to think. On the other hand, so do those editors resorting to almost uncivil behaviour out of sheer frustration. Neither side is really getting anything out of this and the encyclopaedia is suffering

--Senra (Talk) 18:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary. Alternatives can definitely be considered; I said that I am not wedded to a right-facing left-aligned image per se. If, for example, the Titian was publicly well-known (i.e., seen on book covers), its provenance was well-established (some book sources that gave the description, ownership, and location of the painting), and a high-quality image (without watermark) was available, then I would definitely support it. Talk page discussion would be welcome. But in the meantime, the original image and placement was fine. As I said these are rare cases; you mentioned two others. The hidden text was only meant for good-faith casual editors from moving the image. I will try to put a better explanatory message. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If you read my posts on the talk page, I really don't care which image leads and where it is. My concern was first to note that User:RelHistBuff was telling people they could not change the image, and reverting it, because he believes his image is the "best," he believes his image alone is the "classic" image of Calvin, and his image was the one on there when it was accepted as a featured article. My first post was to merely point out that such arguments are not truly good ones; you can't tell people that it was this way on the featured article so it is this way it must be.

I then suggested, in a calm manner, that a left-facing image be chosen because people may disagree on a right-facing image as the lead, but nobody has a problem with a left-facing image. For my troubles I was again told by RelHistBuff that his image was classic, that it was his way as a featured article, that his image is on book covers, and what is worse, he accused me of personally attacking him just because I disagreed with him. Other editors agreed that a left-facing image would probably lead to the long term stability of the lead section of the article. We were told again, that basically it is RelHistBuff's way or the highway. That his consensus is better than the mere "votes" of anybody else. He continued to accuse me, without foundation, of personally attacking him. When I quoted Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks and proved I was not attacking him, he stopped claiming I was personally attacking him but did not apologize. He later accused me of canvassing, without a shred of foundation. He apologized after another user admitted to canvassing (whether it was appropriate or not), but he did not strikeout the offending passage as I requested.

He has since continued to revert any deviation from the lead image that is not his way. He will wait again a few days until things have calmed down and change this current version back to his preferred version. This to me is indicative of ownership behavior. To me his comments have been uncivil and violating Wikipedia:Etiquette. He has driven editors to frustration, he has accused us, on this very page, of not being "real editors." This is uncivil behavior.

My original intent was, read my posts on the talk page, to offer alternatives to the lead image to stop pointless edit wars from happening. Nobody has ever removed his pet image, and I've even admitted it is a great image. They have moved it to another part of the article, but never removed it. Several editors do, however, think a lead image on the left is unsettling and clunky and want to move it to the right. Others move it back to the left. Why not choose an image just as "classic" that everyone agrees should be put on the right. This is all I've advocated, and all I have suggested. I have been met by intransigence, bullying, no-edit orders, claims of personal attacks, claims of canvassing, and claims that no edits should be made to a featured article. This uncivil behavior, indicative of ownership, is all that I am addressing here, not the merits of the lead image.

It matters not that the image was on the left as a lead image when it was approved for featured article status (by User:Awadewit, an ally of RelHistBuff's). I don't care which image leads this article. I will not abide, SandyGeorgia (since you think I am only quibbling about minor issues), a user telling other people to stop editing his article because there is no fixing needed. Or you, SandyGeorgia, for that matter, condescendingly telling people on this very page to leave a supposed "better class" of editors alone. That is elitism pure and simple.

This is only tangentially related to the merits or demerits of a lead image on the left. This is about User:RelHistBuff's clear ownership behavior, his bullying, his incivility, and his lack of etiquette. Please, don't look at the argument over the lead image, read the criteria for ownership, bullying, incivility, and etiquette and judge User:RelHistBuff's actions. Judge mine too. I freely admit sarcasm. TuckerResearch (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If you read my posts on the talk page, I really don't care which image leads and where it is. Great, that's where I stopped reading this WP:TLDR post; let's all move on to something substantial now. The image business never enjoyed broad consensus, even at FAC, MOS is ever-changing, and this really should stop. Why you continue to pursue something you admit you don't care about is a mystery, and it's also wasting time. Guidelines are guidelines; there's no need for one person to demand an image be moved, and make such an issue of it. See Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Tucker, if you have ownership concerns, I suggest the talk page of WP:OWN or image concerns WT:MOS (where you will find dozens of editors who love to debate this sort of thing), but this is not WQA material, IMO. But I'll tell you in advance, Senra's two examples above tell the broader story of how much concern there is over this issue in general. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Because if you read the post, instead of condescendingly dismissing it, you'd see it is only tangentially related to the lead image and the MOS. It is about the ownership behavior, bullying, and incivility of User:RelHistBuff. But you've already indicated that you don't care what proles like me think, haven't you? TuckerResearch (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You've admitted you don't care about the image, so was this situation provoked? It reads that way. Yes, I don't care much for provocative arguments over trivia-- we've got other things to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So, we should ignore ownership behavior, incivility, and bullying because you judge the issue to be trivial? I provoked nobody, I stepped in to try and dissuade an editor from bullying. But, i guess as long as SandyGeorgia thinks it is trivial we should all just go home.... TuckerResearch (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I only know you've spent an awful lot of (your and other editor) time on something you say you don't care about, and which is a rather minor guideline. That seems disruptive to me, and we can all do something better with our time. I'm done here-- others may have other opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations again on missing the point. This is about the ownership behavior, bullying, and incivility of User:RelHistBuff. A user who just, again (see diff), unilaterally changed the image, claiming consensus was made way back during the FA process and it shouldn't (or can't) be changed. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cuchullain

Hello,

A while back I saw that Association football articles were referenced simply as "football", but American football articles were called American football. This didn't make sense, so for awhile I changed Association football articles from "football" to Association football to help avoid POV bias between the two codes. I went to Manchester United with this and another editor said to me, "No, it's an WP:ENGVAR issue, since in Manchester, people call Association football simply as football."

That's fine with me, as long as there isn't a POV, so I figured "Ok, i'll fix the American football articles to put them in line with the Association football articles rather than the other way around." That's when the trouble started.

I opened up an RFC on the issue, and no consensus could be reached either for or against the ENGVAR option or the full code name option, so I went with the ENGVAR option and Cuchullain (talk · contribs) and BilCat (talk · contribs) (who participated in the RFC, but did not contribute any solutions to fixing the problem) started on a campaign to destroy all my attempts to help with the problem.

It's gotten to the point where They're talking about me on their talk page, and whenever I try to bring more people into the RFC or reopen it elsewhere to get a firm consensus for or against anything, they call it "forum shopping".

I'm not sure what to do, or where to place this, I can provide more diffs if needed (diff cataloging isn't my specialty, i'd have to look back), I just want to solve this problem (NPOV between the two codes) and move on. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I originally brought this to WP:AN, but it's been suggested that I move it here. Bilcat does not want to be part of the discussion, and I want to honor his request from here if that's his wish.

I don't see that this as a wikiquette issue. The real issue here is the content dispute that has become a cross-article edit war. If you've found of my communications to be impolite, I apologize. However to my mind what I've done is to ask you, in increasingly strong terms, to stop edit warring.--Cúchullain t/c 17:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The American football articles and soccer articles should use the same approach. There's no reason to have wikipedia pretend that soccer is the only "real" football in the world. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Like a said: a content dispute.--Cúchullain t/c 18:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This is actually kind of hard to understand. Doc Quintana, could you please provide a diff or two of a specific thing you tried to change in this way, so I can get a clearer idea of what you actually want to do? Looie496 (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
As a note the user who filed this alert has been blocked] for 24 hours for harassing the other user mentioned here and has posted a "retired" notice on their talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 14:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk

Stale
 – Last comment was a month ago here. Netalarmtalk 05:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User Ivan Štambuk told to the opponent on the discussion page "sod off back to Hrvatsko slovo, Stormfront Croatia or wherever your ilk congregates" [28].
Second problem is that he's equalizing national cultural magazine (Hrvatsko slovo) with a site like Stormfront. With that he violated WP:BLP, since he etiquetted that way (by going around) all those eminent writers, scientists, publicists that are contributors of that magazine; many of them are academists.
I don't like to sue users directly on WP:ANI, so I wrote a complaint on the very same talkpage [29]. I wanted to give him a chance. But, he blatantly deleted that section from the talkpage [30]. Kubura (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You are basically correct but your own response was so belligerent that you have equalized the sin. Ivan needs to be less rude; you need to be more calm. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Left a note on personal attacks on both users. Nothing more needs to be done I believe, since this is a simple issue of rude/more aggressive comments. Netalarmtalk 20:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This complaint, over a comment made a month ago, has been brought up before (I forget whether ANI or where). I don't think we should get to bring up old gripes over and over until we get the punishment we want meted out. That should earn the poster a rebuke. [Okay, I can't find it in K's diffs, so possibly it was someone else, but a month?] — kwami (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Wait, what?! A month ago? *Goes check* Oh... I must have confused the September 3 for October 3. Archiving... and please don't post everywhere in order to get a user sanctioned or something. Netalarmtalk 05:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John J. Bulten

