Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive52

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 User: RafaelRGarcia 2 User:Wallamoose 3 MarshalN20 and Bicycle Kick 3.1 MarshalN20 continues incivility 4 Editing dispute on the Noise music page 5 67.14.215.240 6 User:Hemanshu 7 Segregator236 (talk · contribs) 8 Mr._T _Based thinking he's God of Tales of Symphonia Dawn of the New World article 9 Venture Bros. 10 Incivility and personal attack by PaddyM 11 User: Pandacomics 12 User:Dstebbins 13 Trendy Sammy 14 SkyWriter 15 Skyemoor (talk · contribs) 16 Personal attack by User:Jimmi Hugh 17 Snowded 18 Uncivil comments by User:Readin 19 Disruptive behavior by User:Eye.earth 20 Arthur Rubin 21 User:Jaakobou 22 User:Ibaranoff24 23 Disruptive editing (User:Malleus_Fatuorum) 24 User:Soccer174 25 User:Ross.Hedvicek 26 User:193.142.220.10 and abuse by moderator User:David Gerard

User: RafaelRGarcia

User:Wallamoose

This user deserves to be banned. These are just a few examples of his behavior; he's causing conflict all over Wikipedia as he makes nothing but partisan edits. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Rehnquist

"So unless you are brain damaged you can't argue he didn't apply the 14th amendment to women. Are you brain damaged?"

"Your edit is worthless. It simply restates and requotes what is said and quoted directly above it. As usual you demonstrate your inability to read or reason."

"I find it difficult to believe you are a High School graduate... If I were your professor you would receive an F and I would recommend remedial GED classes." [note: Wallamoose is not a professor at all].

"...because of your emotional problems and delusional mental state all of their efforts have been obstructed."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now

"I don't have to hide behind anonymous edits like you do sicko. Sorry for this trash stalking me onto this board. Unfortunately the anonymity of the internet allows perverts to carry on with their fantasies."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clarence_Thomas

"It gets old going round and round with this delusional liar."

"I don't have time to go round and round with you and to expose your never-ending lies."

"Do you ever get tired of lying?"

And to an administrator, Bearian, who is a lawyer and professor, Wallamoose said: "...you are not qualified to be a lawyer or professor." "All I can say is YIKES, to your ignorance."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Calm_Down

"I'm sick of dealing with a crazy stalker and his (smallish) band of fools."

"You are obviously a sick and delusional individual."

You can also see other warnings Wallamoose has received on his talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RafaelRGarcia (talk • contribs)

I have advised the other party of this WQA entry (as the complainant should have done) and have requested their comment. BMW(drive) 21:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The other party has stalked my contributions page since last month, and knew of the complaint's being filed pretty much immediately. He's been going around to articles I've contributed to just to meddle, and he posted in response to the alert on two admins' pages soon after the complaint was posted here, so I knew he knew. Also, the other party has requested I not post on his talk page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are supposed to advise the other party. Both your activities and theirs will be taken into account. I advised them on your behalf. Can you show the diff's of his "advising" the admins?BMW(drive) 22:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time right now; I'm studying for finals. Look at Bearian and Ruslik0's talk pages; it happened today.

Anyway, more fuel to the fire!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Might_I_suggest...:

"I think it's pretty clear that this user has serious emotional and mental issues and is taking them out on me."RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose has begun whitewashing his talk page so that he doesn't look as mean as he's been. Observe: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWallamoose&diff=244239621&oldid=244234380 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ruslik0#Wallamoose

"This guy is obviously nuts." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The above comment quoted by RafaelRGarcia summarizes my opinion of him. I would only add the word delusional for further clarification.

RafaelRGarcia has admitted to stalking me (see my talk page) and has refused to stop. The problems with this individual predate the posting of the accurate headers you noted. Because of his activities I feel it's important that anyone viewing my talk page be made aware of the issues involved and the type of person I'm dealing with.

Since you've taken an interest I hope you'll put a stop to his abusive behavior.

This WikiAlert is just one of many many many examples.

As you've noted:

"If you file a WikiAlert, you have to: Notify the reported user(s). Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here."

So once again we have an example of a user failing to obey the rules and harassing me. Then making excuses for it and blaming others.

I've given up on bringing his activites to the attention of Admins as I've been unsucessful in getting the situation resolved. It's been a waste of their time and mine, (though I posted some of his inappropriate statements to an admin board in the past). I go about my business as best I can while having to deal with this individual who displays serious emotional and mental problems.

You can also check out his post on the ACORN discussion page: Revision as of 21:41, 8 October 2008 and 22:35, 8 October 2008. Had he ever been on that page before stalking me and posting harassing comments? And also his posts on my talk page after I asked him to stop posting there. And his reverts of my good faith edits on Rehnquist. (Do you want details?)

Regarding the Clarence Thomas article, it's not appropriate to maintain a smear job on a Supreme Court Justice (who RafaelRGarcia has repeatedly referred to as a Perv), and I've been patient and worked through the appropriate channels to the best of my ability to address this. If an Admin. wants to resolve the problem that would be great.

A dispute resolution process has begun on the talk page there, and I hope it will be successful. I'm looking forward to working on other projects (as I did when I left that page alone after posting and RfC the last time we had this problem). In the interim nothing has changed so I'm trying again, despite the difficulty in dealing with RafaelRGarcia's stalking, harassing and inappropriate behavior.

I don't have the time to refute every allegation against me, but I think it's pretty clear that this user has serious emotional and mental issues, and is taking them out on me. His taking a bunch of my quotes out of context doesn't prove much, other than the difficulty of dealing with this person. If you look through his edit history you'll find countless personal attacks on me, abusive edits, and other evidence of his harassment. I suggest you compare that to my very reasonable efforts to make good faith edits.(Wallamoose (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

I would add that many administrators have made suggestions and comments to RafaelRGarcia, but they've been ignored. If it would be helpful to cite more examples of his abuse I am willing to do so. Please let me know. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Really Wallamoose, did you indeed call people "brain damaged", insult their education, etc? Your post above shows some serious anti-editor beliefs. No matter what you think about an editor, there is never a need to insult or be otherwise uncivil towards them. BMW(drive) 23:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured that I have never called anyone brain damaged, no matter how much their behavior and statements might indicate that to be the case. I don't think I've attacked anyone's education, since I can't possibly know any details about anyone's background, but I may have suggested that claims of advanced degrees aren't supported by an individual's arguments and approach to legal scholarship.(Wallamoose (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

FYI: Wallamoose has a very loose definition of the word "many." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would move to submit RafaelRGarcia's statement above this one as Exhibit A. This Exhibit clearly supports any statements I may have made addressing his mental health and competence.(Wallamoose (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

I think Wallamoose's continued display of behaviors speaks for itself. Or rather, as I learned in law school, "res ipsa loquitur." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This pest has now stalked me onto the Keith Olbermann board where he has posted a description of one of my suggestions (that I posted on the discussion page) as nonsense and then described my word choice as foolish. Is it reasonable for someone posting a Wikialert about me to act in this manner? Please ban this user. Should I initiate a Wikialert about him, or are his actions here sufficient proof?

He says I'm "causing conflict all over Wikipedia" as I make "nothing but partisan edits", so let's look at one example. I've tried to change myself or tag the statement: "Rehnquist violated his supposed principles" repeatedly. Is this an appropriate way to phrase a description on Wikipedia? Supposed principles?

Also, as long as we're here, could you clarify for me Wikipedia's policy on sources? Are books good sources to use on an online Encyclopedia? (Wallamoose (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I assume this is rhetorical? If the book is readily available, it's generally a valid source. BMW(drive) 23:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I deny stalking Wallamoose. I looked up Keith Olbermann on my own to read up on what he's doing lately, and then I saw Wallamoose trying to infuse POV language into the article by posting suggested changes on the Talk page. The Rehnquist edit I made is straight from TIME Magazine. Please ban Wallamoose.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose has now called me a "pest" on multiple occasions. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keith_Olbermann#Intro_Needs_Work for an example. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, in fact he called you a pest a few lines above BMW(drive) 23:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose uses purposely inflammatory section headings on his own talk page, and even tried to vandalize my talk page with them in the past. Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARafaelRGarcia&diff=243565025&oldid=243564902 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#My_efforts_to_stop_RafaelGarcia_from_destroying_Wikipedia_articles_with_his_biased_opinion_and_malicious_editing and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Stalking_behavior_by_RafaelRGarcia RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

All editors are supposed to attempt to solve problems via talk pages. Rafael, I suggest you do your best to a) stay away from Wallamoose, and b) try not to get into edit wars with them. Wallamoose - you are significantly to blame for much of what has happened here. Whether you think sarcasm is a way of life, I'm not sure. Stay away from Rafael, or at least try and leave his edits alone. Overall, Wallamoose should probably deserve a few days rest from the project. However, as Rafael arrived at this forum specifically asking for a ban (which he's not allowed to do), I tend to think that both parties either a) both deserve a week off via a ban, or b) should both voluntarily ban themselves and come back with the goal of IMPROVING Wikipedia, and IMPROVING interpersonal relationships. Everyone has something to add on Wikipedia, and everyone deserves to be treated civilly. Based simply on the text above as posted by Wallamose, I will be re-warning the editor. I would expect additional issues to actually recieve a ban. BMW(drive) 23:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: I do not believe that the complainant acted fully in Good Faith in this situation either. There has been a degree of "egging on" and I have placed a level 1 note to such effect. A level 4 on personal attacks has been placed on Wallamoose. BMW(drive) 23:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I am amazed by your conclusions. Despite your statement that both of our actions would be considered, it appears that you've mostly gone after me. If you look at my edit history you will find that I have made no attempts to bother RRG and been busy doing my own thing. I have refrained from an edit war on certain issues I've repeatedly raised and sought your insights on issues for which I was unclear. So I find it outrageous that you would single me out for possible sanction. I am very disappointed. While you've made a target for sanction, RRG as continued to harass me and other users. He's stalked me onto at least two other boards and continues to revert my good faith edits on the original boards over which we disagree. I am amazed and bewildered by your unwillingness to address the situation fairly. I would write "shame on you", but I'm sure that violates some kind of Wiki policy. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I deny the charges of harassment and stalking. I did happen across Wallamoose's attempt to POV up the article on Keith Olbermann, but I restrained my comments to content, not to the person. In contrast, Wallamoose has been trying to remove or alter my reliably-sourced edits to multiple Supreme Court topics since last month, ever since he started the first of two Clarence Thomas edit wars. In any case, we've both been warned, so a wise editor would take the warning under advisement and move on. PS: Wallamoose asked about the policy towards citing books because I mostly use books in my citations, and Wallamoose has often challenged them. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose's behavior continues. He called BWilkins "grotesquely unfair" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#October_2008 and he also refuses to remove inflammatory talk page headings. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What will it take to make this guy's actions clear? You really don't see what's going on? What do you think the comment directly above this one indicates?

