Volunteer instructions

This noticeboard is an early step in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. It is an informal non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors. Uninvolved editors are encouraged to give their perspective, advice, offer informal mediation, or refer a report to an appropriate noticeboard. IMPORTANT: Read the overview and instructions before posting your alert.

Shortcut: WP:WQA

Overview

• Generally, see the dispute resolution process and the helpful advice found here.
• If you would like to get one-to-one advice, feedback or counseling from another editor, then you should consider editor assistance.
• If two or more editors have warned another editor about his/her behavior, and the problem has continued, then an alternative to posting here is to make a request at WP:Requests for comment/User conduct.

Instructions for posting an alert

This page is not formally monitored; all helpers are volunteers and therefore it may take some time to receive a response. If the circumstances change since your original posting then please update your alert.

If you have not received help and the problem escalates, then please refer to the list above and post your alert to a relevant noticeboard. Please edit your alert to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere.

Before posting an alert:

• Ensure that you have followed the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes. Politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor; emphasise the desire to move forward constructively; and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues whilst assuming good faith.
• If the issue is a one-off episode (tempers can run high!), or only a mild breach of etiquette guidelines, then consider whether it would actually be helpful to post here.
• If you are sure making a report here is really necessary, then please try to phrase it in neutral and non-judgemental language. Posting in haste and anger could add fuel to the fire, rather than helping to improve matters, thus try to avoid posting while upset.
• Always keep in mind that the aim of this page is to solve ongoing problems, not to punish misbehaviour. There are relevant noticeboards for that.

How to post your alert:

• Be sure to post your alert at the bottom of the page — Click here to start a new section
• A single posting per alert is sufficient. Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page, instead supply a simple explanation of the problem, along with the involved parties and a link to the page(s) where the problem is happening. A concise way to do this is to include diffs that show the problem. (A guide to creating diffs is here).
• Remember to describe the problem or issue as neutrally as possible. Avoid emotional content that could lead to unnecessary escalation or continuance of the dispute on this page, both of which are to be avoided.
• Be sure to sign your report by using ~~~~ or the signature button in the edit bar.
• Notify the reported user(s). Place a short and polite statement on their talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved. You may wish to use the template {{subst:WQA-notice}} on a user's talk page.
• Do not continue your discussion in detail here. Instead, continue discussing it at its original location. As long as your alert contains a link to the relevant discussions it will be seen.

When to avoid filing an alert:

• When your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere.
• If you're filing a report to complain about the same issue that was already closed here. If this is the case, then please read why that report was closed and if appropriate consider taking your issue to a relevant noticeboard.
• If you're filing a report to complain about an editor who responded to and possibly closed your previous WQA alert. You must realise that people action alerts voluntarily, and are unlikely to have a personal connection or involvement in the issue. You should talk with them to get their reasoning on why your alert was closed.

Instructions for volunteers wishing to assist dispute resolution

See volunteer instructions.

Active alerts

Comment by Brewcrewer

Brewcrewer recently reverted Tiamut's edits to the Muhammad al-Durrah incident article. Discussions on this page have often gotten heated, so I was surprised to see the comment in Brewcrewer's revert summary that "Jews aren't that bad". This struck me as a failure to assume good faith, since Tiamut's previous edit and edit summary didn't indicate that Jews were bad in any way, and I'm worried that such comments can fan the flames of edit wars in articles on controversial topics. I haven't notified the user, and I'm not seeking any punitive actions against them. I'm just looking for a neutral outside opinion on whether such a comment can be considered a failure to assume good faith, to see if I myself am failing to assume the assumption of good faith. ← George ^talk 13:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen WP:AGF invoked about a thousand times, and I don't think I have ever seen it produce a positive result -- as the policy itself states, asking somebody to AGF is itself a failure to AGF. The comment is unnecessarily provocative, and it would be reasonable to say so, in my opinion. Bringing WP:AGF into the picture is not necessary or helpful.Looie496 (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary does strike me as odd but I don't know what to make of it. So it seems appropriate to ask Brewcrewer what he meant by that. Per WQA policy I've notified him of this discussion. Gerardw (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at Tiamut's diff [1] to which Brewcrewer was responding. It included the edit summary: "(copy edit and remove reference to Jewish New Year - its irrlevant to the calling of the general strike, which was related to the Second Intifada, not the New Year)" I would imagine Brewcrewer's reference to Jews had more to do with Tiamut's removing the reference to the Jewish New Year as "irrelevant". Maybe a bit of a non-sequitor, but hardly an issue of good or bad faith on Brewcrewer's part, in my opinion. Stellarkid (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, though Tiamut didn't label the Jewish New Year as irrelevant, he said it was irrelevant relative too the general strike, which, as far as I can tell, it was. Per Gerardw's suggestion, I've asked Brewcrewer to explain what he meant by his edit summary. ← George ^talk 22:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" (AGF) Discussion

A general comment regarding "AGF": I agree with Looie496 above that invoking it as a rule is pretty much never a good idea. (That is, I don't think it tends to produce positive results.) If someone "seems to be failing to AGF", the best response is to explain one's motivations, and make one's good faith clear. In this case, Tiamut might wish to explain that he's got nothing against Jews, or he might decide that's clear enough without explanation. Geogre, not being the party whose faith is (or is not) called into question, might very reasonably ask Brewcrewer, "What did you mean by that?" without ever mentioning a behavior policy.