I reverted some changes made by JJB because I felt they were awkward and felt as if he were trying to re-impose a lipogram style on the article. This was met with several personal attacks questioning my anti-lipogram leanings and declaring that the only thing I wanted was to put as many e's in the article as possible. I provided examples of several changes that JJB made that I left because I thought they improved the article, and warned both JJB and another editor that they were attacking me by making accusations that had no basis in fact. These attacks have continued and I have brought the situation here as a first step in the DR process. I am looking to get a user to step in and get JJB (and Martin but he left the talk page) to stop insisting that I am only looking at this from an anti-lipogram POV. The situation doesn't support their cries of prejudice. Padillah (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

'Tis to laugh. Padillah undid only two words: "townsfolk" (which Padillah now holds as moot), and "his". I thought it was gratuitous for him to cut "his" by saying, "It's not HIS town" in that John Gadsby did not "own it", and I said so. Sourcing (Wright 1939) univocally says "his town", about John Gadsby. Also, without links or diffs to Padillah's accusations, I don't know what I said that sounds similar to his paraphrasing of what I said. So I don't know how to say in good faith that this undo is only and wholly about improving this topic, if WP:DUCK would imply to most anybody that it is also about undoing lipogrammatic contributions qua lipograms. This is not a WQA, this is battling about stylistics. JJB 17:52, 2010-09-28 (UTC)

So your best argument that I am unreasonable is that I have listened to you and accepted your proposed change? Interesting.

Fair warning to any that attempt to address this issue. JJB has the annoying habit of writing in lipogram as a tribute to the book that is the subject of this article. At time divining his true message requires assumption and reading between the lines. He begins by questioning my motives right in this edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gadsby%3A_Champion_of_Youth&action=historysubmit&diff=387351778&oldid=387311465

Somewhere in this menage is the accusation that "Your implication that common phrasing trumps sourcing conformity, and your switch-up from this rationalization to that, do not play towards showing good faith" Which is the lipogramatic way of saying what Martin says below. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gadsby:_Champion_of_Youth&diff=prev&oldid=387366032

Martin Harris fully confronts the issue in this post. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gadsby:_Champion_of_Youth&diff=next&oldid=387370208

Then he continues (in his infuriatingly lipogramatic manner) to insist that I am operating from a purely anti-lipogram POV But this is ridiculous how much work you put in to say at last that this is all about your liking, and to imply that antilipogrammaticity is not on your mind at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gadsby:_Champion_of_Youth&diff=next&oldid=387515157

The caustic nature of this reply should be apparent to anyone that wants to see it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gadsby:_Champion_of_Youth&diff=next&oldid=387564184

I submit to board opinion as to what I should say my apology for. JJB 20:27, 2010-09-28 (UTC)
I personally consider this lipogram stuff disruptive, since it quite obviously leads to usage of suboptimal, not to say strained, wording in many cases. If you can sneak it in without it being noticed, I don't care, but edit-warring to maintain it is not good behavior. If you want to write in lipograms, start a blog, please. Looie496 (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Fly-by contributors put in occasional disruptions such as abysmal synonyms of nonlipogrammatic words. But I always work it out if anybody thinks my wording proposal is suboptimal. Long ago it was laid down that contributors would work only toward improving and not officially toward lipogram or not. All this is not WQA's point, naturally. JJB 05:09, 2010-09-29 (UTC)
Well, that response is a case in point. Virtually every sentence you write comes across as stilted. Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This is also a problem I have communicating with JJB - inasmuch as they never address an actual point they also never admit to understanding your point. So when I ask them to rescind the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, they act like they have no idea how I could assume that was bad faith. I have pointed out in diffs above where they have, in my estimation (which is really the best I can do given the circumstance), leveled personal attacks against me and JJB simply talks about "the" and ignores my issue completely. Padillah (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional factors

I think I am on solid ground to say that this diff sounds apropos for this board to look at. This is similar to his prior claim that I am notably lacking in grammar skills, and his followup that I don't wait too long to do things and that my writing is just "gold". By contrast, I did wait many moons to complain about this (am I attacking if I call it an insult?), and now Padillah has his gold, viz., a WP:GOLDLOCK for half a month. By contrast, I only said that an undo was gratuitous and that Padillah should think about if it was casuistic or contrarian. This might count as a hint of an attack, but I trust my diffs count as hints too? Could anybody assist in classifying my diffs? Thank you! JJB 17:00, 1 Oct 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Every single line above contributed by Mr. Bulten is a lipogram. He uses no Es save a few in non-showing links. What the heck is up with that? This is an encyclopedia, not an electronic slate for word games, is it not? —Carrite, Oct. 3, 2010.

Agreed; Bulten's conceit is just that—conceited—and does nothing at all to improve Wikipedia. In fact, his persistent playing of word-games detracts from Wikipedia, in two ways: it makes the article more difficult to understand, due to its tortured, stilted phrasing; and it drives off other editors, who want to improve the reference work rather than play Bulten's game. While I admire the linguistic skill required to so consistently omit the language's most frequent letter, it's a party trick better suited to other venues. It is, in short, now crossing the line of being disruptive. I encourage Bulten to either leave off the lipograms, or take the indulgence someplace where it can be properly appreciated. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads

Resolved
 – Misunderstanding

I believe I've figured out how that could have been a misunderstanding.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

20:17, 1 October 2010

<!-- I object to Johnuniq's insulting dismissal in the strongest possible way. It created an antagonistic atmosphere and should be removed/oversighted with no negative reflection on EotR.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC) -->

I'm fine with marking it simply as "resolved" or "mutually resolved", if and only if, Johnuniq retracts his preemptive and unequivocal assessment as biased. By direct analogy to this ad hominem:

Johnuniq's anxieties about what religious sect people perceive him as being a member of are getting in the way here.

If that would be a perfectly acceptable tactic, then the WP:NPA policy is optional and calling it out was, indeed, "a waste of time".—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks, insults, ad hominem arguments, religious presumptions and slurs... Egregious incivility with no remorse and no concern for WP:NPA. See every post the user made at the AfD after their first.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could follow the instructions at the top of this page - especially B3 and B5. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I've dropped her a line. I read through the AFD, and Machine Elf 1735 is clearly upset about the way the AFD is going, but I confess I don't see any obvious incivility on Elen of the Roads' part. Perhaps I'm missing some crucial context (I know nothing about Wicca). — e. ripley\talk 20:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi E.Ripley, thanks for letting me know about this. Machine Elf obviously missed that this might be a helpful move. I absolutely don't know what has got up ME's nose here - I think their suggestions about redirecting the original name (Cultus Sabbati)to Chumbley is valid, and merging the content into to what is basically a list article about all these modern styles of witchcraft is a valid suggestion, although I think that whole article has problems of its own. I don't think that Cultus Sabbati or Sabbatic Witchcraft are particularly notable. I did point out that there is a band called Cultus Sabbati which seems to be some flavour of goth, which also seems to be not notable but could cause a little confusion. One of the reasons I thought Sabbatic Witchcraft might suffer is that, other that the Azoetia (which currently changes hands for vast sums, being out of print), and a few other primary sources, there aren't really any sources. It's a problem for all the styles of witchcraft/paganism that pass among small, closed circles, is that nobody who knows anything says anything. Scholarly researchers pass it by (Chumbley does make it into Hutton's Triumph of the Moon, which is a key scholarly source, but Drury passes him by, for example); and one is left with forums populated by people who really want to join but can't find anyone who is actually 'in the know'. The whole article about contemporary witchcraft might suffer from the same problem - I won't nominate it for deletion, but there certainly isn't the depth of third party sources that there are in other areas. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I also didn't want to get into an argument about whether bodies such as Llewellyn Worldwide - who will basically in my opinion publish anything 'New Age' provided they think they can sell it to someone - constitute reliable sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, if Machine Elf can point me to anything I said directly to him/her that has offended them, I will of course retract it, as it was not my intention to even direct a remark to Machine Elf, let alone upset them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Elen of the Roads, so long as no one is announcing that not so much as an etiquette problem occurred, I'd be satisfied if, without reference to me, you would find some points (privately, not for publication) that you believe you could have done better and that you want to do better in the future with regard to WP:NPA. That make sense?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC) e. ripley? Johnuniq? Is that not going to be possible?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