I thought it was self-evident from his behaviour on this board and the incidents I've mentioned what's happening here. I said to let me know if you needed more details.

And as far as being sarcastic, I'm doing my best to have a sense of humor about this harassment. But don't worry, my sense of humor left once I realized your investigation and actions would be overwhelmingly one-sided.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

<>Now he's changing the title of this request on this page to make it look like it's about me! Wow! Revision as of 04:35, 11 October 2008> Listen, I don't have time to defend myself with every diff where he's doing this kind of thing. I just want him to stop harassing me. And I don't think it's fair to ban me when I'm being harassed and just trying to make it stop.(Wallamoose (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

That is a lie. This section has always been named after Wallamoose.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. The refactoring was taking place in another place. This process has been enormously time consuming and distracting, so I've struggled to keep track of it all. I am also waiting for a response to some issues I brought up with BMW(drive) on his talk page. I hope this ordeal is finally over! (Wallamoose (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

This user frequently changes the titles of comments on his talk page, which were created by other editors. Recently, he changed the title of a comment that I made KO article to Keith "the angry former sports guy" Olbermann article. I would prefer that editors not attribute that title to me, and it is a likely assumption that they will, since it is unconventional for another editor to rewrite someone else's comments or titles. diff Switzpaw (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I changed it back. Sorry. I was having trouble finding comments on under that title related to that article because I associated KO with Knock-Out instead of Keith Olbermann. The other changes were after an Admin. asked me to change a couple of my Titles, but before I knew I wasn't supposed to refactor my own TalkPage. I didn't realize that a title change could make the new title associated with you, and I hope you will accept my sincere apology for my mistake.(Wallamoose (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

MarshalN20 and Bicycle Kick

When I first came across the edit warring between user:MarshalN20 and User:Selecciones de la Vida ([1]) and heated dispute on the talkpage I did not get involved, I did not know much about the various claims and it takes me quite a long time to read in Spanish. I went to an admin who is proficient in Spanish and asked him to get involved. Mariano posted his view on the talkpage and then after no response removed information that makes no mention of "bicyce kick" in the Bicycle Kick article. MarsalN20 then responded claiming that he should be consulted on his talkpage before any changes are made to the section and reverted the edit with the misleading edit summary that he was shortening the article when he was actually reinserting information.

I then became involved removing the some of the same information as I too failed to see the need for a large section which makes no mention of the Bicycle Kick. I explained my edit properly in the edit summary. MarshalN20 then restored all of the deleted information again, (possibly using an IP to do it the first time).

I then sought the opinion of user:Alexf, who stated "I see a candidate for Dispute Resolution and I see gross incivility by User:MarshalN20".

I admit that my conduct in this situation has not been ideal, I should not have allowed myself to get drawn into defending myself against his allegations and abuse. I should not have presented a case that Marshal was owning the Peru section, which in hindsight should have been approached more tactfully. And I should not have tried to defend myself against his allegations of offwiki collusion and bias by postulating the existence of a paranoid conspiracy theory.

This comment from Mariano sums up my position perfectly:

There are several things that I believe should be removed and other things to improve, but I feel it would be useless to take any action if you are going to take it as a personal attack and revert it to your liking. Mariano

Throughout the whole discussion MarshalN20 has used personal attacks and made unsubstantiated allegations (diffs provided below). Myself and the other involved editors have tried to remain calm in the face of such provocation. I have repeatedly asked him not to be incivil or make personal attacks, unsubstantiated allegations and misrepresent other people’s words. I have implored him to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA on several occasions but his attacks and incivility have not stopped or lessened, showing a complete disregard for the official policies. I am going to take the content dispute to WP:FOOTBALL, I hope someone here can succeed in explaining the importance of civility to this editor as I have tried my hardest and feel that the task would now be better undertaken by uninvolved editors.

• comparing people to dictators
• calling people imbeciles
• calling people worse than dirt
• unsubstantiated accusations of bias
• False accusation of vandalism
• False accusation of vandalism
• False allegation of personal attacks
• After Selecciones defended himself against the allegation of collusion MarshalN20 insinuated that we had conspired against him
• After I pointed out several of these incidences of incivility to him he began defending his right to make such insults. In his response to my comment he tries to claim that making a nationalistic jibe comparing a Chilean to Augusto Pinochet is OK because its funny. Claims that the use of the word imbecile to describe other editors is OK because it appears in the dictionary and calls Selecciones dirt again.
• He made unsubstantiated allegation that I am aggressive and lying after I tried to explain that nationalistic comparisons to dictators are not justifiable. This edit also shows that he holds the view that because people like Hitler and Saddam Hussain have supporters, it is justifiable to compare people to them.
• After I again asked him to read WP:NPA he claimed that I deserve to have personal insults and allegations made against me showing a fundamental disregard for the policy. EP 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is the time where pleading my defense would come in handy. To begin with, I know that English Peasant (or "EP") uses very cute sentences and tries to fit everything together to make it seem as if I'm some sort of sadistic bad guy that just wants to grab a stick and smash it against everybody's head. Well, there's no denying from my part that at several times during the discussions I let my heart take over my brain, but then again if you carefully examine each of the things that "EP" presents you will notice that for every thing I said and every action I took there was a reason. Now, whether it was a good or bad reason, that is up to you to decide.

One of the first things I would like to clarify is that User:Alexf had already spoken to me about "civility" and I had already complied to his terms. You can see this in the discussion of his talk page: [2]. Furthermore, you can take note that I kept on messaging "Alexf" about the incivility from "EP," and yet I got no reply back from "Alexf." After "Alexf" sent me his message concerning "Civility," you can see that I kept myself calm and responded to the inflamatory arguments of "EP" with a very calm nature. Yet, "EP" seems to be highly agitated and frustrated, to the point that he has even had to take his wife into the discussion, as you can see in this message he sent to user "Selecciones de la Vida": [3]. In other words, it's not me that is angry or frustrated. "EP" even direcly states: "The guy is driving me up the wall" Therefore, it is him that has apparently gone crazy with all of this situation.

Next, he talks about how I called "people" dictators, dirt, and imbeciles. Yet, he is once again lying. The only person to whom I said those things was User: Selecciones de la Vida. As far as it concerns me, one user does not constitute a whole "people." As you can see in the talk page of the bicycle kick, "Selecciones" and I have been holding a very long discussion on the matter. During that discussion, eventually things heated up and both of us began to indirectly insult (either through jokes or simply angry comments) each other. I kept trying to seek for outside help from that point, includig messaging people such as User: Victor12 and even requesting a review of the article in the FOOTY article: [4]. Basically, I cannot get accused of being some sort of crazy aggressor if I did seek third opinions, but I never got any reply from any of the people or groups that I contacted. On the other hand, "Selecciones" did manage to get other people into the article but the only two people that came up, "EP" and a user named "Mariano," both did not understand the problem at hand and instead they began to edit the Peruvian section like "wild beasts" (without meaning to insult).

For example, look at this comparisson of the "Before and After" user "Mariano" edited the Peruvian section: [5]. I mean, what was the point of that? As a serious Wikipedia editor, it seems quite apparent that "Mariano"'s edit made the "Peruvian Claim" section of the article "Jorge Barraza's Claim." How exactly is this good editing?

Then, I am accused of "false allegations" of vandalism and personal attacks. This is the problem I had with vandalism in the article: [6]. This IP address got temporarily banned after the 3-edit rule. How is this a "false allegation of vandalism"? Next, throughout the bicycle kick discussion page you can see that, just as others claim I have made personal attacks against them, I have also gotten personal attacks. The user that specially did those attacks, of course, was "Selecciones de la Vida." Yet, like I explained earlier, such results came about because of our heated discussion that found no solution because no third-person wanted to actually help in the article. User "EP" got involved in the discussion and, instead of looking for a compromise that would satisfy both "Selecciones" and me, he completely became one-sided in favor of "Selecciones" claims and attacks. I ask, isn't Wikipedia a place where people are supposed to come and help in order to find solutions? Yet, "EP" came in there and simply expanded the problem.

Going back to the problem of Pinochet, I still will back up my statement that I meant it as a joke. As you can see in the discussion, user "Selecciones de la Vida" did not take the thing as a horrible insult. He simply said it was "incredible how I lied and equated him to a dictator." That was the only time I ever said anything about Pinochet, and that was the last time the term was discussed until user "EP" once again sparked the conflict. I ask, yet again, why does "EP" keep seeking to make fire out of ashes? If the discussion on Pinochet was not even a big deal, and it had already died a plenty of time before "EP" got involved in the discussion, why does he have to once again bring that up and make it seem as if it where an actual big deal?

Lastly, I never said that "EP" deserved "to have personal insults and allegations made against" him. Such a thing is a lie, and you can read that yourselves in the link that he has provided for you. In other words, this is a complete lie that holds no foundation.