I find that a good rule of thumb is to consider AGF a standard by which to guide my own actions, not to evaluate others'. Otherwise, people think they're being accused of breaking a rule, and that very naturally tends to provoke defensiveness regarding that "rule", which is a step removed from the actual content being discussed. Just my passing thoughts; feel free to ignore... -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Highly agree with the above. I'm ridiculously careful in how I word things as I never, ever want to sound downright accusatory, since that's not really in Wikipedia's philosophy to ever do, and I'd be very hurt if anyone came screaming at me about an honest mistake or misunderstanding. If I ever accidentally slip on warning type in Huggle to hit the wrong "restore" type from Twinkle I will fly to the user's talk page to explain the mistake. Accidental or questionable marks as vandalism = bad. Stay calm and more often than not you'll get reasonable replies. Hell, some ANIs even die on the spot if someone comes up with a detailed, neutral, summary and suggestions on a controversial matter. Some I've posted at simply ended after I took a page from a few other editor's playbooks of writing up an extremely informal agreement on user-enforced minor restrictions on a minor squabble gone out of hand, really simple stuff people forget likely defuse content disputes in a majority of areas ... like a voluntary 3 day 'vacation' from the topic, not posting on the opposing editor's talkpage, or directly addressing the other party at all unless a matter of critical policy such as BLP, NLT, etc. Even a reminder that one ANI listing makes any possibly AGF breaches/Civility issues fair game to blocks or other "real" sanctions from an admin with no further notice gets people to shape up. All about tone and a huge majority of even somewhat "troubling" editors seem glad to sit an talk it over. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While AGF can be used inappropriately "pretty much never" is a bit overstating it. It is quite appropriate to gently remind someone AGF, especially when done by a third party, and especially here at WQA when someone is responding to a poorly phrased comment. Gerardw (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I guess I like for my gentle reminders to include the essential content of the guideline, without ever actually name-checking it. Sometimes, people reply with, "Yeah, I guess I should AGF," coming up with the reference entirely on their own! I might be over-careful in this matter, but I don't think that it hurts me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF has always confused me a bit. The wording of the guideline itself seems to indicate that failing to assume good faith is more reprehensible than actually editing in bad faith. It's also confusing because it's a behavioral guideline, but it seems to be much more closely tied to content disputes than editor behavior. Can someone edit in bad faith without a content dispute? For instance (unrelated to my query), can someone pushing a particular point of view in talk page discussions be considered to be editing in bad faith? Or how does one define bad faith editing? ← George ^talk 09:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't define it, unless in application to myself. If I were to get mad and start editing the Wiki in ways just to piss people off, that would be bad faith, but I would never accuse another editor of it. Ever. If someone is doing something wrong, it's wrong in itself, as an action, and not because of how they might or might not feel about doing it. We can neither dictate, accurately read, nor punish motivations, and that's what "good faith" is about. There's no situation I've ever seen where drawing a conclusion about someone else's intentions is either helpful, nor really possible without presumptuous speculation. Just comment on the content; never on the contributor.

As for the wording of the guideline, I think that the best advice out there regarding our policies and guidelines is DON'T READ THEM! If you have to read a page called WP:AGF to know what it means to assume good faith, then you've already missed the point. That's doubly true for our civility policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GTBacchus, I think that helps. If I understand correctly, AGF isn't a law to applies to other editors, it's just a rule of thumb to help keep your own edits inline with the spirit and goals of Wikipedia. That makes sense. ← George ^talk 22:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about it. Yeah... the more I think about it, it's strange, the way we've codified this idea. The concrete advice boils down to: (A) If you're concerned about someone's motivations, at least give them a chance to explain themselves, and take their word for it. (B) If your own motivations are called into question, politely explain them.

Using the phrase "assume good faith" as code for those two ideas is a little abstract. Hmm. Maybe we should rename it WP:HANLON ;). -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette request on User:WeisheitSuchen

User:WeisheitSuchen has continued to accuse me of forum shopping over a span of a few months now. The legacy refers to a mistake I had committed at the very start of my usage of complaint forums when I had posted on multiple forums. On being pointed out by another user, I had corrected that and apologised. However, the accusations against me have continued by WeisheitSuchen.

• Here: [2] WeisheitSuchen says

• "Makrandjoshi's view isn't disruptive; you are the one who has done the forum shopping and is attempting to undo the previous decision on Careers360 because it didn't go your way" (For information, Makrandjoshi is another user who repeatedly harassed me and got warned here,[3] and here[4] by the administrators.)
• "I said it was the end of the discussion because you've been making the same arguments and forum shopping for months."
• "I'm sorry that you don't realize that the time difference between August and November constitutes "months." Forum shopping (here + RSN twice + Wikiquette etc.) isn't discussion; neither is continuing to argue for something long after productive alternative solutions have been suggested, repeatedly, by several different people."