  • I just examined each edit at WP:Articles for deletion/Sabbatic Witchcraft and there is no wikiquette issue. In this edit Elen of the Roads added "(who fluffs no bunnies)" but that comment was not directed at any editor (not even by suggestion). For anyone as mystified as myself, it appears that fluffy bunny is a "pejorative expression used ... to refer to adherents of the religion who are thought to be superficial or faddish". I suggest closure of this discussion to avoid a further waste of time. Johnuniq (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The primary definition of a Fluffy Bunny is one who refuses to learn, refuses to think, and refuses to consider the possibility that they could possibly ever be wrong. Generally, they find one book, author or website and follow it as if it were the holy word, frequently denouncing anything that disagrees with it as obviously false. Fluffy Bunnies rarely get past the defense of "Because [insert favorite author here] says so." Sometimes they don't even get that far, responding to any and all criticism with something like, "You're just trying to persecute me!"
Persecuting Johnuniq's superficial choice, waste of time that I am.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, I didn't realize there were so many edits... I see you've contacted the user. I've redacted a comment here inline with Elen of the Roads's remarks here, thank you, (although most of it is directly related to contemporary witchcraft and not the AfD).
There were several links to fluffy bunny on the AfD page Johnuniq, and I'm more concerned that the User understands WP:NPA than your inability to recognize an etiquette issue which was apparently so mysterious to you. It was wholly inappropriate for an AfD.
I think you should take another look at 14:21, the last one Johnuniq. This is a farce if you're announcing there's no violation of WP:NPA there.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • 21:54, 29 Sep - Elen of the Roads The user says they should clarify, but with an oblique reference to something I said being "not for this AfD", they don't clarify, and after their sig they put "(who fluffs no bunnies)" fluffy bunny being an unequivocably insulting term for extremely annoying self–styled witches who know nothing, but think they know it all. (Probably, a double entendre with fluffing, but I didn't go there).
  • 03:10, Mach Elf I thought the user's next post also seemed sarcastic and off topic.... (For full disclosure, I'll give my diffs. The short paragraphs just above my responses are the User's).
  • 13:47, Mach Elf But I AGFed as best I could... thinking the user hadn't responded to the fluffy bunny thing and capriciousness about clarifying their !vote.
  • 04:11, Mach Elf Here I replied when noticed the User's post from 10:29, w/o a sig which said "your sensitivities are probably not my problem" but the User didn't intend to "disturb" me.
  • 14:21, Here's their most egregious personal attacks Please note the consequences of declining blame for having recognized that the user insulted someone when, in fact, the user had indeed insulted someone, (allegedly, someone not involved with the AfD). The user doesn't address, (or even so much as acknowledge, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT thank you), the policy issue that I am concerned about, they explicitly make it sound like we disagree regarding notability... because I had just explained that I don't disagree about it (no one disagrees about the notability, it's a moot point).
  • 17:34, Mach Elf Here's my reply... I didn't respond to the parts where the user assumes I practice witchcraft and that I'm anxious about "what kind of witch" other people see me as... (An NPOV one who was saying something grounded in policy & guidelines, I hope. I was a little concerned what the closing admin would think of the polemics however...)—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I really, really don't know how to respond to this. None of my comments were directed at or towards Machine Elf, whom I have never previously encountered, I didn't intend to disturb or upset him/her, and I tried to make this clear and reassure him/her, but that only seems to have made the situation worse. I'm beginning to feel I'm in the kind of situation where a random stranger in a bar starts ranting at you because they think you eyeballed their boyfriend (who you'd never even noticed). It just seems to be a massive misunderstanding. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sure there were some misunderstandings. The only thing on my mind was the AfD, so I was definitely concerned how the text would appear to the closing admin. I'm not sure if that sheds any light on anything but it was kind of freaky when you wrote that my supposed anxieties "about what kind of witch people perceive [me] as" were "getting in the way".
I really really don't know what you meant, and it's entirely plausible that it was some sort of misunderstanding. I believe, perhaps mistakenly, that you understand what an ad hominem is and that it's prohibited by the WP:NPA policy. Maybe you don't see it as an ad hominem, or maybe you do but feel it's prudent not to volunteer anything specific (or even general)? Please assume good intelligence before good faith on my part too. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not here to pressure you about anything like that. If you want to discuss it, fine. If not, that's fine too. I hope this forum isn't about assigning blame. I'm not the metaphoric guy at the bar "ranting" at your boyfriend. I've answered you carefully and rationally all along. The only time I was rushed was when I was trying to put the diffs together here. (My fault entirely for not reading reading everything first). Some of your quicker, less thoughtful posts seemed a bit like short rants to me too, but that's entirely subjective. I don't claim to know you, I've seen you around, I forget where, obviously you know a few admins here at least... maybe I saw you in some spooky admin forum and assumed you were one too, I forget. I believe we're now acquitted. Should I use "she" rather than "they" when referring to you? Please use "he" for me, thanks.
I don't mean to ramble but I really don't know what to say either. I'm not here to accuse you but I won't tolerate being portrayed as some kind of lunatic or liar. If your friend will just admit he/she is biased, no shame in that, then I'm fine with some kind of "mutually resolved" closing whenever you are. If there's anything I wrote that's a mistake, let me know. I make mistakes. If there's language that seems too strong, let me know, perhaps I can find a way to be more circumspect.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In direct response to "I'd be satisfied if, without reference to me, you would find some points (privately, not for publication) that you believe you could have done better and that you want to do better in the future with regard to WP:NPA from Machine Elf above, firstly, anything I have to say will go on the public record here; secondly, I am entitled to offer my opinion on the notability or credibility of a topic which is listed at AfD, which is what I did - I don't think it's notable, I don't think that what I would regard as reliable third party sources refer to it. Ultimately, your reaction to that viewpoint is your problem, not mine. I'm sorry if that statement seems uncaring, but it's not a personal attack. Nothing was a personal attack.Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, that's cool. I'm not really sure how the forum works. I just meant to say, I'm not looking for any public (or private) apologies, explanations or anything like that, but by all means, be as public as you like.
I totally agree, you can offer your opinion on the notability or credibility of any topic whether it's at an AfD or not. Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to sway any opinion you stated, I'm sure I did try in some cases and in others I might have agreed or disagreed. I've only been to 2 AfD's before, I guess discussions and consensus tend to have a slightly different "culture" there? Not my cup of tea.
As you know, I'm just trying to make sure the redirect is saved when the AfD closes. I don't see that as a "problem" and certainly not "your problem" but I read you loud and clear, that's my problem, I won't expect any help from you.
I never said this sort of thing is a personal attack, but if there's some specific incident you're referring to where I said you crossed the line, then yes, you crossed the line to some degree -or- there was some sort of misunderstanding. Does that sound reasonable?
There's no need for you to keep repeating yourself to me the way you do. That sort of thing can become disruptive... (not an accusation). Again, I agree. Everyone agrees. Not notable. So say we all... moving on. If you ever have a problem with "my reaction" to anything, let me know, discretely if possible. Your good advice would generally be welcome too. Thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see any obvious incivility, I'm sure some of this is in the interpretation and possibly quite a few misunderstandings along the way. But in any case, Machine Elf has said he was offended, Elen of the Roads has said she never intended for him to be offended, and invoking assume good faith about both positions that seems to me to be pretty much the best outcome here. Let's put this one to rest as more light than heat. — e. ripley\talk 15:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If Machine Elf is OK with it, we can just put it down to a misunderstanding and move on.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Marked as such (if Machine Elf has an issue with it, the tag should be replaced accordingly). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
It is clear that my comment above (which is the only comment I have made in connection with this issue) has caused offense, and I am sorry about that – it was certainly not intended as dismissive or insulting, although I can see that my "avoid a further waste of time" could be interpreted as dismissive. My intention was to say that my reading of the problem discussion was that Elen of the Roads made a comment that was not at all directed at another editor, and it was a misunderstanding that led to the further disagreement. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy Dingley & Terrillja