If you wish to ask me any direct questions about my actions or about this situation, feel free to send me messages on my talk page. I am not angry, and I am most certainly not seeking problems. If you want me to clarify anything, simply send me a question and I will answer it. Thank you for taking the time to read this.--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My comment "I shall expect further allegations and insults rather than reasoned debate in response" your response "You shall expect what you deserve", what you state is pretty unambiguous. You claim that after Alexf asked you to remain civil "you.....complied to his terms" and acted with a very calm nature. Calling people hypocrites and liars, and presenting a defence for ignoring the civility rules ([7]) accusing them of aggression ([8]), bias ([9]) and insinuating offwiki collusion ([10]) when they are asking you to remain civil and avoid personal attacks suggest otherwise, all these edits happened after Alexf's request. I could have gone around giving specific examples of your hypocrisy and making snide comments, but instead I asked you to read the civility guidelines, and tried to illustrate what personal attacks actually are, after you made the unsubstantiated allegation that I had made them against yourself ([11]). You then engaged in a defence of all of your right to make personal attacks ([12]). I realise that still attempting to engage with you is futile as you have made it clear that you are unwilling to accept that personal attacks on Wikipedia are inappropriate, and are unwilling to accept that any of your comments have been inappropriate or inflammatory EP 17:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet you continue with your aggression. Seriously, you've got some serious issues to work out. Like I said, "You shall expect what you deserve." If you think that you deserve "further allegations and insults," then that's your problem. Still, I never said that you actually deserved such things. After all, I'm not in your brain and therefore it is not really up to me to decide what exactly it is that you want to expect. All of those things you point out came as self-defense from your aggression. Like I said, I had already spoken to User: Alexf, but you kept on attacking me even though he had allegedly also contacted you. Do not try to hide your own mistakes by making me look bad. lol. For "bias," I have already posted in the bicycle kick section my evidence as to why I think that you're completely biased against the Peruvian section. In other words, I have provided evidence to my statements. Moreover, I have every right to claim that you are attacking me. Also, I really do not understand why you act in such an arrogant manner. If you can't learn to work with other people by actually abiding to compromises or acting kind, then you might as well go make your own encyclopedia. Furthermore, I already stated before that I did get agitated during the discussion, but I have also stated that after User: Alexf came things for me really did calm down. Of course, you keep trying to push your point in here. Please learn to be more civil and stop attacking me.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

MarshalN20, the situation has not calmed down at all even after the suggestion that was made by User:Alexf. To further clarify the point English peasant made, you stated I'm sure Pinochet's way of making arguments must be a Chilean thing which can very well be interpreted as an attack against all Chileans. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

To you and English Peasant the situation might not have calmed down, but as far as it goes for me it has. If the two of you need some time to chill out, then that's your problem. As far as it concerns me, I am completely calm and once again have made my head come into place as supreme over the rest of my emotions. You and "EP" keep taking things out of context. The statement was meant directly towards you, and you accepted that by stating: "It's incredible how you lie and equate me to a dictator." Please stop trying to rally behind English Peasant's comments as you're certainly not helping in getting him/her get calmed down. Also, I would sincerely recommend for you to also seek some way of getting calmed down. lol. Perhaps try thinking about something cold, deserted, and somewhat pointless, like Antartica, or the Atacama or Sahara deserts. Such a thing worked for me. Best of luck on that, though.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't take your recommendation, neither the Atacama, Sahara deserts or Antartica are pointless. The Atacama desert is incredibly rich in copper while Antartica features the largest fresh water reserve in the world. The Sahara desert is also a very viable option for both wind and solar energy. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. See, there you go. Just keep thinking those nice thoughts and you'll eventually get back on track like me. No more aggressive attacks. It's that simple. I really do hope you become calm. Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the false accusation of vandalism, look at your edit, you simply moved the Chilean section below the Peruvian one then accused the IP of deleting sources in the same minute. The fact that he later got blocked for violation 3RR is irrelevant, the issue is the inappropriate use of edit summaries and vandalism warnings. EP 17:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet you keep on lying. As you can see here, [13], I discussed the changing of the names of the sections and then the IP Address began to vandalize the article. I went through every single step of the process with the IP address, contacted other users for opinion, and at the end the IP address was banned because of the 3 edit rule. You're creating a straw man out of something that has been already solved simply for the purpose of, not surprisingly, attacking me. Please stop your attacks against me.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

MarshalN20 continues incivility

The user continues acting inappropriately on talk pages.

• [14]
• accusing me of threatening him and then comparing me to Nostradamus and saying if I want a cookie or lolipop

A serious discussion is taking place, these rants and insults need to stop. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, woah! Look at me! I'm the evil cookie monster. I'm going to strike you down with the words "silly," "lolipops," and "cookies." lol.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

They are unecessary and serve no purpose. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

*Throws a lolipop at SdV*--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing dispute on the Noise music page

I have been experiencing a problem with editor Semitransgenic at the Noise music page. The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnote citations (53 to be exact), some lacking only page # which I can provide in the next few months when I return to my library (as previously explained a # of times to Semitransgenic), free of WP:OR & WP:SYN that stood for weeks. Semitransgenic then imposed a WP:OR deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline by reverting to the previous edit I am constantly stymied from doing so. Is there a 6 week deadline for page #s I am unaware of? What is the policy on this situation? My general feeling is that the display of WP:OR & WP:SYN flags turn off the wikipedia users and as I cannot provide the page #s for a few months that these flags are better left off. Please advise. Thank you in advance. Valueyou (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Valueyou ... you have opened both an ANI and WQA on this. Forum-shopping is not permitted. The ANI may be related to content, but it will also deal with Civility once opened. I am closing this WQA accordingly. BMW(drive) 11:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

67.14.215.240

• 67.14.215.240 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log • Abuse Report)

Wikiquette issue brewing. Previously blocked user absent for a while has returned with same issues: generally argumentative approach [15]; making OR edits on grounds of personal experience [16][17] and refusing to accept WP:NOR policy; removing conduct warnings [18][19]. 81.132.104.115 (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

An editor is free to removed whatever he/she likes on his/her own talk page. I cannot find any attmept to discuss this on the talk page of that particular article. I suggest doing that first. Though i concur that the said user has trouble with being civil and understanding Wikipedia:Etiquette. From the info i can gather the block seems very inapropriate and seems to be due to a content dispute/edit war with an admin. This is very worrying for an admin to get involved in an edit war and misuse privileges in this way rather going to dispute resolution, this admin should probably be looked at. Adoption might be an option for the ip. --neon white talk 12:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You are also required to notifiy the user of this alert. --neon white talk 09:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Hemanshu

This user, who is an admin, continues to create date links and ignore my attempts to talk to them through their talk page. I had first posted a notice on their talk page about not adding date links (per MOS:SYL), using this diff as an example. They then added more date links, after which time I posted another notice on their talk page, to which they have, again, not replied (at time of writing). They then added more date links in at least two more edits, and I am now quite convinced that they will not reply to me on their talk page and so am looking for a third-party opinion as to what to do. Thanks in advance. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• The last time Hemanshu made any edit to their talk page was 18:03, 15 April 2006 Hemanshu (Talk | contribs) (rm old messages). I'm not sure they understand what talk pages are for. Apteva (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Well, in that case, with all due respect, why are they an admin if they never use their talk page? It Is Me Here (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hemanshu passed RfA back in February 2004, when even your pet dog would have got through easily.[20] The real question is why hasn't he been desysopped for his persistent disruptive behaviour? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Desysoping hardly ever happens. In fact, there was a previous case where people wanted to desysop an admin after he refused to respond on the Talk page, and it went on for months before the Arbcom finally took action.

I would suggest bringing it up at WP:AN (not WP:ANI -- this is more of a long-term issue and would probably get buried there). Actually, you know what, I will do so and then mark this as Resolved once I do. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Some remedial education rather than desysoping would probably be better. They are apparently from India, so there are probably language and cultural differences between there and UK/AU/US/NZ. Apteva (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Segregator236 (talk · contribs)

Repeated problems with using non-vertifiable sources and not using sources in general. Looking at the user's contributions, he mostly edits articles about Chinese military hardware, and often mis-cites, and adds information that is not backed up by reliable sources. Also fails to properly use edit summaries, or when making potentially controversial edits, seeks consensus. Has already been given a edit warring warning [21] , and was warned by a administrator [22] about the issue. He has also been warned plenty of times in the past about using non-vertifable sources or non-sourced edits [23] [24] [25].