• Here [[5]WeisheitSuchen says:

• "I'm referring to your penchant for forum shopping and bringing arguments up repeatedly."

• Here [6] Weisheitsuchen says

• "Forum shopping is the name of the specific behavior, as it is known in Wikipedia. How is referring to a behavioral guideline uncivil? If I called you stupid, that would clearly be uncivil (and untrue--I often disagree with you, but I don't think you're stupid). If you really think that referring to a specific behavioral guideline is uncivil, by all means take me to the Wikiquette board. I'm confident about what others would say about it, so I don't mind you getting an outside opinion."

In all the above links, I have told Weisheitsuchen politely yet firmly to stop making the accusations. He has not. My request is that WeisheitSuchen should stop making such accusations and stop using words like "forum shopping" again against me.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My question for others is this: is Wifione correct in stating that "The term 'forum shopping' is uncivil"? To me, it seems that doesn't meet the requirements of a personal attack. I'd like to hear some other opinions though. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As another editor involved in the articles in question, I have seen that few things such reliability of news articles, have been brought up again and again by User:Wifione, despite several RSN discussions, inputs from other editors. Even though I am reluctant to use WP:FORUMSHOP, these repeated discussions over and over again can be best described by WP:FORUMSHOP. --TheMandarin (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it's true, I have a good faith belief that this behavior constitutes forum shopping (whether Wifione's behavior actually is forum shopping is a topic for another board, not this one). Assuming that I have that good faith belief, is it uncivil of me to discuss Wifione's behavior with him? I prefer in situations like this to talk through behavior expectations with the editor, as I have in this case. I could go to WP:ANI for every little infraction, but that would waste the time of many people. I do agree with calling a spade a spade: "One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks." Does my use of the phrase "forum shopping" constitute name-calling or personal attacks? If so, what is the alternative process for dealing with inappropriate behavior? I'd like to hear from Wifione what he would like me to do instead of referring to a specific behavior guideline. Does he want me to take him to ANI immediately, without prior discussion, for any behavior I feel is outside the guidelines? I can do that if that's what he wants; it's not my preferred method of dispute resolution, but I'm willing to do so for this editor if that's requested of me. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont think this matter needs discussing here in the first place For ex, see another unrelated RSN discussion, where repeated questions on the same topic is characterized as WP:FORUMSHOP. Pointing out Forum shopping does not constitute personal attacks. --TheMandarin (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If the forum shopping stopped months ago, then bringing it up now would seem irrelevant and probably (depending on the context) uncivil. If it is still occurring, then mentioning it appropriately isn't uncivil, but the tricky bit there is 'appropriately'. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment. (I asked Dougweller to take a look at this as an uninvolved admin.)

"Months ago" is November, plus he currently has two parallel discussions on two articles (as pointed out by another editor). When I cautioned Wifione against going to RSN with the intention of going elsewhere until he found people to agree with him, he replied that "Dispute resolution is a standard process on wikipedia. Slowly staking up the dispute on higher and higher boards is a standard process of wikipedia. You would be incorrect in requesting a fellow editor to not approach a higher board - I would be referring to the Mediation/Arbitration viewpoints, in case the situation demands so." If he has apologized for forum shopping, I don't recall seeing it; he doesn't seem to show any remorse for doing so, which is why I brought it up.

Generally, Wifione seems to believe that if you ask someone nicely to stop making an accusation that you should have no consequences for the behavior that prompted the warning in the first place. Wifione has done the same with others in response to COI questions and other issues. Wifione, what outcome would you like to see here? Asking editors to simply stop making accusations when they feel your behavior is inappropriate isn't a good solution. Do you want issues to always go to the appropriate noticeboard, as has now been done for the COI questions? Is that what you would consider a "civil" response, rather than talking things out with you as I and others have attempted? What do you envision as the appropriate way to bring up concerns, whether they are about forum shopping, COI, or other issues? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is often possible to approach a dispute in a way that the other party feels less attacked. In general, I try not to tell people that they're guilty of this or that offense, because that very naturally provokes defensiveness, and ultimately, the question isn't whether or not he's guilty of forum-shopping. Eventually, the question goes back to an actual edit, which is either a good one or a bad one.

If it seemed to me that someone was forum-shopping, I'd probably never use that phrase. It's not about honesty; it's about effectiveness. "Calling a spade a spade" is actually a counter-productive strategy, nine times out of ten. It very seldom leads to a speedy resolution, which is much more important than calling a spade anything.

In a forum-shopping situation, I'd probably just point out: "You asked this question in forum X on date Y, and this is what happened. You asked again in forum P on date Q, and the same thing happened. I don't see why things will be different now in forum J. Are you advancing any new arguments this time?" Something like that. It's much less likely to put the person on the defensive, and altogether less likely to result in a thread here at WQA.