Plus other articles. Haven't been using Wikipedia for months now, mainly due to harrassment by Andy Dingley. As soon as arrive back, all edits are reverted by Andy Dingley without good reason, including pages that Andy Dingley hasn't edited before. A bit tired of this harrassment now, as I believe the sole intention is to bully me from editing Wikipedia. Terrillja's part in all this is to reinforce the supposed validity of Andy Dingley's edits by reverting my edits. Rapido (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Please just take a look at Rapido's edit history. Huge POV-push against articles on UK local radio, particularly pirate radio. Also many past visits to ANI/I et al, for his attacks on other editors, myself included. Particular favourite techniques are blanking adverse comments on his talk:page, so remember to read the history. He's also fond of instructing editors that they mustn't add to his talk: page (I have no intention of following that).
In the current case, he seems to be extending any WP policy he can to justify mass-deletion of content (two independent editors have explained to him today that WP:SPS isn't a blanket ban on the inclusion of such). Given past behaviour, his actions are likely to involve stripping content from an article on the shakiest of grounds, then seeking its deletion for having no content.
I have nothing to hide here. Just look at the edit histories. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure where he gets "huge POV-push against" or "mass deletion of content" about articles on radio; most of the Wikiquette, ANI etc interventions were due to Andy Dingley's attacks on myself. A clear case of WP:AOBF. If someone were to look at edit histories, they would see Andy Dingley's contributions to certain pirate radio station AFDs; his opposal to deletion was mainly due to him being an enthusiast for those particular stations - surely that's overt POV pushing? I am quite free to blank comments on my own talk page, particularly when they mostly consist of harrassment. Rapido (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec x2)I'm a bit mystified here as I'm being called a bully after having my good faith edits reverted as vandalism. Just doesn't seem to make sense. --Terrillja talk 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Both of you need to cease referring to edits by the other as vandalism. Rapido needs to stop using template warnings on established editors, and to cease edit-warring against the consensus of other editors. On the whole, I consider this report baseless. Looie496 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking your time to carefully consider the case, before deciding "one contrib, one vote". Rapido (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Veriss1

Resolved
 – Agreement that the editor's actions constitute a misreading of Userspace policy and that the user should desist from further edits to the page in question. Eusebeus (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Veriss1 keeps editing([31][32]) the caption of an image on my user page claiming that I am "advocating" something, which I'm clearly not -- the caption is a neutral description of the image, without any of my opinions on the image. I've asked him not to edit my user page twice([33] and [34]), and he is continuing to do so. I'd like to have someone else step in and try to inform him about Wikipedia policy regarding editing other people's user pages, since my attempts seem to have failed. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The user is clearly and willfully violating the guidelines of User's Pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Veriss1, I can't see anything wrong with the user having that picture on his page. The caption on the picture matches the one on the upload. Rather than edit war over it, please explain why you feel a violation has occurred. Dayewalker (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The user is clearly and willfully violating the guidelines of User's Pages, specifically the advocacy section, and utilizing aggressive means to attempt to continue presenting such opinionated views. I attempted to edit the caption of the inflammatory photograph in question to be neutral in POV while it is hosted by wiki provided resources only to be subjected to the immediate and hostile threats of the person filing this "complaint".
As a long time and sincere editor of Wikipedia, I demand and insist upon a full, impartial review of the circumstances. Thank you. (we posted at the same time, had to repost and I may have some posting conflicts) Veriss. Veriss (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If you're talking about the WP:USERPAGE section on advocacy here [35], please explain what exactly on Jrtayloriv's user page is in violation of the section. It's a properly-cleared picture with a caption that matches the uploaded description. Dayewalker (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict x a zillion) Why do you feel a violation has occurred? I noticed you mentioned advocacy on a few pages, but on WP:UP, that specifically points to: "Statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone the following behaviors: Vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence (includes mention or implication of all forms of violence but not mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence)." I'm just not sure how this particular image falls in that category. Can you please clarify? --132 05:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The photo does not indicate why the young person was shot, what he was doing when he was shot, who shot him nor what his background is. By posting such a provocative image of a young person, bloody and killed in a violent manner appears to support a particular point of view. My small edit was an attempt to bring the photo into NPOV. That is not a personal homepage, it is community space and is searchable by all the major search engines. Veriss (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I was not edit warring nor have I ever been involved in an edit war. I edited the page once and reverted it once. That is not edit warring. The user insisted on escalating the discussion to the community at large. I have not been edit warring nor have I become hysterical and begged for community intervention. Veriss (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Nor did you ever actually explain yourself. Jrtayloriv did the right thing in terms of dispute resolution. As the caption on the picture is the same as the upload information, how can it be POV? And how do you know better the details of the picture than the person who took it and uploaded it? Dayewalker (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not claim to know better. The caption only states "Iraqi teenager shot in Buhriz, Iraq on Oct. 22nd, 2004 by U.S. soldiers" Was he holding a rifle that is off camera, planting a bomb, signaling for an ambush, running drugs, shot in crossfire, murdered in cold blood. There is no context. If you look my edits merely suggested "allegedly". I am astounded that this has gotten this far and I am on the defensive when the project is about neutrality and objectivity. Veriss (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, how does that "advocate, encourage, or condone" the above-mentioned acts? You may disagree with the photo and its caption, but does it really and truly violate the very policy you are fighting it as? It appears that you are making inferences here, which is original research and would not be allowed in the general Wikipedia. The fact that you are pushing it on another user's user page makes it rather inappropriate. Can you please explain why it is inappropriate per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies? Thank you. --132 06:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
As follows unless suddenly the Wikipedia Foundation suddenly became a willing operative in the US debate concerning military involvement in the Middle East:

::Promotional and advocacy material and links - Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links).

Taken in conjunction with the other material on the page, both text and image, the image is clearly advocating a particular stance concerning US politico-military activities in the Middle East. Veriss (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of User Pages in general, but I don't see anything wrong with the picture being captioned exactly what the uploader initially captioned it as. If you feel strongly about it, might I suggest filing a request for comment? Dayewalker (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
One minute you're arguing about the image and the next you're arguing about the page as a whole. Which is it? --132 06:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
@132I was referred here about midnight my time....not by my choice. I was not aware that I needed to hire a team of attorneys to thoroughly research and represent fair and objective neutrality at this late hour. I feel that the caption of the image, when viewed in conjunction with the entirety of the page is not in keeping with the principles of the foundation -- neutrality and objectivity. My problems are mostly concerning the image itself but it must also be viewed in context with the page in it's entirety. To do otherwise defeats all intelligent logic. The material is what it is. If a consensus of editors feels that that the situation represents advocacy, I trust that the community will do the right thing. (More posting conflicts...please bear with me as try to sort out if there are conflicting posts again.) Veriss (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Veriss -- You've repeatedly stated that there is a problem with "advocacy". Can you inform us all of what it is that I'm advocating? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

@Jrtayloriv With your fine edit history, I cannot believe that you sincerely believe that you are not pushing a particular point of view with your page and the images you chose to include, as well as their captions. Please reflect on that and consider the impact on the foundation and over all wiki project as a whole since the personal user page the foundation permits you to use reflects directly on the foundation. From the edits I've seen you make, I know that you must know the difference. If pride has brought us to this seemingly partisan chaos masquerading as arbitration, I will be the first to apologize for editing your page without consulting you first if you commit bring your page within the norms of neutral POV. Very sincerely, Veriss Veriss (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Rarely do issues of POV fall within the guidelines of user pages, so long as the user isn't attacking or violating various policies. There are numerous religious, political, ethical and otherwise userboxes, which are used on a variety of user pages, which pose no ill will and are only there to provide others with an insight into their character. I understand you disagree with this particular user's page, but that does not give you the right to essentially ban them from their disagreement with your opinion. You are going to need to better explain your opposition. At this point, it simply feels like a disagreement, as opposed to a violation of policy or a violation of Wikiquette. Can you please expand? Thank you. --132 07:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there's no need to expand at this point. Wikiquette is a simple first step in the dispute resolution process. Veriss1 should understand by now that his actions aren't allowed by policy, and simply because his POV disagrees with what he believes Jrtaylor's POV to be, that does not give him the right to remove the items or rewrite parts of Jrtaylor's User Page. That should be cleared up by now. Veriss1 has attempted to make his case to Jrtaylor to change the caption, Jrtaylor can make his own decision, but is under no obligation to do so. A long debate over policy on the Wikiquette board won't help this case, as this isn't the correct place for it. Jrtaylor has what he was hoping for, in that his user page should be left alone again. Veriss1, if you feel there's something more to this on your end, I encourage you to either take your case politely to Jrtaylor's talk page and try and convince him there, or file an request for comment, which is the next step in resolving a dispute. Well done, everyone. Dayewalker (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for taking the time to discuss this. Hopefully this will resolve the issue. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Two random editors who happen to be active at 3am do not a consensus make. Wiki policy is quite clear concerning advocating. I have made a good faith effort to resolve it but sadly this very minor issue though elevated, has not been resolved. It's way past time for bed, we'll see what folks say tomorrow. Good night everyone and thank you for your opinions in the matter. Veriss (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Policy is indeed quite clear, which brings the question of why you think you have a right to do this. NPOV doesn't apply to userspace, by the way, so I don't see how you are bringing that into this matter. I've seen again and again that you are asked to specifically explain your view point in this, and I have again and again see you refuse to do so. All you have responded with is general terms. Now, you've been told by more experienced editors why it is wrong for you to edit war with this user on their user page, and you've been told when venues you should bring this up on. I suggest you leave this thread be, because nothing more is going to come of it.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. You need to desist or you will be blocked for edit warring and disruption at AN/I, where this will be clear cut per userspace policy. Eusebeus (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer:Veriss approached me on my talk page due to a previous encounter and wanted to get my input on the subject. That being said, Veriss, I find myself siding with Jrtayloriv. The picture may, in your opinion, be tasteless. The page itself clearly shows JR's political bias/perspective. BUT it does not violate Wikipedia:Userpage#Advocacy_or_support_of_grossly_improper_behaviors_with_no_project_benefit. The advocacy page is related to Vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence (includes mention or implication of all forms of violence but not mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence). The second part of that statement needs to be reiterated, but not mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence. In this case, I think you are looking at the image and the statement as being advocacy for/against the later criteria. If we were dealing with an article page, then NPOV would apply and you might have an argument. On a user page, NPOV is not required and I didn't notice any BLP issue. Thus, I would have to side with JR here. I will state that I think making one's page like that is a little dumb, it undermines JR's credibility/objectivity when editing related pages---but he's free to do so.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Marknutley