It appears that warnings are having minimal effect on him; it was only a warning by a administrator regarding a specific page has actually made him stop on that specific page. This user needs further scrutiny and perhaps a warning with way more teeth. Either the user fails to understand Wikipedia policies, or requires extra help (which has not been asked by the user). ThePointblank (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You may want to post this at WP:AN/I, rather than here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr._T _Based thinking he's God of Tales of Symphonia Dawn of the New World article

Hello. I am attempting to make a constructive edit to the Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World article but User:Mr_T_(Based) continues to delete my edits, accusing me of vandalism. It is perfectly valid to include a professional website's opinion on the subject, and T not only deletes my edits but provides no reason for doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.244.82 (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

CAn you provide some diff examples? also notify the editor. Seems he has been warned about edit warring and breaching the WP:3RR. --neon white talk 11:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Both editors have already been warned about edit warring on this article. 71.72 ... you should be very careful with what you place in edit summaries, as many of the ones you have done on that article are more than uncivil in their own rights. I would also recommend a quick visit to WP:SOURCE to see what is and what is not acceptable as a reference. BMW(drive) 11:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems he has been warned about edit warring and breaching the WP:3RR. I'd like to remind both ediror's to remain civil in edit summaries and discuss on the talk page and use dispute resolution if necessary. Also accusations of vandalism are not assuming good faith and User:Mr_T_(Based) needs to more careful not to brand good faith edits as vandalism. See WP:VAN for clear definitions about what is and what is not vandalism. I also have concerns that User:Mr_T_(Based) is 'owning' this article and should refrain from so many reverts. Some of them seem to be quite petty. --neon white talk 11:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps User:Mr_T_(Based) looked at the IP's contributions and just assumed he was dealing with a vandal. That's quite understandable, given the earlier ones. I think the solution is for both parties to remain civil, to discuss these issues on the relevant article Talk pages, and to solicit the opinions of other editors using dispute resolution mechanisms. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That may well be the case and it seems User:Mr_T_(Based) considered any edit by the 71.72.244.82 to be vandalism which is not acceptable. You cannot 'assume' edits are vandalism, especially if you are in breach of the 3 revert rule by removing them, which was the case several times over here, they need to be checked or you may be acting to the detriment of the article and not improving it. However looking at the article history, this kind of 'owner' behaviour by User:Mr_T_(Based) has not been only restricted to edits by 71.72.244.82 but with multiple editors to the page. I recommend User:Mr_T_(Based) should be reminded that pages are not owned and to discuss changes more with other editors. (note that he/she has very few contributions to talk pages in comparison with the amount of edits performed.) --neon white talk 12:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have a positive history with the editor, and will have a chat ... BMW(drive) 12:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Important note I fail to see anywhere on Mr T's talk page where the complainant either tried to solve this issue between editors OR advised Mr T that this Wikiquette complaint was filed. Bad, bad stuff. BMW(drive) 13:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved - this diff [26] on Mr T's talk is quite clear on the topic BMW(drive) 13:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Venture Bros.

There seem to be a lot of good faith editors being stymied by another editor on this page. I'm kind of new so I'm not an expert on policy, but it seems like a lot of the information being taken out is good and notable even if it needs to be Wikified. Can some peeps check this out and see what they think? I was struck by everything taken out between: Revision as of 03:05, 23 September 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venture_Bros.&diff=240356161&oldid=238709588 and Current revision as of 02:42, 17 October 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venture_Bros.&diff=245810822&oldid=245806346 Sorry, I don't know how to diff a comparison in one link. There's also some discussion of the situation on the article's talk page. Holla!(Wallamoose (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

I would be a bit careful with this. Based on the second diff provided, your edit that was reverted (twice) includes the line "<ref>Some geek who has way too much time on his hands...</ref>", which is not beneficial to this project. Different editors have been involved in both the quoted reversions. This appears to be, however, more of a content dispute - which I see has lengthy discussion on the talk page - as opposed to one of Civility. BMW(drive) 13:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying, "some geek who has way too much time on his hands" is a bad ref? Hmmm, I see your point although in this instance I think it's arguable. I wasn't really trying to question those two edits, but all the material taken out inbetween. How do I do a diff that shows this? There are all kinds of interesting details, the composer, references made in the show, you name it that's been taken out and all by one editor. Makes me want to cry, and judging by the talk page I'm not the only one. And for the record the geek bit could have been taken out, but that was only one small portion of the edit that was reverted.(Wallamoose (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Fun with diffs: In a nutshell, start with the History tab at the top of the page, play with the radio buttons, then click the big button at the top. More info is at WP:DIFF SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.

This user is back at it today taking out all kinds of things.

All this is gone in one edit:

The writers have presented Dr. Venture being an adult analogue for Jonny Quest. Flashbacks and references to merchandise show Rusty as a Jonny Quest-like child adventurer. This was expanded upon in season two with brief appearances from Hector, who served as an analogue for Hadji, and former boxing champion Swifty as another analogue for Race Bannon. - - Characters and devices from Jonny Quest appear in person in six episodes. "Ice Station – Impossible!" and "The Invisible Hand of Fate" feature cameo appearances from Race Bannon. In "Twenty Years to Midnight", a drug-addicted adult Jonny Quest lives in the same bathysphere that Jonny's father, Benton Quest, once used to communicate with sea life. A character called Radjni (another parody, of Jonny Quest's friend Hadji) later appears in the season three episode "The Doctor Is Sin" as an employee of Jonas Venture Jr., who is trying to take care of the drug-addicted Johnny. Also in "Fallen Arches", Dr. Venture has built a "Walking Eye" machine, reminiscent of the spider-like robotic spy built by Dr. Zin from the Jonny Quest episode "The Robot Spy". In the third episode of Season 3, "The Invisible Hand of Fate", Race Bannon can be seen working as a torturer for the OSI. In the fifth episode of Season 3, "The Buddy System", Johnny, apparently now sober, was working at Rusty Venture's Day Camp for Boy Adventurers. He is still extremely high strung, breaking down emotionally as he talks about his father. Later, Dr. Zin himself would show up as a special guest at a show for the children, scaring Jonny out of his mind. Sergeant Hatred appears in the same episode (as a replacement arch villain for The Monarch) and gushes with admiration for Dr. Zin, referring directly to an incident that occurred in Episode 5 of the original Jonny Quest series ("Riddle of the Gold"). The Sergeant states that Dr. Z had his No. 2, Kaseem, eaten by a cheetah, which reference Dr. Z relishes, quoting the Dr. Zin character directly. In actuality, Kaseem in the Jonny Quest episode was killed by what appears to be a cheetah enraged that Kaseem had previously killed its master, though Dr. Zin looks on from a monitor approvingly, decrying Kaseem's "last blunder."

And as far as unsourced and original research, I understand those policies, but let's be honest a lot of articles have been written by good faith editors. This isn't a case of Wikifying it's more like Armageddon. STOP THE MADNESS! What's the harm in allowing the page to include a lot of information that's of interest to the show's fans. PLEASE!!! Do something Dr. Venture!!! (Wallamoose (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

His edit title is: "rm unreferenced junk, while I'm here". Stop this villain! One man's junk is another's treasure!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venture_Bros.&diff=245846226&oldid=245831804(Wallamoose (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

I dont think this is the correct place for this. It's a content dispute that should go to dispute resolution. There has been no editor named to comment on. --neon white talk 23:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that based on recent history, he's being polite and not naming names, knowing we can likely see it for ourselves. However, this is content-related, and not yet incivility ... BMW(drive) 23:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's all very well but it kinda defeats the purpose of a wikiquette alert. How can anyone comment on the behaviour of an editor if we they know who it is? --neon white talk 00:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that contested and uncited material can be removed, but blanking helpful, verifiable and uncontested content because it lacks sources is pointy disruption which is blockable. That's what is going on there, so I don't think it's just a content dispute. And I'm happy to name names if that would be helpful.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

There may be valid reason why the editor is removing edits, have you asked? --neon white talk 00:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attack by PaddyM

Greetings. I come here, as a first step, to gain neutral insight into the most recent note which PaddyM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log) left on my talk page. In it he called me a hypocrite and referred to my opinion about templates as "hilarious". I do not know why PaddyM has taken it upon himself to leave this sort of note on my talk page. We haven't communicated in many, many months but it seems he has been monitoring my talk page, looking for something to rip into me about. This unprovoked attack violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Before I leave a message for him on his talk page, a template or run to AN/I I thought it most appropriate to come here and obtain some sort of mediation and neutral insight. I look forward to any assistance which may be rendered. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much of an attack there. It's probably just best to avoid PaddyM as much as you can. Grsz^X 02:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am completely avoiding him, as much as possible. In fact previous this his note on my talk page we had not communicated in over a year. His message comes clearly out of the blue. Thus I am quite miffed and confused. Bstone (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone. First, I commend you for bringing the discussion here; rather than escalating the dispute. In this situation, perhaps it would be best to let PaddyM go his way. He may have an explanation for the remark, and you may have a reply regarding your take on templated messages. However, the discussion is unworthy of escalation; the best possible outcome would be to let the dispute drop. Since you see each other once a year, likely the problem will not resurface. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I've like to say I am extremely annoyed at it. I've actually reverted the remark as I find it unacceptable.--Mathematiquizard 17:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would you do that? It was on someone else's Talk page, and it's currently being discussed right here in this forum ... it's like removing evidence, and it's Bstone's right to decide whether to remove it or not. BMW(drive) 18:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just posting to say that I thought PaddyM's message was rather impolite and seemed to be provocative. I certainly hope that provocation is unsuccessful, and I would advise Bstone to let this go for now at least. It's on the record, if there are any future problems. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean- he's already been blocked once [27], he'll end up being blocked again if he's uncivil again.--Mathematiquizard 12:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, I was blocked putatively for a 3RR (which is, of course, not the correct use of a block), which was disputed by both myself and other neutral editors of that page. Regardless, although I tend to find that my disputes with Bstone end with him using language disproportionate to the material in question, the simple fact that he was admonished for templating a regular, yet believes that someone who templates him is committing vandalism is, in fact, pure hypocrisy. It cannot possibly be vandalism against him, but useful information to someone else for the same offense. Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a more interesting essay: User:DESiegel/Template_the_regulars BMW(drive) 10:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He's made another attack, this time on my talk page, see here. Any further incivility and I'm going to report him to WP:AIV.--Mathematiquizard 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, here's his third edit, this time accusing me of violating WP:NPA. He's going on WP:AIV.--Mathematiquizard 15:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note: Mathematiquizard is yet another entrant in the whack-a-mole game that is removing sockpuppets of User:Tom Sayle. [ roux ] [x] 10:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Pandacomics

I made edits on Jay Chou so that the article complies with the Chinese naming convention.

• Pandacomics reverted my edit with no editing summary (PC-revert 1).

• I reverted his revert and cited the naming convention (PYL-revert 1).

• Pandacomics reverted my revert with a comment saying "um, no" (PC-revert 2).

• I explained in his personal page asked him to be civil and elaborated in details why my edits were for the Chinese naming convention. I reverted his revert (PYL-revert 2).

• Pandacomics partly replied to my comment then reverted the article again (PC-revert 3).