Just my two bits... Please note that I'm not saying that you, WeisheitSuchen, have been uncivil or broken any rules. I just think that a slightly different approach to such situations can result in less static. It's something to think about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WeisheitSuchen, a good faith request again from me. In the future, if you really feel I've done something wrong, raise that up with me once - and beyond that do go to the appropriate boards/forums as I do believe that keeping on mentioning statements like "forum shopping" disrupt the talk page environment for a fellow editor. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will agree to mentioning things to you once per incident and then taking it to the appropriate notice board. However, the forum shopping you engaged in last November does not exclude you from warnings for that in the future if you engage in this behavior again. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Blech! Why would you respond to a request that you stop making claims about "forum shopping" by making another accusation of forum shopping? Are you hoping to offend, because I can't think of any positive consequence of talking to someone that way. Blech!

WeisheitSuchen, find a way to talk about the behavior of others without pushing buttons and provoking them. Wifione, please let me know if this provocation continues. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Comment struck as intemperate and unhelpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Simanos and personal attacks

Work in Progress – comments welcome

Simanos has continuously attacked myself and other editors. Moreover, he believes that he still hasn't attacked anyone, and done nothing wrong. User talk:Simanos is full of personal attacks from him, as well as my page User talk:Warrior4321. Further attacks are even found on Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate. warrior4321 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User Simanos protected a page from a vandal, a proven sock-puppet IP who was banned and blocked several times and kept evading his blocks by changing IP and using the same insults on various editors (not only me). All I did after reverting the vandalism several times was to provide info on the talk page about the IP-hopper's racial slurs and aggression and also logic behind the reverts (not that it was needed against such an obvious vandal, but I did provide it, along with others like Ministerforbadtimes and Nev1 and others). Then I told the evader to go away and that we editors of wikipedia would remain vigilant against his abuse and to get a life. Warrior4321 went on a crazy spree of warning various editors for inexistant crimes/aggression, not just me. And I called a spade a spade. That is all. He's embarrassing himself by continuing this charade really. Not to mention his past on that kind of pages either... Simanos (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that you repeatedly attacked other editors and myself. Fine, the IP editor is now a banned-sockpuppet, that doesn't explain why you constantly attacked me with insults. You were directed to Wikipedian guidelines such as (WP:NPA) several times, yet you never really understood it or just plainly ignored it. You still don't understand that you -are- attacking editors and you need to stop, that is why I am requesting support from the community, so that further events as such won't occur. So, no I'm not "embarrassing myself" just because I'm asking support from the community. Rather, you are embarrassing yourself when you don't know what being civil and personal attacks are after constant explanations.