Resolved
 – Issue is under discussion at ANI, Wikipedia:Ani#Questions_about_multiple_users. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would like to get an outside opinion on seemingly disruptive behavior by marknutley, specifically his recent actions on Communist terrorism. Today he shortened full quote by Marx there under pretext of following WP:RS. I reverted him and pointed out that it is easy to find a RS for the quote in question if he really wants to follow the RS policy. He proceeded to revert and edit war on the article, issuing unjstified warnings to TFD, Paul Siebert, myself, requested page protection and escalated the issue to WP:ANI. He clearly showed symptoms of WP:DONTLIKEIT, edit-warred, abused talk warnings, and generally disrupted Wikipedia. I think mark's general attitude to topics connected to criticism of Communism is to blame, as one can see in his edits to other related articles, such as mass killings under Communist regimes. (Igny (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

I don't like those edits, but I'm not seeing personal attacks, which is the jurisdiction of this board. Hate to get bureaucratic on you. Have I missed personal attacks/incivility? Figureofnine (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I think I chose the wrong forum. How can I close this issue? (Igny (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC))
Just say "close it please", and your friendly neighborhood admin will take care of it--I would, if I knew how to. :) Drmies (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Close it, pretty please? (Igny (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

  •  Done ;) Drmies (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry

I would like to report User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry who branded my discussion at Nigel de Jong "anal rants" and who repeatedly accuse me of acting in bad faith. I have been trying to restore neutrality to the article: ([36]) which had become heavily loopsided: ([37] and ([38]). He even threatened to have me banned simply because he does not agree with what I said. I would be very grateful if an administrator or an experienced user can take time to comment of the NPOV issue as well.Craddocktm (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Guipuscoa

Resolved

Please not the above are not all related to User:Guipuscoa but it's a complex problem and I'm not entirely sure as yet where to take it. The issue is as follows, there has been an increasing rash of people who crusade in Basque related articles. The two main issues are as follows:

  • Attempts to replace the agreed consensus name of the province Gipuzkoa with Guipuscoa (a form that was decided against, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basque). There are various editors involved, though mostly IP editors.
  • Attempts to airbrush out any references to Basque ethnicity. Everyone who has ever worked on a Basque related article knows it's an issue that gets both sides of the argument inflamed but for the most part, it has been found an agreeable compromise to use formulations such as Spanish Basque explorer - most of these are fairly stable and while not everyone is having their own way, are agreeable to most parties.

The problem is it's not a single page that's affected or a single editor who's involved but an increasing number of them. On some other pages that might not be a massive issue as there are many watchers but Basque articles tend to be less well watched and on occassion, it's hard not to fall prey to 3RR as most of them (mainly the IPs) never respond to messages or (such as Guipuscoa) aren't entirely open to rational arguments, instead resorting to accusations of rampant nationalism (such as [39], [40]). Which is funny, as I'm not even Basque... Dealing with the issue in hand obviously is high on the agenda but beyond that, is there a way of resolving this long term as it's costing me a lot of time that I could spend doing better things on Wikipedia. Apologies if this is the wrong page but after having spent 30 minutes looking at all the conflict resolution pages, I'm still not sure which one fits this problem. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The most awfull of this situation is that Akerbeltz and ñaki LL are acusing me of manipulation and sabotage when my work in wikipedia is revert his sabotage and political manipulation, they are talking about "it has been found an agreeable compromise to use formulations such as Spanish Basque explorer - most of these are fairly stable and while not everyone is having their own way, are agreeable to most parties" and there is not True at all, there is not such a compromise, because it oes not exist basque spanish, only spanish, basqueland is not a state and in wiki, they don´t tolere this. It´s just a attemp in favour of basque nationalism and agaisnt Spain as sovereign state, in all this explorer and people, it figure their birthplace and is enougth, to pretend write basque spanish instead of spanish is a aseveration that they are not spanish, and it´s what tehy want. here I give you two examples of their bad faith: [[41]] and [[42]] In the first talk even it´s editing only to delete Spain, for him San Sebastian it´s not Spain. but this is (or we want) a serious enciclopedia, not a propaganda basque nationalism, and San Sebastian is part Spain. In this page I give you the continuos relation with Akerbeltz and IñakiLL [[43]] they both they thnk thet are the only with rigats to chane wikipedia. Please stop this vandalism!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guipuscoa (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am glad that Guipuscoa has decided to respond here. Meanwhile, I have left him a 3RR warning, since he is up to three reverts at Lope de Aguirre. The best place to continue this discussion might be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basque. If either side continues to revert on the subject of Basque nationality or naming without proper discussion, admins are standing by. It is hard to find a simple solution to these nationality matters that pleases everybody, so the willingness to compromise is essential. See WP:PLACE and WP:NAME for some of the options. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I agree compromise is essential - though AFAICT we already were operating on a compromise. I'd love to hear a rational argument from Guipuscoa on the issue on any talk page. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
And you really need to familiarise yourself with the way Wikipedia works, Guipuscoa. You accuse me of airbrushing out Spain with reference to a change from San Sebastián, Spain to San Sebastián. The reason I changed that is to avoid an unneccessary redirect as the San Sebastián, Spain ends up on San Sebastián anyway. By all means add Spain if you feel that it adds something for the reader. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
There's something fishy going on that someone might want to look into this. Out of nowhere, there's suddenly a rash of single purpose accounts coming up spewing (sorry, but there's no other term for it) POV nonsense and all edit warring over pretty much the same thing:
Is there some way of looking into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akerbeltz (talk • contribs) 2010-10-06 14:18:26 (UTC)


I was going to report that proliferation of single-purpose accounts driving a crusade. Once again, it's easier to destroy than to create... this is turning into a nonsense, I don't think we should devote so much time to revert vandalism. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 12:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Guipuscoa has taken care of this. If there is a need for any further discussion, it should probably take place at WT:WikiProject Basque. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, can someone close this then please? Akerbeltz (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Jenab6

Jenab6 continues to use the talk page as a forum and has made some unacceptable comments.[44][45][46][47][48][49][50] It would be appreciated if an admin could give him a friendlier notice than I am capable of and provide the Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement. Cptnono (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case you might need to read {{uw-chat1}}, {{uw-chat2}}, {{uw-chat3}} and {{uw-chat4}}. Each time a user uses a talk page as a forum you issue a warning using the templates I've just listed. You use {{uw-chat1}} for the first time. If the user repeats after the first warning you use {{uw-chat2}}. If the user repeats after the second warning you use {{uw-chat3}}. If the user repeats after the third warning you use {{uw-chat4}}. If the user repeats after the fourth warning you report the user at WP:ANI, and provided you have followed the warning procedure correctly they will be blocked from editing for a period of time. Make sure you have firm grounds for issuing any warnings, it has to be clear to an uninvolved editor that the user is using talk pages as a forum. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Race and intelligence is subject to discretionary sanctions per here - a request for enforcement can be made at WP:AE. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The edit to Talk:Race and intelligence was back in May, and the edit to Talk:Donald Boström was a year ago. The only recent edits were to Talk:MV Mavi Marmara, and only the one from August was out of line. This is a very low-volume editor, not the sort it is reasonable to make "forum" complaints about. I can't see any justification for taking any action at all at this point. Cptnono, is there some background to this that I am missing? Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
No background. The guy is continuously using the talk page as a forum and making some pretty inflammatory comments. But if an admin won't give a formal warning and provide the template then nevermind. Good to see that we can disregard guidelines. I'll keep it in mind.Cptnono (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk

I would like to report the rude and nationalistic conduct of User:Ivan Štambuk who without provocation said the following about me on the discussion page for Serbo-Croatian: [51] Croatian nationalist Vodomar (a diaspora Croat - these are the worst) recruited from Croatian Wikipedia repeatedly demonstrates exceptional ignorance and a propensity to fabricate history. . I was only disputing the facts that are on the ground with what was written in the article, and in any way was causing grief. I respect whatever beliefs a certain user has, and any debate is an intellectual exercise, robust debates are fine as well. However this is uncalled for. Please look into this issue, as this has gone too far. Vodomar (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

also his insults towards Kubura here here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.155.254 (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Heavydata

Resolved
 – Heavydata agreed to change their tone and considers the matter resolved. SwarmTalk 20:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Heavydata continued to be very rude to people after I gave him a warning. I looked back at his talkpage and he has been warned before. If you even just look back at his contributions, that are talkpages, you'll see where he flames lots of people. Endofskull (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you stop following me? If people don't want to be treated rudely by me, then they shouldn't add vandalism to pages. Simple as that. I have absolutely no reason to give any vandals ANY respect. Heavydata (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not following you, I'm just standing up for the people who don't need to get yelled at. Even though vandals are bad, you should politely warn them. Never, not in any situation should you yell at someone for their edit. They still deserve respect, especially if they apologize. Endofskull (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
If you would look at Owen the Kid's talk page, you can see that he's made countless vandalism edits and has been warned several times to stop. [52]. He knows damn well what he's doing, therefore he gets zero respect from me. And by the way, you are following me. You're tracking my edits to make sure if I'm nice to people or not, which is following me. Heavydata (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe so, but the all-caps yelling at Owen the Kid is not civil, and more importantly just makes things worse. Figureofnine (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
And I'm following Figureofnine, more or less by chance, and I agree completely: Heavydata, both the tone and the content of some of your messages are unacceptable. To IP 173.79.0.63, you said "Get a life kiddie, seriously", and that is quite uncivil. From your talk page, I gather that you have difficulties communicating courteously with other editors, whether they are vandals or not--and that really shouldn't matter anyway. WP is not a free-speech zone in which you can cuss at those whom you think deserve it. Please tone it back, considerably. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Heh, we don't always disagree. ;) Figureofnine (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
On a more substantitve note. Heavydata: my point about vandals is that your approach tends to backfire. These are kids playing with daddy's computer, or the puter at school, and a rude approach is not going to work. Better to just be firm and not raise your voice, as you would be with any small child. Figureofnine (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Well here's why I'm mean to people. I used to be polite to vandals in the past. I gave them the normal warnings and such. But many of them flat out ignored them and continued to vandalize pages, or make bad edits and not even tell me why they were making them in the first place. When I raised my tone, they stopped. So I figure I could stop this nonsense quicker if I just raise my tone immediately. Look at that Owen guy, he had SEVERAL polite warnings about vandalism and he's still doing it even after months. It flat out feels to me that nobody cares about these Johnny Test articles except me. Yes I know it's a show that many people hate the show with a passion for whatever reason (so it's an obvious target for vandalism), but I'm an adult and I enjoy it for some reason, so I don't know. I've stated a million times for a source when adding new episodes because people can (and have) make up fake episodes, yet not ONCE has ANYONE except me added a source for a new episode or airdate. I'm just asking for a url from a reliable source, such as CN's schedule page or toonzone or whatever. I'll never understand the internet and why it's incapable to do the most simplest things. And by the way, I stopped swearing months ago. Heavydata (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be rude but "And by the way, I stopped swearing months ago" isn't true, because on your second reply, it has cussing. Anyways, being uncivil doesn't help at all. If someone doesn't listen to you, you're gonna want to report them, and they'll get banned. Endofskull (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

<--If you actually think that yelling at people helps, this may not be the place to you. Again, I urge you to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, vandals or not. Use the template, don't add any commentary, leave it to the administrators--it's that simple. Doing more is usually counterproductive--and rude behavior to rude people is still rude behavior. I think some of us would want to hear from you that will not yell, cuss, or shout at other editors; that would be a good start. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider "Damn" a swear word, but I was saying worse words months ago. And by the way, if you check Drmies's userpage and scroll all the way down, you can see "the F-word" in an image on his page. If you look through his talk page history you can find many instances where he uses "the F-word" as well, like here [53]. So why is he allowed to use profanity but not me? But OK yeah I'll try to keep my little commentaries out. If I could just get some help so I wouldn't have to babysit these articles every single day and revert almost every single edit that wasn't mine then maybe it would be a little less stressful. But like I said, the show is a silly kids show and many teenagers/adults don't like it at all, so finding someone that can help might be hard. Heavydata (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I totally understand your frustration with vandals, and occasionally I try to do vandal fighting myself and come away feeling annoyed. However, and if you use Twinkle this becomes obvious, there are escalating templates that you can use for vandals. If they continue to vandalize and ignore a final warning, you can report them to WP:AIV with the push of a button. I think that you're wasting valuable emotional energy getting mad at unknown children, and I must also gently point out that being uncivil is a violation of WP:NPA, even when the targets are vandals. As for "babysitting" articles that are frequently vandalized, it's not necessary. The pages can be semiprotected, also through Twinkle, at the push of a button to make an automated request to WP:RPP. Please don't become emotionally invested in vandal fighting. It's not worth it. Thanks. Figureofnine (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes I know I shouldn't get frustrated since its just a silly kids show, but that Owen guy vandalized the page while it was protected and I had to request semi protection for the page SIX times. I've been having to deal with this nonsense for over a year. I'll give that twinkle a try,
And regarding your comment you left on my page Drmies, I agree that the F-bomb is not the same as "Get a life kiddie, seriously". I was referring to the fact that Endofskull gives me a hard time for using words like "Damn" (Like in my second paragraph here) and "Crap" yet other people can use profanity as much as they want with no problem. And that wasn't the only instance of profanity I found on Drmies' page (just use search function under the archive list). For me, I have absolutely no problem with profanity, Drmies can swear like crazy on his user and talk page all he wants, I honestly don't care. But this is solely directed towards EndofSkull: Why can't I say "He knows damn well" when he can say "Stephin fucking Colbert"? Heavydata (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It really depends on the context. If you feel that somebody is uncivil, you can always come here. There is a pretty high degree of incivility tolerated on the 'pedia. Sometimes it's best to just cool it, no matter what other people are doing, just for your own sake, not theirs. Figureofnine (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Heavydata, that's really irrelevant. We're talking about you. Anyways, just please stop being mean and rude to people, even vandals! Endofskull (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes it's relevant, because I don't understand the logic behind these unwritten profanity laws. Part of the reason I was reported in the first place was my profanity. I just want to know, OK? Secondly I already said I'd stop being "Rude and mean", I'm just trying to get a straight answer on this profanity issue. Heavydata (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, well I just addressed because you "stopped cussing". So anyways, does everyone think this problem is solved? Endofskull (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this discussion has pretty much run its course. Figureofnine (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, no it's not over. If you looked at his talk page, it's a personal attack, and it's saying he can edit anything he wants. Endofskull (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. It's over. I said I'd stop with my little commentaries and try other methods. What more do you want from me?Heavydata (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Endofskull, he hasn't posted on his talk page since March. He has made a pledge to cease personal attacks, if I understand him correctly. I see no purpose in further discussion. Figureofnine (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Wait, wait, wait. I meant user page. Click his user page. You see, he isn't stopping, even after saying (pledging!) he would! Endofskull (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see from the log that it was deleted as an attack page. I don't have access to the deleted version so I don't know what it says. I still think we've done all that can be done here. If there are further issues, I suggest raising it at AN/I. This is really for informal mediation not sanctions. Figureofnine (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Endofskull, you're claiming I'm being really rude to people. YOU'RE being really rude to me for accusing me of things after I said I'd stop. So why don't YOU stop being rude to me? It's people like you that caused me to be rude in the first place, you just don't listen! So at this point, you're only making things worse. The last edit to my userpage was in MARCH, and now it's deleted because it was created by a vandal. Maybe I should report you here next for harassing me. IT'S OVER, MOVE ON. Heavydata (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Wait wait. This is not over. Right after Heavydata said he'd stop, he made an attack page. I'm going to get some evidence from the user who deleted his user page. I've made a report at Adminstrators' Noticeboard, since I saw what Figureofnine said. Here's the report. Endofskull (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pschemp

Resolved
 – Filer agrees that this can be marked as resolved now. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pschemp left a note on Foxonline's talk page[54], which I spotted and felt was overly aggressive. I raised this with Pschemp[55], but my post was deleted without response[56]. In case this was an accident, I posted again[57], but my post was again deleted[58], and Pschemp asked me to "stop harassing" them[59].