I again explained in his personal page about the naming convention and gave him the 3-RR warning, as he was in violation of the "no 3-RR rule".

He then gave me 3-RR warning with a comment saying "You want to play dirty? I'll show you dirty". As I have reverted the article twice, the warning was incorrectly given. The act of giving an incorrect warning, together with the comment which alleged me of "playing dirty", as well as the blanket revert when Pandacomics only had issues with one aspect of my edit is uncivil. I have asked him to civilly sort out the content disputes via discussions, instead of engaging in an edit war or further uncivil behaviour.

For your reference,

My talk page is User talk:pyl#October 2008; and

Pandacomics' talk page is User talk:Pandacomics#Jay Chou_2

Jay Chou revision history is [28]--pyl (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, his 3RR warning was correct. Three reverts is not an entitlement, quota, or target. Neither of you should be reverting the other repeatedly, and the edit summary of a revert is not the place to resolve content disputes. That's what the article Talk page is for. If you can't resolve this by discussing things politely, follow the dispute resolution guidelines. Having said that, I have left a warning on Pandacomic's Talk page, since their remark does accuse Pyl of acting in bad faith. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pandacomics posted to my Talk page acknowledging the warning. I think we can mark this as resolved, and hope that these two editors can remain polite towards one another going forward. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Issuing a warning may be considered ok, but threatening Pyl by saying "you want to play dirty? I'll show you dirty" is beyond acceptable wikipedia behavior. Pandacomics needs to learn to address his concerns in good faith and without threats.LedRush (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dstebbins

Trendy Sammy

Please see user's comments on Talk:Easton Press, namely calling me a "monster" and other accusation. --RossF18 (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems to have resolved itself per user's clarification. --RossF18 (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this user is rather new to Wikipedia and could use some help finding their way around. If you'll re-read the comment you're referring to, they didn't call you a monster - they were referring to the large list as a "monster". They even explained this in a later post on the talk page just before you posted this and appear to be trying to find a way to resolve your dispute. See if you can't work together to figure out how to handle the article and any possible lists, or use dispute resolution to get some other outside opinions if you can't agree on a way forward. Shell ^babelfish 00:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also left a "did not notify" message {{subst:User:Bwilkins/didnotnotify|WQA}} on Ross's page as you should always notify the other party of this filing. BMW(drive) 22:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

SkyWriter

Need help with resolving bad-faith being assumed by editor who thinks Inigmatus is edit warring[34][35]. Article changes to Messianic Judaism have been reverted by SkyWriter without addressing issues in talk first. inigmatus (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a number of editors making these accusations, i recommend reminding all involved in the dispute to remember to assume good faith and use the talk page to gain consensus before editting. --neon white talk 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

*I* think Inigmatus is edit warring; I recently blocked him for 3RR. I think he needs to look rather more carefully at his own behaviour William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All editors are required to assume good faith, not make personal attacks and remain civil while resolving a dispute. There seems to be a number of editors involved in edit warring on the article. I'm interested to know why SkyWriter, an editor with a previous block for edit warring, wasn't even warned about it? This alert is about the 'bad faith' accusations only not the dispute itself. --neon white talk 22:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Skyemoor (talk · contribs)

Repeated edit warring, insisting that he/she has been collaboratively editing Solar energy, though repeatedly reverts only the edits of one editor, myself. Suggested setting up a sandbox, then failed to use the sandbox, other than to trash it, and reverted having it restored. I really don't care about an edit war in a sandbox, but it really isn't productive. Fails to understand really common sense arguments about why there are problems with the lead section that they continually revert to, and refuses to go back to a previously agreed version while a new one can be worked on in the sandbox. Apteva (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples please? --neon white talk 09:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly can. Apteva has been blocked a few days ago for edit warring]. 3 other editors have been restablizing and improving the article during his block, but he has returned with the same insistence that his edits are the only 'acceptable' edits and insists that everyone consider his version the "original", "current", and future version. He has been repeatedly inserting a hand-drawn diagram against the wishes of the other editors, and has refused to follow the findings of an RfC. There is a sockpuppet investigation going on against him, and he truly needs to be blocked from Solar Energy for a month or more. One of the other editors is on international travel and Apteva knows it, and is trying to take advantage of it as much as he can right now. Any help you can provide will be truly appreciated. --Skyemoor (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that is the findings of mediation (and possibly article RFC). You may need to make a request for comment on user conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The RFM was closed as successful, but what actually happened is that of the three editors involved, one went on Wikibreak, and a second announced they had lost interest in the project (as an SPA it was not clear if they meant WP or the article). In the meantime someone else had already filled the vacuum by putting an image in the lead that no one objected to, making the RFM moot. Apteva (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Apteva, what we REALLY needed was diff's showing their incivility, not existing sockpuppet investigations, etc.IN fact, if additional actions are already underway against the editor, there's usually no requirement to load this WQA as well... BMW(drive) 20:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any existing investigations against Skyemoor. Here are the examples I am referring to. In particular referring to an edit as "by recently blocked Apteva" as if that was important.

[36] 8 hours after a talk section had already been created, but not used by Skyemoor. [37] after I was still waiting for Skyemoor to participate in the talk page discussion. Skyemoor's first participation on the talk page was not until 20:20, 9 October 2008. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that their cache was showing a previous version of the talk page.

Since the lead was in an edit war, I moved it to a sandbox and restored the version from September (not "my" version, but the last consensus version, based on the fact that it had been in the article unedited for about the last month). Skyemoor immediately resumed the edit war by reverting to what to me was an unacceptable version.[38] The "work" of several editors had been moved to the sandbox so that it could be fixed. Even though Skyemoor had said that using a sandbox was a good idea, they didn't use it, (until later) other than to question[39] [40]and trash the section headings.[41] [42][43] Evidently Skyemoor's definition of consensus is to block one editor and use the others as a consensus. It doesn't work that way.

I really don't have any problem with an edit war in a sandbox, but it is completely unproductive.[44][45] Once Skyemoor started using the sandbox a consensus was quickly reached,[46] as I pointed out.[47]

Frankly it seems that just bringing up a Wikiquette complaint has encouraged Skyemoor to use the sandbox, and although their agreed to version is rife with weasel/peacock words and irrelevant information, it does not have any technical flaws, which was my only objection. Apteva (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As to "One of the other editors is on international travel", I have not taken that into consideration, other than to ask them to recruit someone while they are there to help create an article about Solar power in Japan. It is my assumption that they have internet access in Japan. The last time I was overseas I still had internet access. Apteva (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Apteva has been a disruptive editor for most of a year, insisting on his text and his hand-drawn diagrams, even though the unit types mismatched (power vs. energy). We had indeed talked about a sandbox, but when he was blocked, other editors began modest edits to the article, so I collaborated with them. Yes, one of the primary editors is on travel, so Apteva ratcheted up his activity, resulting in his block. The fact that other editors and I have a smooth working relationship seems to anger him. I believe he has the potential to contribute to WP, but would suggest he learn to participate as a group member. --Skyemoor (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, like Skyemoor, I am technically trained, so more apt to notice technical deficiencies than non-technical deficiencies (saying I don't understand power and energy would be like telling a geometry teacher they don't know the difference between radius and diameter). I'm happy that the issue has been resolved and if Skyemoor continues to stay away from auto-revert mode this can be closed as resolved. I would hope that they understand, however, the difference between collaboration and choosing sides. By the way I interact with thousands of editors and have a fairly good relationship with most of them. I don't have any "problems" with any of them, but I do try to correct any of their errors, as needed. Apteva (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I may have spoken too soon. I see that Skyemoor is still in auto-revert mode, but this time it's a content issue, and can not be resolved here. Apteva (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

From my view of the handful of diff's you have provided, every single one of them has to do with content and not specific incidents of incivility, and as such this is not the right forum ...am I wrong? BMW(drive) 11:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be that both editors have been edit warring and need to be reminded to use the talk page to discuss changes and gain consensus, leaving the article alone until an agreement is reached and even then it would probably be better if another editor made the agreed changes. If this cannot be done voluntarily, it may warrant a block. --neon white talk 11:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is that I was using the talk page, and the sandbox, while Skyemoor's only tool was edit warring. And yes there will be a long discussion of content, but barring either of us from editing the page is not necessary. Apteva (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The history shows both users edit warring. I believe it would show good faith for both users to refrain from editing the page until the content dispute is resolved. --neon white talk 12:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that Skyemoor is still stuck in auto-revert mode. After being asked to refrain from editing the page (I will give them the benefit of the doubt in possibly not seeing the request). Then when it was agreed on the talk page to change the article and it was incorrectly changed, and fixed, who steps in and auto-reverts? Skyemoor.[48] Unfortunately the article has been protected for so long by an SPA (today: "I need to add xx", instead of "I would suggest that xx be added" - they just don't get it that WP is a collaborative project) that it is hard to find anyone willing to actually work on the article, because they tend to just get chased away. Apteva (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Apteva is the one chasing people away. His tendentious editing goes against the wishes of nearly all the other editors currently and historically involved. He has used sockpuppets to reinsert material and he has been blocked from editing numerous times. The page would have long since reached FA status if not for Apteva. He doesn't understand the subject at hand but argues for argument's sake. His involvement is not conducive to progress. Mrshaba (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Speak of the devil. If I had known about Wikiquette alerts a year ago I would have entered one against Mrshaba, the SPA that I was referring to, but I did open the more appropriate AN/I. No, I tend to be quite welcoming, and encourage participation in many ways. And you are kidding yourself about FA - the article was only brought up to a real GA by the FA team (it was given GA by someone who really wasn't familiar with what is required - the article still had the same problems as when it was rejected before, and their very next GA was summarily reverted). However, I am told that the article was much worse before Mrshaba started working on it - and would have been so much better if Mrshaba would understand that it isn't "his" article. Many times I have explained to Mrshaba proper ways to do things and all he does is mock me and worse. I won't go into any more on Mrshaba here, because this isn't about Mrshaba, this is about Skyemoor, who was a primary editor for the article but stayed away for about a year. See[49] I see that Skyemoor didn't actually made any edits during that time.[50] So welcome back, but I would ask you to count to ten before you hit the auto-revert button - and then don't do it. Apteva (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Jimmi Hugh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2008_October_13#Is_Windows_7_being_released_so_soon_because_of_the_criticisms_about_Windows_Vista.3F

I requested that the user please remain civil on the reference desk, and he responded by saying, "Ugh... If I wasn't civil with my identical style of response... then you definetly weren't being civil. Especially as I added surreal and friendly humour so you could cop out of responding and not feel like you were being attacked for posting unnecesary messages in an attempt to have ago at Kainaw. So, I was being Civil, you on the other hand are being somewhat rude and childish. As for making the claim... If he wasn't considering, reviewing or analyzing the possiblity and/or action of making such a claim then he wouldn't have posted the question, so on some level there is achance he might want to, or at least feel he could come to make or not make that claim. Kainaws response was Valid, complete and his claim note was entirely on point. You on the other hand are just a twat... now that's not civil :)."