Furthermore, please do not state what you do not know. I did not go on a "crazy spree" and give various editors warnings that they did not deserve. Every editor which received a warning deserved it. warrior4321 04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Be the IP user a proven sock, it doesn't justify your inappropriate behavior, like attacking this User:Warrior4321 who at the beginning did nothing apart from placing a warning template on your talk page, believing you are overdoing it. You could do much better than calling him "crazy", IMHO. And you are still using words like "crazy spree" here. Seriously, That's not really very civil. Also, if you disliked the sock(neither do I), you could have reported him @ ANI earlier, instead of flaming at him. Others might not be very pleasant to see you two flamming on each other.Blodance (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not attack the sock-puppet, did you even read the talk-page? I did not call him any names or insults. Warrior4321 is the only one flaming and not leaving this to rest. He shouldn't even have started it. Simanos (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole first paragraph of this section is a joke. Warrior4321 says I continuously attacked him and other editors(plural) when it's only one other editor in this whole matter (the banned sock-puppets, all of them). Even if I had attacked them (which I didn't) he's just using here another impression tactic by using a vague plural "editors" weasel word. Then he goes on to link entire pages instead of specific examples to show off again, but there is no substance in his accusations. That is why other editors like Nev1, MFBT, etc actually supported me in all 3 pages he linked. Warrior4321 jumped the gun in warning me, he shouldn't have. And he's not being a man and admitting he was wrong so we can drop this. That is all. Simanos (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I did read the talk page, and I think although that sock is a major dick indeed, calling him a "Iranian POV pusher" and telling him to "get a life" is still not very civil. His wrong does not make you right. As User:Warrior4321 did not seem to be involved in the argument between you and the IP sock, I don't think there's a ground to assume bad faith. So, to be honest, you really look more like the one who's flamming than him. Look, you already started to abf on me, and maintained that he is exclusively responsible for this. This is not very cool. Chill, dude. Blodance (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a POV pusher is common is Wikipedia and not a personal attack or insult, especially when there's ample evidence to prove it as is the case here (and when there's proven banned sock-puppet involved). I'm sorry but you're stretching your credibility. BTW Warrior4321 does have a past with me and with the article that you missed. You're not doing a good job so far mate. Warrior4321 jumped the gun in warning me and should apologise. He should also apologise for wasting our time and for creating this preposterous wiki alert here. I'm only calling a spade a spade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPADE Simanos (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Blodance is saying that I am not involved in the discussion of personal attacks between you and the IP editor. This is true, I am not involved in that discussion, so he is "doing a good job so far" [in trying to solve this dispute]. He is not lying. Please read what he is writing carefully. warrior4321 17:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Look, Simanos, calling someone a POV pusher is a personal attack, and is not highly looked upon. I would highly recommend that you back off here and either drop the issue or (even better) apologize to Warrior4321 for lashing out against him unnecessarily. () 17:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• You keep citing WP:SPADE, yet entirely ignoring WP:NOSPADE which is right there in the See Also section of the WP:SPADE page. And you don't even understand the spirit of WP:SPADE. "One can be honest and direct about another editor's behaviour or edits without resorting to name-calling or attacks."/"there is still a requirement for editors to be reasonably civil to each other." you can point out his inappropriate behavior, but it doesn't automatically grant you the right to be uncivil and/or insult him personally. For example, "This is POV due to... yet you still keep promoting it despite the consensus, therefore you look like a POV pusher" is not an insult; "this Iranian POV pusher" is. And, please make one thing clear: I'm not a lawyer defending Warrior4321, nor an investigator trying to find out "which of you is guilty". I'm an uninvolved editor trying to resolve this dispute. The dispute emerges from the article talk and I've only checked the talk page and both your talkpages, I did not go all the way to check all your previous contribs. This is not that reasonable. If you two did have issues before, please explicitly state what it was. Being excessively aggressive does nothing helpful to make you right. Contrastly, I believe many would, after seeing all your comments here, think you are the wrong side.Blodance (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're misusing the nospade page. It is an advice, it states "It can be tempting when dealing with such individuals to "call a spade a spade" However, doing so is not a necessary part of dealing effectively with them, and it can be a very bad idea." and also "At this point, many of us will be tempted to declare that our opponent is clearly a "POV pusher" or a "vandal" or "has a conflict of interest" or "is trolling". This public accusation is sometimes referred to as "calling a spade a spade", but such name-calling or labeling can be uncivil and can even cross the line into a personal attack.". Note the "can be" in every sentence. It means it isn't always. In my case as the SPADE page says "Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review.". This is sort of the case here. I made no personal attacks against the IP sock, I merely presented facts and the truth (with evidence). And Warrior4321 was the one who cited the erroneous policy. Simanos (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:WIN, dude... Anyway, I'm giving up mediating - User:Simanos seems to have a strong intention to "win the war between him and Warrior4321". I don't think Wikiquette alerts can resolve this dispute, therefore I recommend closing it as Stuck. Blodance (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't give up, think of the children :p Seriously though, I agree with you, this has been a complete waste of time for all involved and should be closed. Simanos (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As the guy who first wrote the NOSPADE page, here's my perspective. "Calling a spade a spade" is incredibly misguided, counterproductive behavior, no question. It doesn't make anything better. Doing things that don't make anything better is not an appropriate use of the Wiki. Personal frustration should be vented offline, and calling someone a vandal, troll, or whatever, never helps. Do things that help, and don't do things that don't help.

The rule to remember is "comment on the content, not the contributor". If you find yourself making any claims about another editor as a person, and what their nasty motives must be, then you're behaving inappropriately and should stop. Learn to deal with disputes at the content level, and not at the personal level. If you don't know how to do that, ask. Please let me know if any of this is unclear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

But I didn't call anyone a banned sock-puppet POV pusher. I showed evidence that they were. There is a difference. I was merely informing the other editors of that page of facts that they may not be aware of, to put the argument in perspective and that I was not edit-warring, but reverting vandalism. Say "reverting vandalism" in the edit summary is not enough, I like to provide evidence. I also commented on the content of the IP editor and gave logical reasons why he was wrong. The facts about him being banned were added bonus ^.^ Simanos (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you called anyone anything. I tried to keep my remarks very general. If you're correcting POV edits, you can do that based on the edits, whether they're made by a banned POV-pusher or by Jimbo Wales. An edit summary of "reverting POV edits" is enough, especially if you explain on the talk page why the edits are bad. (Hint: it's not because of who made them.) If someone is evading a ban, go to someone who can do something about that - an admin. We'll block them if we can see they're a banned user. Talking to them is beyond pointless.