I'd drop it, were it not for (as it seems to me) Pschemp using their admin status to threaten another editor. As it was, the accusation of harassment threw me—I don't think I acted out of hand in any way—so I took a couple of days away from the issue. Coming back to it, I still think there is an issue I'd like to resolve, namely whether the level of warning given to Foxonline was appropriate. Since I've been accused of harassment, I wanted to bring the discussion here for third-party involvement, rather than continuing alone.

As a side-note, I'll gladly accept advice and constructive criticism on how to better handle such situations in future, from editors involved or uninvolved. I'll suggest that's done on my talk page to avoid derailing this conversation, though, although feel free to overrule that wish. While I currently don't think I erred, I accept I may not be blameless here.

-- me_and 20:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the message did you feel was overly aggressive? Netalarmtalk 20:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The line "If you persist I will report you, as I am an administrator." Firstly as, as far as I could tell, Foxonline had received no previous warnings for their behaviour, so jumping straight to threatening them with being reported seemed somewhat hasty. Secondly "as I am an administrator" felt to me to be irrelevant (admins AFAIK have no greater powers in this situation than any other editor) and to be using adminship as a threatening weapon; "I'm bigger and more important than you, therefore you must do what I say". me_and 20:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: To me, the most concerning part of this is Pschemp seemingly using their status as an administrator to threaten another editor. Adminship is the community placing trust in a user, and this feels to me to be abusing that trust. Mistakes happen; the resolution I'd expected and desired when making the first comment to Pschemp had been for them to say "yes, I overreacted there, sorry", or "actually, I think I was justified there". I certainly didn't expect to be accused of harassment; that flies in the face of how I see myself.
I guess, to me, the greater issue here is that everyone given privileges on Wikipedia (including the basic privilege of editing) should be answerable on and responsible for how they use those privileges. Pschemp has used their privileges in a way that I found questionable, but since they would not answer a question posed to them directly on the matter, I have brought the issue here for comment.
--me_and 20:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Here is some constructive advice on how to do better in the future: don't hound people. You made your point by posting your message. It is a legitimate point, and you made it, and by deleting it, Pschemp acknowledged seeing it. That was enough. There was no need to re-post the message, and certainly no need to file this report. Looie496 (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I guess I was aware my actions—particularly this report—could come across as "hounding", but I wanted to try to get an explicit response from Pschemp, namely an explanation to me of their reaction, or some sort of note to Foxonline acknowledging overreaction.
I'd like the agreement of another editor before I'll accept that I should just drop this. I would still like some response and engagement from Pschemp, but if other editors agree I should just drop it, I'll request this discussion be closed and apologise to Pschemp for my own overreaction.
--me_and 22:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I was inclining towards agreement with Looie on the re-posting of the warning, because deleting messages from your own talk page is an acknowledgement of having read them, and nobody is forced to reply to messages here, even when ignoring them might be seen as a little discourteous. FWIW, Foxonline's edits were unconstructive and Pschemp was correct to revert them, though threatening to exercise admin privileges to win a minor content dispute with a possibly good-faith and confused newbie does seem like overkill to me too. However, unless I am missing the totally obvious (which is possible), Pschemp is not an administrator on en.wikipedia (see Category:Wikipedia administrators) and should not be claiming to be one in order to win an argument over content, even when his/her version is more suitable. Perhaps this is why s/he has sought not to engage with you on the topic of whether or not that message to Foxonline was appropriate? Karenjc 10:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The page you linked to is (I believe) generated from people categorising their own user pages, and so may not be accurate. The userlist does have Pschemp as an admin. me_and 10:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah right, my bad, I was indeed missing the totally obvious. Sorry, and thank you for the correction. IMO, telling a newbie to stop making unnecessary changes "...or I will report you as I am an administrator" is still not the best way to tackle them. We have an escalating system of warnings that any editor or admin should employ against repeated unconstructive editing (as opposed to major vandalism) before a report is made to WP:AIV. Instead, Foxonline may well have gone away with the misapprehension that if you cross a Wikipedia admin in a content dispute they may use special privileges to request sanctions against you, which is unfortunate. Still, we do all express ourselves badly on here from time to time. Since Pschemp is within his/her rights not to talk to you and Foxonline seems to have stopped making the unhelpful edits, perhaps it's time to hope your point was taken and leave it at that? Karenjc 11:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I shall. Thank you. me_and 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Can this be closed? While I maintain I feel Pschemp's response to Foxonline was disproportionate, my response to Pschemp was also, and the former is certainly no excuse for the latter. I'm going to write a short apology to Pschemp shortly. me_and 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Lsorin

Resolved
 – Lsorin apologized. SwarmTalk 23:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In this pair of talk page entries, User:Lsorin called first me then another editor ignorant. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker of English, but still I'm wondering why the term ignorance is insulting Binksternet and Romaniantruths? How can you call the the editors which reply only to the questions they choose, skipping(ignoring) questions which are relevant to the subject like the consensus proposal or jet engine definition?--Lsorin (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The term 'ignorance' (being "destitute of knowledge or education") generally has negative connotations. If you tell someone they're ignorant, by definition, you're may just be saying they "don't know something", but in using that specific word it can come across as insulting. SwarmTalk 20:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
If the above is true, than I apologize publicly.--Lsorin (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It is true, and it's also true the distinction is a small and tricky one for a non-native speaker. What Lsorin seems to have mean was "your ignoring of the facts", not '"your ignorance of the facts". The first implies they were aware of the facts but chose to disregard them, the second that they were unaware of the facts. As Swarm points out, characterising someone as ignorant is likely to be taken as an insult in English, even if insult was not intended. Karenjc 09:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me just note that in French "je l'ignore" is, or at least used to be, a perfectly normal way of saying: "I don't know". They just happen to have a verb that means not knowing, and the French word ignorance doesn't a priori have the strong connotations the English word does. It's totally plausible to me that Lsorin meant the word in this harmless sense if they are a native speaker of a Romance language, for example. There has been some unfortunate escalation between Lsorin and Binksternet, but I would hope that this will stop once we have found a solution to a certain problem in which they both have a point but neither seems to be completely right. Hans Adler 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ishxanaberd

Resolved
 – article protected for a week, Quantum666 warned against edit-warring. Looie496 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The user is making insulting edit summaries and comments at the talk page. [60],[61],[62],[63]. I asked him to read WP:PERSONAL but it doesn't work. Quantum666 (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but, having looked at all of the differences you provided, Ishxanaberd does not appear to have made any Wikiquette violations. He has been civil and to the point. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean that saying "you are trolling" and "you are engaged in disruptive editing" is OK? Can I say such things at your talk page? --Quantum666 (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I have protected the article for a week (it seemed to be stable with the exception of the edit-warring by Quantum666), and warned Quantum666 not to continue this behavior. Looie496 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the notion that the article was stable is a good reason to protect the page or warn the editor Quantum666 for actually trying to improve the article. If the article seems stable to you, it does not mean it was correct for all that stable time, on contrary the mistakes have been overlooked and now when one editor noticed them and tried to improve the article, he gets punished for that. Before warning, please take a look at the changes he made and disputed on the talk page. He removed the name Shushi refered to by Armenians to Shusha used by the entire world, which is the correct version. Then he changed the name Gandzak, again, refered to only by Armenians to Ganja, the correct version used by the entire world. Same for Artsakh and Nagorno-Karabakh. Please investigate before rushing to conclusions.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You need to work this out by discussing the issue on the article's talk page, calmly and with reference to reliable sources. You will not be able to solve this problem by reverting until you get your way. Looie496 (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I am in full agreement with you, but that's exactly what Quantum666 did - discuss on the talk page, which the other editor prefered not to do. Instead he reverted to the wrong version. It's like editing some article and refering to Washington, D.C. in it as Washington (state). Anyway, I'll add a few lines there, on its talk page.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Looie496, discussion means that at least two parties discuss the problems. I explained my edits twice (first time in edit summaries and the second at the discussion page - have you looked there?). The answers were: "you are trolling" and "you are engaged in disruptive editing". Well, if you think that such behavior helps Wikipedia to be improved I don't know what to say. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Anastasia, as you know Azerbaijani, I suppose you're good in knowledge of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict history too. First of all, I can show you reliable sources using the Shushi [64], Gandzak [65] forms. And then, the usage of historical names is ok according to WP:NAME ([66]): "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods". So what Quantum666 is doing, is an aggressive pov-pushing in all Armenian history-related articles. Andranikpasha (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course, and if you run a search for Shusha and Ganja, Azerbaijan, you will see five times as many results with correct name both for present and historical context.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "aggressive pov-pushing in all Armenian history-related articles"? Do you have any example or is it just your agressive POV-pushing? If you object to my edits you are welcome at the talk page. I am always open for discussion. What you are doing now is defending the user who destroys consensus building by avoiding discussion process. Is it because of his POV or do you really think that we shouldn't improve articles using discussion?--Quantum666 (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
And about inappropriate names. Having reliable sources using "your" name is not enough. We use most common and widely used names. There is consensus that such names are Shusha, Nagorno-Karabakh and Ganja (you can see the article titles and redirections for approppriate places). And yes we use historical names if we have historical context. Have I ever violated this? Give me an example please. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Here are examples of your aggresive pov-pushing [67][68][69][70][71] etc. Try to be more correct, especially as I answered to Anastasia, not you (your opinion is known and it has nothing common with Wiki rules I cited). Andranikpasha (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
What is wrong with those edits? Can you explain? Which rule was violated? And it's only your opinion about "nothing common with Wiki rules I cited". Look at the rules once more please and read my comments more carefully. I think then you will see you mistake. By the way you are avoiding answering my simple questions. Is there any problem about them? --Quantum666 (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Looie496, if Quantum666 continues disruptive behavious, are any sanctions under AA2, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:POV possible to implement? Andranikpasha (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Taron Saharyan and 166.216.226.29