I don't think calling users "twats" is really appropriate. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears he has had other warnings issued to him regarding civility and personal attacks here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimmi_Hugh#Warning 98.221.85.188 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Snowded

This User has accused me of being a sock puppet, and apparantly claims i need to report in to him with my IP and any edits i make otherwise i'm being dishonest. I don't think this very polite could someone look into please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.42 (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you give pointers to or links to the specific instances where you consider this has happened? Also, I see you have a history of never signing your comments. This means it is difficult to see who is saying what at times, and can cause a little understandable irritation at times. It would help immensely if you signed your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of each of your messages. Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The user is editing under two newly created IP addresses and demonstrates knowledge of WIkipedia processes that would not be present in a new editor. He is refusing to answer questions about past history of editing. I have said on both of the IP talk pages that multiple editing and refusing to disclose prior history is an indication of sock puppetry. Given the history on any page to do with Britain, Ireland or Celtic matters its a reasonable concern. There are similarities in editing style with previous sock puppets. My comments on the talk pages are here and here. The user also seems determined to place fact tags all over the place, see here--Snowded TALK 09:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

After a quick glance at the IP's Talk page, I would recommend a little WP:AGF. If you have a sockpuppet situation, making veiled threats is a no-no. You either file your WP:SOCK case, or leave it alone. You're not the sock-killer. Make your case as per WP:SOCK and remain civil. BMW(drive) 10:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinion noted, but I'm afraid I don't agree. These and related pages are plagued with one time IPs and socks. A polite request to the effect of "have you edited before" is reasonable. Repeating that request when the editor displays all the signs of having knowledge of Wikipedia beyond that of a newby is also reasonable. I didn't make any veiled threats, I know I'm not a sock killer and I am remaining civil. All the IPs have to do is answer a reasonable question. I also don't file sock puppet requests at whim, that would be uncivil, I prefer to give the editor in question a chance to state formally that they have not edited before. If they do, then I trust them unless proved otherwise (if you want some diffs on that I can give them. So try and be civil yourself and assume good faith. Some of us are trying to get some stability onto controversial pages. --Snowded TALK 11:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this back from Snowded's talk page...this diff [51] is really rather pushy regarding this. -t-BMW-c- 12:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any sign of incivility or an assumption of bad faith from User:Bwilkins (a.k.a. BMW). On the other hand, repeatedly demanding answers is more uncivil, in my opinion, than simply filing a case at WP:SSP. If you believe that "refusal to answer... speaks for itself" then go ahead and cite it as supporting evidence. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking twice, then asking again when a new IP address appears from the same editor on the new site hardly constitutes "repeatedly" and the use of such a word which does not in any way correspond to the facts could be interpreted as provocative (but I won't). Giving potential new editors a chance to declare if they have edited before rather than leaping to a report at WP:SSP is a good example of assuming good faith SheffieldSteel. --Snowded TALK 18:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be less confrontational, particularly when talking to volunteers who are here to evaluate your own conduct. This edit summary is not helpful, based as it is on your position that the word "repeatedly" "does not in any way correspond to the facts" when the facts, as stated by yourself, are that you asked three times. Regarding the subject matter, please review the guidelines at WP:SOCK, particularly Wikipedia:SOCK#Identification_and_handling_of_suspected_sock_puppets, and try to avoid behaviour which could be seen as biting the newcomers or assuming bad faith. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Twice to one IP editor, and once to another IP editor (to ask if they are the same person) is not "repeatedly" under any normal use of English. One volunteer editor (me) explaining to another volunteer editor (you) that I think jumping to a sock report is not the way to greet a potential newcomer is hardly confrontational. Volunteer editors who spend hours most days clearing up vandalism and dealing with socks and newby IP addresses on controversial pages develop ways to handle those issues, where possible avoiding continuously reporting people. Its called avoiding biting the newcomers and assuming bad faith. Jump into support Bwilkins by all means. I disagreed with his comments and elaborated on that politely on his talk page. We may still disagree, that is Wikipedia. I will also feel free to evaluate your comments/conduct while welcoming yours on mine. So far I think my language is less confrontational. --Snowded TALK 19:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So far in this thread, you've described the editors who've criticised your actions of as being incivil, provocative, confrontational, assuming bad faith and not providing facts. I think we will have to disagree. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We will, including the appropriateness and accuracy of that last comment. --Snowded TALK 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• incivil: [52]
• provocative: [53]
• confrontational: [54]
• assuming bad faith: [55]
• not providing facts: [56]

SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Please read the material. your incivil, confrontational and assuming bad faith are invitations to the editors concerned to consider if words they used could also be applied to them. Your provocative was a suggestion that you tone down your language. Not providing the facts was I think an accurate statement. I have tried, patiently to explain my comments and I am very happy to let them stand as is. I would strongly recommend that you look at the whole picture and try be a little less sensitive when people simply feed back to you words that you have used yourself. --Snowded TALK 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. Now go and edit an article or suspect some sock puppets or something. Just please try to follow the guidelines while you're at it. Of course, that wasn't an accusation that you've acted outside of any guidelines; just an invitation to consider whether you might do so in future. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have been happily editing in parallel with this less serious activity. Suspecting sock puppets is an occupational hazard on the pages I edit (have a look at Wikipiere if you want an example) Always good to be reminded of the need to keep within guidelines and I welcome all informed criticism and comments as I am sure you do. Context as ever is king --Snowded TALK 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The cluster of articles connected with articles England, United Kingdom, and so on are continually being plagued by one-time IP editors who swoop in and make contentious edits for a while against established consensus before disappearing, or anonymous IP editors who are disruptive, or even newly created SPA doing the same thing. Of course not all editors who fall into this category are like this, but enough are for it to be a point of comment. United Kingdom, England, and the other articles (Wales, for instance) have suffered from this for a long time, and some actions (concerning the use of British Isles) have gone to arbitration on the matter. All this can be verified by simply looking at the histories of these articles, their talk pages, and their logs. Some of the articles are having to repeatedly be semi-protected or fully-protected to stop the edit warring, and only recently has there been a concerted effort to try to make the talk pages conform more to WP:TALK, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:CRYSTALBALL to remove the disruptive, personalised, soapboxing style of comments from some. In the light of this, and taken in concert with the failure of this IP editor, despite being reminded on more than one occasion, to sign their posts, relatively mild perceived infractions can become a source for irritation. I don't think the reaction of Snowded should be divorced from the context in which they were made, whereupon, I don't think there is much to apologise for, though his comments perhaps could have been phrased a little differently. Administrators do ask people if they have edited under other i.d.s from time to time, and I don't see that doing so is such a heinous crime, especially in the context, which I have outlined above.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It would help things along, if the IPs-in-question would create accounts. I know it's not required (creating an account), but it sure would help. I fail to understand why there's a negative reaction to Snowy's questions. PS- Yes, I support mandatory registration (in case anybody questions my views). GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is contentious about placing fact tags on unsourced statement, and putting notes that the content and style need to be improved, and correcting spag? i could understand if was rewriting articles to say the english are as bad as nazis or adding masses of unsourced analysis, put please Goodday tell me what edit you feel was contentious and i will be happy to discuss it with you. Why exactly should anyone have to give account to anyone else of their action? are not all editors equal? or do you consider some editors more equal than others? Also as for signing post and the term infractions please refer to the fifth pillar of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.162 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking about the edits you've made. I'm just curious as to your negative reaction to Snowy's request (concerning wheither you've edited before). I'm assuming this is the same editor, I'm responding to. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way IP, according to your contributions history, you've only been on Wikipedia for 'less then a day'. How'd ya know about making Wikiquette reports? I never knew about them for over a year. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The tone of it was more than anything, i do not like to be order or threaten, nor do i, nor anyone else have to make ourselves accountable. As for my knowledge maybe i just read up, but the IP is just dynamically assigned from my ISP or if i'm somewhere else in the world its random depending on the place or the computer. The reason i not bother with an account is simple, the hassle people become on many articles become so entrenched in showing their own personal viewpoints that even to put a fact tag on, infuriates them to the point of vendetta, i've seen it far to many times, also i can't be bothered to remember another password when i have no need to. As for how long I've been editing, from about 2001, I hate to think how many edits that be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.162 (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This steadfast refusal to create an account is frustrating to say the most & annoying to say the least. Oh well, it's up to you. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY. Although userid's are preferred, badgering them about it is getting close to harassment. -t BMW c- 22:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil comments by User:Readin

While discussing on the talk: demographics of Taiwan, I noticed that User:Readin did not responded to my comments directly and I said:-

"I note that you did not directly respond to my comments above your response, please do so. Thank you."

Then I got a reply saying:-

"please do so I did not realize I was being paid to follow your orders. I will respond or not respond as I have time. Please have patience and stop demanding that other editors follow your personal schedule."