Also, it's really best to reserve the word "vandalism" for blatant cases such as inserting dirty words, page blanking, etc. If it could possibly look like a content dispute to any observer, then it's a content dispute. If you need help dealing with such a situation, I and many other admins are happy to take a look at it. Simply "informing editors" of another editor's identity or block record is not a very good strategy, in the sense that it tends not to do anything useful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, all I'm saying is that by this logic the "WP:WIN, dude..." that Blodance wrote above to me could also be considered a veiled personal attack. Think about it. You need to grow a thicker skin. That troll of a sock should not have been given the satisfaction of this waste of time of and Warrior4321 is the primary culprit. Simanos (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, maybe Warrior4321 has a past with you, but please explicitly state why would *I* have such a strong intention to "defeat" you and therefore must resort to personal attacks. I don't. Thanks. Blodance (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The only past I had with Simanos was a small discussion on Talk:Battle of Thermopylae and his own talk page. I have never been once been uncivil to him, the same cannot be said for him. And when you say Look, all I'm saying is that by this logic the "WP:WIN, dude..." that Blodance wrote above to me could also be considered a veiled personal attack. you are incorrect. Directing editors to guidelines that they are simply advising you should read is not an attack. Did you ask the IP editor to read WP:NPOV? No, you chose to tell him to "get a life" and "get lost" and called him "our iranian IP POV pusher". Those are personal attacks. Furthermore, Warrior4321 is the primary culprit. Excuse me? I have only tried to let you understand what a personal attack is as well as trying to stop you from further insulting me. warrior4321

It seems that you had even insulted editors on Talk:Battle of Thermopylae. Hahaha that link you gave says: It is based on material from the Wikipedia article "Battle of Thermopylae"., good going dude, you made me laugh. Epic Fail on source finding. Evenyour own link though contradicts your claim of 15000 Persians. - Statements as such are personal attacks. warrior4321 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf should be told to stop his rudeness and Wikihounding

Resolved: user blocked

From: Michael Hardy

Resolved: Kinetsubuffalo is entitled to not respond but should not have put in uncivil comment when deleting message. Silence from complainant taken as consent - message will be posted to them. Dmcq (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I just received this unwanted, unwarranted nastygram e-mail from Michael Hardy, bashing me for declining to respond

"Kinetsubuffalo", your gratuitous disrespect is noted. You are a boor and a coward.: Obviously I am a far more experienced Wikipedian than you, having done more than 130,000 edits, editing daily for more than seven years. I inquired about the reasons for one of your edits to an article to whose content my professional expertise is relevant.: I have been consistently polite and respectful to you.: You should be grateful for the opportunity to work with me. -- This e-mail was sent by user "Michael Hardy" on the English Wikipedia to user "Kintetsubuffalo".

I just noticed now that it was claimed that the above was in an email. It was not an email. It was a posting to Kintetsubuffalo's talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Liar. I have the e-mail and am happy to provide it to anyone interested. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo: This sort of behaviour is not necessary, as it only escalates the matter after insults have already been delivered (by both parties). Calling Michael a "liar" has no value unless you have proof that you possess the email (which is, of course, very difficult to prove). Thus, a more polite "I have the e-mail and am happy to provide it to anyone interested." would be appropriate (and in it, your other remark is implicitly asserted). You accuse Michael of calling you names, but are you not doing the same here? "Liar" is just as "bad" as "boor" or "coward", and if a polite request is a better alternative than "boor" and "coward", so is avoiding the word "liar" altogether. -- 07:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It also seems unlikely that a : would be put into the email to separate the lines as in a wikipedia entry. This looks like a copy of the entry on the talk page after the putz business. Dmcq (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not disrespectful, I simply removed from my own talkpage information I felt not germane to me, and then did not respond to the immediate followup from the above user. The above user seems to think it is the only busy user and only its issues matter. Conceit here I can deal with, when rudeness and conceit follow me home and turn into personal attacks (boor and a coward), it's time to bring in the admins. Whatever you admins do would be appreciated. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kintetsubuffalo&diff=prev&oldid=335064680 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kintetsubuffalo (talk • contribs)