Resolved

Writing uncivil edit summary directed against me in Russian [72]. If necessary I can translate. The other anonym is writing insulting comments like "sock vandal" [73], [74] Quantum666 (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Here once again in Russian some racist comments and accusing me of being thief and so on. --Quantum666 (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"Sock vandal" is less serious, but racism is ... of course, as this is the English Wikipedia, I would need a valid translation before acting. I will assume that you have let the editors in question know of this report by using {{WQA-notice}} on their talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Just have written at his discussion page. I can translate but I think any Russian-speaking administrator (or any other uninvolved user) could do it better. --Quantum666 (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Although my knowledge of the Russian language isn't perfect, Taron Saharyan has indeed made some extremely racist remarks in that comment.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I took the time to translate Taron's racist stream of consciousness, so judge for yourself. The following is the literal translation of what Taron said here: [75]

I feel pity for you. I feel like a doctor who watches over the dying laboratory rat which wants to get out of the cage. And this, of course, applies not only to you personally. You (Azerbaijanis) are fanatics, fanaticism runs very deep in your blood. You are not capable of making decisions, you cannot take a detached view of yourself. Why? Because you are igrirmidord and sarydzhaly, because you are Tatar, you - backward periphery of the Muslim East. Your (Azerbaijanis) destiny - to blow yourself up, or to be shot down by the civilization. You are a thief, you're a petty pickpocket, your national and civilizational status is extremely low. You are a cannon fodder with "heroes" of the same level. You are a nomad, and it is the personal history of your tribe. But the most beautiful thing is that you'll never realize that, because the gene of your mind is an integral part of all the above-mentioned chain.

You can also run his text through Google Translate, to double check. Grandmaster 19:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I was also notified about this on my talk page. DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) has now blocked Taron Saharyan for a week. That was lenient - I was about to indef-block. Marking as resolved.  Sandstein  22:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Administrators, you were right about being lenient towards blocking indefinitely. This person has made another, more extreme racist remark. See below. Please note how he also refers to the fallen Azerbaijani people during war as "heroes" who became source of food for dogs and wolves, then he insults the Azerbaijani nation stating his ideology, then he insults the music of Azerbaijan, Mugam by calling it a degrading music, then he insults the religion mentioning the hurrahing-muslim nation, disregards Azerbaijani nation talking about the ages of nations, then he insults 750 thousand refugees from the conflict who are forced to live in tent towns, saying tents are in their blood and genes (returning and referring to his "nomad" living in tents) and finally he calls the Azerbaijani nation "nobody". I am pasting the translation here (both of the unknown IP's address to Taron Saharyan and Taron Saharyan's response to him - the complete link is here [76]):
By IP
But what do your racist theories have to do with the article? Are there a lot of people like you in Yerevan or is it only you? --95.25.227.49 16:21, 16 Ocotber 2010 (UTC) And you did not reply regarding removal of your comment. Are you ashamed of publishing here what you write in English Wikipedia? That is childish. If you are a man, then be able to stand by your words. I have Armenian acquaintances - I have not noticed any behavior of this kind from them. --95.25.227.49 16:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Response from Taron Saharyan
Responding.
I, and to be exact, we, unlike you are and have fought on the basis of an ideology which existed and exists now. That battle is not virtual and not deceptive pscyhological warfare of liers-smarties. The battle is given to us by the part of our lands, your battle is given by the ghost towns. The battle was there, but you are comforting yourself here (meaning: on internet) The bodies of your "heroes" became a good source of food for dogs and wolves of armenian mountains of Upper Khachen/Kelbajar... big holiday. If you want to understand the level of mass-thinking of a nation, always remember that the armenians are 2300 years old and azeris are 300 years old (the nation being less than 100 years old). And if you think that a herd of yesterday's tribes can equal to us by its status and ability to organize itself, then you Ms "Absolute Truth", are delusional. For us, Karabakh is not a song (especially the "diamond" music-degradation named Mugam) or lunacy, for us Karabakh is a real land on which we stand, or if Ilham states that he will erase 75% of its population, to realize mountainous ambition, then he is deceiving either himself or you, walking representatives of hurrahing-muslim nation. Where are your 750 thousand refugees, where are their screams and cries? You know why there are not here? Because the tents are in their blood, it is in their and your genes. Only 100 years ago, your great grandfather did not call his country Azerbaijan, and himself and Azeri. What do you expect to "notice" from your armenian acquaintences? Your "igirmidord" memory will not be able to understand the depth of an argument. I honestly laughed having read "Are you ashamed of publishing here what you write in English Wikipedia". Should I be ashamed or you (the Azeris), who are nobody?
I did not of course insult Tatars, your grandfather was Caucasian Tatar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anastasia.Bukh (talk • contribs) 02:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


These comments are extremely insulting, racist, nationalistic and fascist, not only to individual representatives of a particular nation, but to any bystander. Please take appropriate measures.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  01:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Considering that typically, items brought to WP:WQA do not lead to blocks, the fact that he is blocked is a rarity, and do not ask for more in this forum. If you believe this to be a pattern of behaviour detrimental to the project, please file an WP:RFC/U that may lead to further action. Also, if after their block expires they either a) continue their behaviour or b) attack you or vandalize your talkpage, take them to WP:ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Keristrasza

We had disagreements about his 2RR on the page that had no consensus on the content. However, that page, Croatian language, is not in question here.
I gave him this warning [77], he removed it with whole discussion afterwards [78] (aren't talkpages archived, not deleted?), I restored it, then another user appeared and removed it [79].
I haven't insisted on rerestoring. There was short discussion on my talkpage: his message [80], my answer [81]. Things would probably end right after his answer.
But, hee used rude language in the answer[82].
"your "warning" was bullshit", "That others have also reverted your trash", "the pathetic nature of your "warning". He has to avoid such words. I don't want that my answering on my or his talkpage incites bigger fire.
He, as a "reviewer to pending changes", has to show less temper when getting criticism. My warning was friendly. Possibly he had good intentions, but I still find his action at that case as wrong. Anyway, no reason for him to use rude language.
Will someone else post him a notification on his talkpage, since he expliticly wrote on my talkpage "in future I shall simply remove your edits from my talk page without bothering to reply" [83].
Simply: I don't want that someone talks to me that way. Kubura (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Any user is allowed to remove anything from their talk page with or without archiving it, except for a few rare circumstances (and this ain't one of them). While his language could definitely be toned down, none of those were personal attacks (except possibly the second example). You probably shouldn't have left a user who has been here for over a year a template and I also find it highly alarming that you left the user a 3RR warning FOUR? DAYS after it happened (also, two reverts does not break 3RR, four reverts does). While the user could stand to be more civil, I think, in this case, their frustration was justified (though, like I said, the language needs to be cleaned up and they shouldn't have whipped out the DICK thing at the end). I think it would be best to follow his request to leave his page alone. If content needs to be discussed, do so at the article talk page or, if it's serious, leave a note on an admin's talk page. --132 01:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I have alerted the user to this discussion. --132 20:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:HOUND. Keristrasza (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please expand? Is this an ongoing issue with Kubura? --132 23:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
If this is in reaction to my notification, WP:HOUND has no merit. If your actions are being discussed here, you are required to be notified, just like at WP:ANI. --132 03:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Kubura has been hounding me (and a few others) since 6 October - you should take a look at his contributions Kubura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since that date and you will see nothing but a series of complaints and abuses of process against any and every editor from Talk:Croatian language who is not a part of his clique from the Croatian wiki. Keristrasza (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
If there is long-term abuse, I would suggest taking it to WP:ANI or WP:RFC/U to get a wider audience. --132 21:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Done at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kubura_-_hounding.2C_sock_puppetry.2C_disruptive_editing.2C_personal_attacks. Keristrasza (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive92&oldid=1142813199"