In my view, discussion on an article cannot progress if an editor argues for A then other editors responds with B. I didn't demand Readin to "follow my orders" or "follow my personal schedule", I find the comment quite uncivil, uncalled for and it did not assume good faith.

For your reference, the diff is here [57]. Thank you.--pyl (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that this is not the first time that Pyl and I have disagreed. The "follow...schedule" comment refers to instances where Pyl has set arbitrary deadlines for responding to his comments. Also, my comment began with "I don't have time to say a whole lot this week, but...", to which Pyl responded that I should spend more time responding to him. And I did respond to his comment. He did not make clear what he meant by "directly". Readin (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We do disagree but I don't believe I desert a comment like that. That's not resolving disagreement. I was very surprise to have receive that. I didn't give you a response like you said above as the arbritrator can see for himself or herself from the logs. You are an active editor, editing usually on a daily basis. During a disagreement for another article, I said if you do not respond within one week or so then I will have to remove a statement for which you provided a dispute source. I just asked for a response within a week when you were editing anyway nearly daily. In this case if you believe that I didn't say "directly" clearly, I would have been happy to clarify if you asked me to. --pyl (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have problems scrolling down on my iPhone to edit for the section below. So I will respond here. I apologize. I don't know LedRush that well but I remember him to be quite civil and helpful when we edited together last time. I am surprised that he said I routinely engage in contentious edits as he never told me that, and in fact I don't believe that anyone has. If i'm mistaken pls let me know. I feel rudely treated to and hurt, and that's why I filed this report. Whether it is borderline or false, I am happy to wait for a decision from an arbritrator. I don't want to escalate this matter and that why I file a report here instead of filing with the other boards. I just wish Readin can be gentlely reminded of the rules of assuming good faith and be civil by a third party.--pyl (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing uncivil in responding to a borderline rude comment with a slightly smarmy one. Pyl routinely engages in contentious edits and, quite honestly, I believe that he should be the subject of a Wikiquette alert for making this false claim here.LedRush (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the entire article called WP:CONSENSUS do I see anything about set timeframes for responses to discussions. Everyone who edits Wikipedia does so on a voluntary basis, whenever their personal schedule allows. The setting of arbitrary timelines for discussion, and even the insistence that certain questions be answered by others runs contrary to the foundations of Wikipedia as a whole. The goal of this project is to build a good encyclopedia, which takes time. Obviously, there are situations where time might be "of the essence", but that's rare as articles continue to evolve over time. To urgently request the response to certain questions smells a little of WP:OWN, is unWP:CIVIL in its own right, is against WP:AGF, and cannot be considered acceptable. I will not go so far as to say that the initiator should be investigated - more likely, the initiator needs to be aware of their actions, and how they have led to his own belief that they needed to submit this WQA complaint. Article Talk pages are group discussions, nobody truly leads them, yet everybody deserves to be heard. You cannot insist on a response, although if nobody replies, you may ask it again in a different (perhaps more general) manner. The slightly sarcastic reply by the named was not uncivil, it was an exasperated response to a situation. -t BMW c- 11:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I didn't set anything timeframes in this discussion and that's why I found Readins comments uncalled for and not assuming good faith. Readin and I were referring to another matter. Please refer to the article discussion.--pyl (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you've read my userpage, you'll know that I looked at more than just the links provided and delved a little deeper than one might have wanted so that I could get the full background. -t BMW c- 12:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

fair enough. I honestly thought the past agreements between readin and i were resolved when we apologized to each other a couple of weeks ago and we already moved on from that. But if by you holding this decision means the past disagreements can be finally resolved now, then I'm happy with it.--pyl (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by User:Eye.earth

Perhaps rather than taking administrative action, someone paying attention here may be able to help. User:Eye.earth has been undertaking disruptive actions on List of centenarians, deleting most of what little information is already contained in the introduction referring in such ways as "cutting out the fat", despite the obvious agreement on the talk page that the introduction needs to be lengthened, per the requirements at the style guidelines for lists. Although they have been contacted several times on their talk page and asked to discuss their edits, they simply ignore the request and continue to push their own version after taking a break. Occasionally the edits are even more disruptive, such as this one which removed content and references with no explanation whatsoever. More information can be found at the user's talk page. I'm hoping that perhaps this user will listen to someone else; if someone disagrees with your editing, you need to discuss it with them, not just keep reinserting in the hopes that the other user will give up. The latest one, by the way, was todayCheers, CP 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue has nothing to do with civility. However, I have warned him of the apparent Ownership of articles. -t BMW c- 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

User:Jaakobou

I come across this editor from time to time, mostly on Israeli-Palestine articles, where we both edit. There has long been a dispute on a separate article, Reactions to the September 11 attacks, over the inclusion of a cartoon which has been alleged by one campaigning non-WP:RS to be some sort of celebration of the attacks (published in a Palestinian newspaper) some six years after the event. There is consensus on the talk page from every editor apart from Jaakobou to remove the image (see the discussion, which I initiated, here)

Myself and another editor (User:Imad marie) have continued to engage on the talk page, initially leaving it up to Jaakobou to remove the image himself. Two other editors have commented to support removal, no-one has come in to support retention. Imad Marie did then remove the image, per consensus, twice in the space of four days (the second time after ongoing discussion), only to be immediately reverted. Jaakobou has now taken to accusing that editor of "edit-warring" and myself of "trolling" in his latest contribution to the discussion, while still not addressing any of the points being raised as to why the image is not relevant and not appropriate.

This article does have a complicated history and of course up to a point this is a content dispute, but surely it is not acceptable to be referred to as a "troll" or accused of not being "collaborative" for actually taking the time to explain the problems with using an image based on an inflammatory accusation; to be accused of being part of a "clique" on account of being on the consensus side in a debate; and also for that editor to continually revert a consensus change, and while doing so, to make accusations against others of edit-warring?

This is despite a specific recent request to this editor from me to back off from personalising any disagreements we have, here, following a stream of accusations (linked to on that talk page) that I was engaging in "tendentious editing", "stalking" etc. In all of the debate here, I have been calm and reasoned, while explaining the points at issue with I hope some clarity. One mildly sarcastic remark has been picked up on (indeed I received a short and quickly overturned block for it, something I am still a little bemused by), but at all times I have assumed good faith and discussed the issue rationally, without resorting to any form of direct accusations aimed at Jaakobou. Instead myself and other editors who disagree with him are being hit with repeated, specific and unwarranted abuse. --Nickhh (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the forum for content disputes, and you are misrepresenting the factual basis of that dispute, on top of things - there is no consensus to remove the image, for one thing. It is somewhat disingenuous of you to come here and complain about Jaakobou's behavior, when you have just been blocked for incivility toward him. NoCal100 (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not bringing this here as a content dispute, as is clear from what I have written above. Most incivility stems ultimately from a content dispute of one sort or another, I have merely noted that this is indeed the case here, by briefly setting out the background. I am pretty clearly - you would have thought - not asking for adjudication on that dispute. I am making a specific note about being accused of "trolling" or being part of a "clique", following on from previous personal attacks. As for your other point, I was pretty swiftly unblocked. It was one comment, of a flippant nature and not malicious or abusive. I have noted this in my post here in any event, so to accuse me of being disingenuous is, well, disingenous itself. Thank you --Nickhh (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You opened your post here with two detailed paragraphs about the content dispute, misrepresenting it while you are at it. Those are not needed. You were unblocked after you agreed to apologize for your behavior, but then you come here to continue the battle in another forum , which suggests that you r apology was nothing more than lip service, to get yourself unblocked. NoCal100 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, your contribution has been noted. I refer you to my previous comment and to my initial post, where what I am saying should be quite clear and not at all misrepresentative of anything. I must have missed the point as well where I had to apologise for my alleged incivility btw. Nor am looking for a battle - I simply want Jaakobou to tone down his language and to lay off making accusations against me and other editors when discussing article content, as I asked him to do a while ago on his talk page. Could you please lay off the aggression as well? --Nickhh (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Where and when did Nickhh apologize? Provide the diff. Imad marie (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no apology. Nickhh maintained that he should not have been blocked. The block notice mentioned ArbCom sanctions related to a different subject area. Elonka's opinion was that he should be unblocked based on "time served". His unblock request was accepted on that basis. [58] SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And Elonka in fact also specifically said that in her view "a full block was excessive". Anyway this is all a bit off-point - I did acknowledge that this had happened as part of the debate on the page, and in so far as any action was needed in respect of this one individual (in my view pretty harmless) comment, that action has been taken and the issue dealt with. The reason I came here was in respect of the personal attacks accusing me of "trolling" and being part of a "clique". These came, as I have said, as part of a series of ongoing accusations made by the same editor, which I had asked them to desist from several days earlier. NoCal has effectively derailed that by wading in here as they did above. It's somewhat ironic of course that I come here to raise problems with an editor's comments and general attitude towards myself and others, only to find that the first person to respond here is another editor (now involved in the underlying content dispute), who launches into yet more personal attacks, accusing me of being "disingenuous", of wanting to "battle in another forum" etc - while at the same time claiming (entirely falsely) that I have had to apologise recently for some appalling breach of civility myself. --Nickhh (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Jaakobou has a record of edit-warring persistently against overwhelming consensus (as he seems to be doing again in this case). This table here demonstrates how, earlier this year, he refused to accept a consensus 8-1 against him, an RfC, an ArbCom and a block before the BLP he wanted was finally removed. It all took an astounding 19 months, completely dominating the TalkPage, and leaving everyone so exhausted there's been no further movement on the biography of an important player. PR^talk 16:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In respect of the template added above, I'm not aware Jaakobou has been referred to ANI recently (and I've just checked back through the more recent archives, although I know he has been in the more distant past on at least one occasion). Even if his name did come up again more recently, I was not involved with it - and whatever it was about, it is presumably separate from my issues above. As it happens I came here because I wanted to avoid the drama of ANI, or any sense that I was looking for "punishment" of some sort. Plus it's not clear that it's gotten that bad yet anyway. I just wanted, hopefully, the problem sorted out more informally, after notifying him on his talk page failed to have any effect. I would add that he is still personalising the debate (eg see his latest comments and my response here), while refusing to directly address any compromise proposals to the underlying content dispute. In my view this is just bad talk page conduct and a waste of everyone's time. My stock of AGF is running low. --Nickhh (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ibaranoff24