The word "putz" is indeed disrespectful; it does not express declining to talk about a subject that one has nothing to say about. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So are your provocative threats, which are unacceptable as an admin. 08:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record "boor and a coward" is name calling, so not WP:CIVIL, but not threats. And "putz" isn't any different. Now, I urge both of you gentlemen to rise above this level of discourse and resolve the actual contents dispute on the article's talk page. Pcap ping 08:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think someone with Michael's credentials should be respected as a Wikipedian; thus frivolous complaints should not be made against him. In the highly unlikely case that there is general consensus that he is behaving inappropriately (that is, if multiple complaints by multiple users are made), then there is reason for consideration. But taking into account that he has interacted with all sorts of characters on Wikipedia, and that most of this interaction has been extremely productive (as I have noticed, being a frequent contributor to WikiProject Mathematics), it is statistically unlikely that he is responsible in the slightest for any incident in the small percentage of non-peaceful interactions. Sure, Michael could have avoided his "insults". But considering how much time and effort he spends for this encyclopedia, it is natural that being confronted with frivolous issues can be tiring. We can make his (and everyone else's) life a lot easier, and the encyclopedia more productive, if such complaints are avoided. In any case, complaints of this nature should be reserved for the many inconsistent administrators we already have; not Michael. -- 10:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly, being a respected and/or respected user does not give one a right to ignore policy nor to insult others. The concept of Vested Contributors/Divas is actually harmful to wikipedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I believe that nobody is perfect. In particular, Michael Hardy is already doing a tremendous amount of work on the encyclopedia. Although it would be nice if he was cool in disputes, just skimming through his contribution history shows that he encounters such frivolous issues time and time again. It is not in the least abnormal for him to agressively respond at least once. That said, he can (and should) improve his actions, but hopefully not at the cost of the productivity of his contributions to Wikipedia (thus I would not be in favor of de-sysoping, for instance). -- 13:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Providing Michael realises what he did was wrong (It is silly to get all pretentious because one has edited wikipedia, after all), then I don't see the need for anything further. Experienced users lose their head sometimes, providing they acknowledge their error any 'remedy' serves to do more harm than whatever small bits of good it might do. If it becomes a pattern, then do something about it. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning my getting "pretentious" because I have edited Wikipedia, I was in fact reacting to the numerous statements on Kintetsubuffalo's user page and user talk page, that those who complain about him are inexperienced users who should be bowing down to him because he's so experienced. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Pattern: [13] & [14] & [15] & [16] & [17] & [18] Gerardw (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I could already see Michael leave with a free pass just for having "experience" and "so many edits" so I might as well not waste my breath. I didn't see any apology from any user so I disagree with Narson. 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You are insulting people here as a group. It would have been better if you had actually not written anything. Dmcq (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, was this in reply to ZooFari, Dmcq? I can see where he/she has insulted anyone, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think this is utterly unacceptable behaviour from Michael, insulting a fellow contributor is always detestable, but doing it via E-mail is particularly atrocious. There is no doubt that calling another user cowardly, or a boor is an insult, and therefore in violation of WP:CIVIL, that it was done via E-mail also makes it a violation of Wikipedia:HARASSMENT, which states that a serious case of harassment is when; "off-wiki aspects are an issue (eg, where private personal information is a part of the issue, or on-wiki issues spread to email and 'real world' harassment, or similar)."
The idea that Micheal should be excused because of his "experience" or because he has lots of edits is ridiculous, if I revert five vandalism edits I am not entitled to vandalise four other articles. Civility is a policy that applies to everyone, it is in place to maintain a polite and courtesy community, in many ways, an experienced user should be held to policies like WP:civil more tightly than new users, because they know that those policies are in place, and that they are expected to keep to it.
" I respectfully suggest that Hardy apologizes, and that he does not correspond via E-mail in future unless he is confident that he can do so in a polite manner.
Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

PS; for the record, I'm not condoning any of Kintetsubuffalo's actions or words, indeed, in many ways Kintetsubuffalo is at much at fault as Micheal. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Spitfile, please tell me what evidence you have for your suggestion that I insulted someone by email. I deny that I ever did such a thing. I sent "Kintetsubuffalo" an email that said the following:

Wikipedia is supposed to have a certain collegiality; Wikipedians are supposed to cooperate with each other.

I am puzzled by your seeming unwillingness to answer my question on your talk page. I also encountered a similar reaction from another user to whom I addressed a similar query: it was also about tagging mathematics articles as "personal reflections". That user acted as if I was being unreasonable by asking the question and that my inquiry amounted to making myself a pest. It seemslike gratuitous disrespect for me and for collegiality. I am by any standards among the most experienced of Wikipedians, having done more than 130,000 edits in seven years, none of them assisted by bots or the like. I've taught math at five universities ranging from MIT to a place that could be taken to represent the opposite extreme as far as quality of students goes. If I address such a question as I did to a fellow Wikipedian, does that qualify me as some sort of crackpot to be ignored? Where is collegiality?

--- Mike Hardy

--
This e-mail was sent by user "Michael Hardy" on the English Wikipedia touser "Kintetsubuffalo".

Michael Hardy (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the section below Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Spitfire: The point I was trying to make in my post was not that "being respected" implies "one can break the rules" (in fact, I agree with you in regards to this point). Rather, I noted that Michael does a tremendous amount of work on this encyclopedia each day, and at times, it can be tiring. In turn, this sometimes leads to impetuous actions. I have no say as to whether Michael's "insults" were appropriate (no insult is ever appropriate though), but I think my point is equally important when taken into consideration. -- 01:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I did communicate by email and by posting on the users talk page, in a consistently polite manner. My politeness was answered with rudeness. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but a good editor does not respond back in that manner. Let's just all get over this. 19:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Quote from the top of User talk:Kintetsubuffalo: "Take notes-I've been here four years, if I wanted that I would already be one. In the words of Jimbo Wales, I'm a good contributor, and so cutting me some slack is a very reasonable thing to do.". I agree with that to a small extent but not to the extent of sticking tags on a bunch of pages and calling the person who asks about it in a perfectly reasonable way a putz. And to Spitfire and ZooFari a person saying they might as well not waste their breath on us is I consider an insult. As to Michael Hardy I think one should just try complaining civilly about insults once and then either ignore if reasonably easy or else raise a complaint at a place like this. Emailing people who rile one is just getting far too het up and the sort of thing one should count to ten before doing and then dismiss. 19:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcq (talk • contribs)