User: Ibaranoff24 has repeatedly made personal attacks against me. He has ordered me to “back off” when I have been adding sourced information into an article because he disagrees with it (here [59], and here [60]). He has repeatedly accused me of “pushing POV” (here [61], here [62] and here [63]), when all I’m “pushing” is sourced information. He has now accused me of sock-puppetry simply because another user is supporting me (here [64]). He has also shown agitation and aggression through use of bold, all caps and exclamation marks (as here [65]) and made statements regarding my edits such as “I refuse to bow down to flakey editors trying to insert bad sources and poor writing into articles in order to dumb down their content.” ([66]), and edit summaries such as "responding to user's arrogance" ([67]). Prophaniti (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - a MedCab case was opened here regarding the root dispute between Prophaniti and Ibaranoff24 (content dispute at Hed PE). I am confident that if we can get both parties to discuss the issue politely, all of these problems can be resolved. [ roux ] [x] 23:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading the dispute i think both editors need to familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia:Five pillars. I've never seen such a misuse and misconprehension of policy! This could have easily been dealt with at the reliable sources noticeboard. --neon white talk 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting I have been acting in the same manner as Ibaranoff24 then I would have to assume you haven't been reading the discussion at all, sorry. There really is no comparison.

The medcab resolution is for solving the dispute itself, this is regarding the personal attacks that have arisen throughout, something separate. Prophaniti (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Once the dispute is solved everything should calm down. None of the personal attacks are that serious, though the user in question could do with being a bit more patient and stepping away from a dispute if tempers flare etc. --neon white talk 20:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If the "attacks" are occurring as part of the medcab, they are part and parcel of that activity. BMW(drive) 09:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority are from before the medcab started, a couple are from the start of it, but personal attacks are personal attacks, a medcab project is no excuse. Prophaniti (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The MedCab is now closed. [ roux ] [x] 12:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to the NWQA tag: the medcab is unrelated to non-civil behaviour. Most of the incidents took place before it, and it has been closed because Ibaranoff24 refuses to co-operate with it anyway. As such, could it either be dealt with here, or could someone refer me to where to take the issue if not? Prophaniti (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (User:Malleus_Fatuorum)

User:Soccer174

User:Ross.Hedvicek

I suggested for deletion an article authored by Ross.Hedvicek: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomáš Krystlík. After that, Mr. Hedvicek come to my talk page and accused me of fanaticism and hateful conduct. Therefore I informed him about the "No personal attacks" rule and hoped that this will finish the case. But few hours later Mr. Hedvicek ([68]) denoted me as a "zealot" who conducts "personal vendetta against Tomas Krystlik" (whose book I have never seen, by the way) and is "conspiring" with help of "useful idiots" against Krystlík. Now I feel offended and please for help of other non-involved editors.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• I profusely apologize for anything remotely offensive I might have wrote.I go by the rule that truth can never be offensive to a honest person. I apologize for the second time and I stick to my claim that Ioannes Pragensis AfD is chauvinistic, nationalistic and politically motivated attempt for revenge and he should be one who is reprimanded. People like him had me banned from Czech Wiki. Now they trying to have me "eliminated" from English Wiki, too? When this persecution will end? Ross.Hedvicek (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have had never contact with you on the Czech wiki. I do not know you nor Krystlík. I do not know his book, I have found it only through Google. Do not suggest that I am not a honest person; at least I am more honest than you because I do not try to slander other Wikipedists.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:193.142.220.10 and abuse by moderator User:David Gerard

Congratulations for the circumlocution and "impartiality"!--Mazarin07 (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take action against the vandalism of this user. See for example: [69] --Mazarin07 (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't vandalism. User has only made 3 edits in the last 48 hours and appears currently inactive. If the editor returns, contact him or her, via their talk page, and request that they use the talk page to discuss edits. --neon white talk 13:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting an interwiki link is not a simple editing, but real and actual vandalism.--Mazarin07 (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible the editor did not know what an interwiki link is? Please WP:AGF a little, and help by educating/discussing with the editor and not calling it vandalism right away. In addition, you should advise the other editor when you file an Wikiquette report on them. -t-BMW-c- 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BMW has summed it up - see Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers. Also, we don't handle vandalism at this venue - please try here in the future. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BMW did not summ up anything. I already warned the user in question to refrain from deleting interwiki links. In addition, I am convinced that he/she is not a newcomer, but an old editor who doesn't want to edit under his/her real name because of the subversive nature of his/her deletions.--Mazarin07 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The minor (possibly accidental) removal of an interwiki link is not vandalism. Most people don't even understand them, and many might be tempted to therefore remove them. WP:AGF, my friend, WP:AGF. "Warning" vice "discussing" are two different things. -t-BMW-c- 16:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Per BMW. Additionally, if you think someone is a sockpuppet, you should try WP:SSP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find any evidence of sockpuppetry, considering the scant amount of edits made by this ip and the fact that the edits have never been made before under any username i fail to see where the claims are coming from. I think this can be considered resolved. --neon white talk 16:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Besides, Sockpuppetry is an deliberate attempt to change IP's, etc in order to skirt the Rules/perform multiple votes. I have personally used hundreds of different IP addresses, and sometimes forget to login. Does that mean I'm a sock? -t-BMW-c- 16:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to know that I was illegally banned by moderator User:David Gerard for 24 hours, then this ban was extended with another 12 hours. David Gerard abused of his moderator rights, because I nor made 3 reverts one after one nor I violated the WP:BLP (Biographies of living persons), since all my edits were backed up by sources. It is true that one my sources (European Tribune) deleted any reference to Greg Coffey, because of the fear of libel charges, but still remained three other sources in Hungarian. I, as editor am not bound to only back my edits with English language references, any language reference should be accepted, since English is not a divine language, a non-plus ultra of all human knowledge. And yes, references inserted in other languages than English can be verified, since - as far as I know - Wikipedia has moderators in all languages, or moderators of the relevant language Wikipedia can be asked to perform any necessary checks. I was telling this, because User:David Gerard deleted my Hungarian language references as "ill-sourced rubbish". Then, what a surprise, that I soon was banned from Wikipedia by this "well-sourced" gentleman. I think that User:David Gerard ABUSED OF HIS MODERATOR RIGHTS AND MUST BE BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA as well.--Mazarin07 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I would advise you to please calm down, as you are not helping your case. Your vehemence at the IP for deleting a couple of interwiki links, with no solid evidence of sockpuppetry, has cost you a lot of credibility in terms of the community taking your complaints seriously.

Regarding the block from David Gerard... You must understand the project is very sensitive about anything applying to WP:BLPs. If somebody challenges the validity of a source on a BLP, the proper thing to do is to discuss the change on the talk page, in an effort to reach consensus over whether the source is trustworthy or not. Continually re-inserting the suspect allegations, even if it not technically a WP:3RR violation, is not the proper way to debate this.

Generally speaking, when it comes to adding controversial information to BLPs, the default is to leave the information out until there is consensus to include it. Thus, David Gerard was in the right to revert you. Can I ask why you didn't respond on the article's talk page?

That said, I'll admit Gerard probably displayed ill judgment in blocking you in regards to a situation in which he was directly involved. It is strongly preferred that in cases like this, the involved admin should find another uninvolved admin to do the actual block.

I will notify Gerard of this thread, and remind him about this. However, please note there is no action that can/will be taken here and now. While I disagree with Gerard's judgment call, this isn't anywhere close to the kind of thing that gets somebody desysopped. That would be like suggesting someone be thrown in prison for failing to pay a parking ticket. Furthermore, even if it was that serious, WP:WQA is not the proper venue to pursue that.

If you are serious about your edits to the Coffey article, start a discussion on the talk page. That's all you can really do at this point. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It was an OTRS-alerted BLP issue, so putting this rubbish back on even after the note doesn't show willingness to play nicely or being here to write an encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of the OTRS involvement. My bad! I have struck the comments where I questioned your judgment in doing the block yourself. Uncontroversial block, then. Sorry 'bout that! --Jaysweet (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

When editors use ALL CAPITAL LETTERS TO SHOUT, that generally causes me to think they are not looking at matters objectively. In your comment you say that you were adding material to his biography that a reliable source has removed because they feel it was libelous. Do you think that might be a clue the content you were adding was unsuitable? Why would we consider facts about a person residing in London to be relevant if they can only be sourced to Hungary? If this info was relevant and accurate, I feel confident it would be published by a source in London, or England. In total, I am not at all convinced by your arguments, and recommend that you follow the advice that David Gerard has provided to you. If you wish to restore the Hungarian sourced content, please use the reliable sources noticeboard to get advice from uninvolved editors, and then follow it. Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you can use capital letters not only to shout at the person you are talking with, but also to put more stress on some parts of your text. Secondly, let's speak about the matter itself without diverting our discussion toward unessential details. David Gerard was not entitled to block me, since I DID NOT VIOLATE ANY OF THE WIKIPEDIA rules or principles. The violator was David Gerard when he called my sources rubbish. Now, I can accuse him of unpoliteness, at the very least. As a matter of fact, I did not want after all to reinsert that objected paragraph, but decided to wait for new media or legal updates on the issue. I agree that there is no need for vehemence for writing good encyclopedia articles, nor to involve Wikipedia in a legal dispute, but neither is need for dubious manoeuvres of "hush-hush" in the background.--Mazarin07 (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)