Accusations of rudeness in E-mails

Hi Micheal,
I must admit, in light of your E-mail sent to me (which was by the way, very polite ), I may have jumped the gun, and have struck my comments above. My accusation was based upon the fact that Kintetsubuffalo had quoted from an E-mail in the WQA and that you had not disputed his the quote despite having commented in the thread. Now that you are disputing the quote however, the situation becomes more complicated. I believe that all E-mail's on Wikipedia are private and are not logged (?) and therefore it is impossible to verify who is correct in this circumstance. Personally, I'd be happy to give Micheal the benefit of the doubt (unless the alleged E-mail can somehow be tracked down), not because I think that Kintetsubuffalo is lying, but because I'd prefer not to have Micheal penalized based upon sketchy evidence.
Unless Kintetsubuffalo or anyone else can provide evidence that Micheal did send the E-mail (in which case all my previous comments would stand), then I suggest that the matter is dropped.
Micheal, you have my sincere apologies for my own accusation against you (although I would hope it would be looked at more as perceptive and advice, than accusation), I admit that I should have followed you up about whether you had sent the E-mail before launching into the discussion on WQA. Sorry.
Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 11:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this complaint from User:Kintetsubuffalo has very little merit, they were uncivil to start with. Users are entitled to not reply but should be careful with edit comments when removing things they disagree with. In the next complaint from Michael Hardy I've advised him to just not get het up by people responding like this and to avoid email where there might be a problem. I think a note on User:Kintetsubuffalo page about this is warranted as I have not seen anything from them for a while here. Dmcq (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo

Resolved: Kintetsubuffalo was warned that edit comments need to be civil Dmcq (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have edited Wikiepedia articles daily for more than seven years, accumulating nearly 140,000 edits, none of them involving bot-assistence, and I have a Ph.D. in statistics and have taught mathematics and statistics at five universities, one of those being MIT. User:Kintetsubuffalo is a far less experienced Wikipedian than I am. Therefore I think its fair to say that if I ask User:Kintetsubuffalo to explain the rationale behind his tagging of an statistics-related article as looking like a "personal reflection or essay", my inquiry is not simply that of a crackpot who came along to pick fights. His response was this, and so I continued to inquire, posting this and later this.

I have been consistently respectful to User:Kintetsubuffalo.

His response was this.

Putz means (according to one prominent online dictionary) an idiot or fool.

User:Kintetsubuffalo is very boastful, as will be seen by looking at both his user page and his talk page. In particular, he says "I work well with those actually working". Few can match my voluminous contributions to Wikipedia, yet he is unwilling to work with me. Doubtless it makes him feel good to say "I work well with those actually working", as opposed to actually getting along with those actually working.

User:Kintetsubuffalo has a problem with being engaged in respectful discussion by more experienced Wikipedians, and he deals with it by means of gratuitous disrespect. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've posted an AVI here regarding Michael Hardy's inappropriate behavior when reacting to an incident like this. 07:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is inappropriate forum shopping. Pcap ping 07:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The AN/I has been closed as inappropriate and the matter is being left to this discussion here on WQA. Did Kintetsubuffalo do more of this marking as essays after being asked about it? Some people have problems answering questions about what they do if they originally thought it was okay but will at least stop doing it if people complain. Dmcq (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Putz" is a Yiddish term that is considered highly offensive. As per The Joys of Yiddish, it can mean fool, ass, jerk, simpleton, yokel, easy mark. The best English equivalent I can think of would be "dickhead". No admin should be using terms like that, especially against a regular contributor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you got that the wrong way round somewhere. Michael Hardy is an admin, Kintetsubuffalo is a regular user and used the term. Dmcq (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Pcap ping 11:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's me that's the putz, then. In any case, it's a highly insulting term, even though it kind of sounds cute in English. According to The Joys of Yiddish, it's considered worse than its somewhat-synonym, schmuck. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Who volunteers for "boor and a coward" then? :P (See related thread above) Pcap ping 11:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And all of those insults were in the edit summaries. Nice touch. I especially like Michael's "You should be grateful for the opportunity to work with me." I should add that to my list of quotes. Neither of those guys is particularly taking the high road here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In a similar vein, Lex Luthor to his henchmen in Superman (1978 film): "Doesn't it give you a shudder of electricity just to be in the same room with me?" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was reminded of a joke about tenured faculty, but it would be inappropriate here for several reasons. Pcap ping 12:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

K's not innocent in this but Michael's starting off by bragging about his time and edits on wiki and claiming we should be grateful to work with him is merely pompous arrogance. See my post in the above thread, which this thread is obviously related to. BB's stmt that neither of these two users is taking the high road is spot on. Both users need to learn from this experience and move on. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again: I did not start by "bragging" about my experience. I started by responding to Kintetsubuffalo's statements that all who complain about him are inexperienced users who should bow down to him because of his vast experience. Kintetsubuffalo starts his user page and his user talk page with such boasts. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get into who started this. Drive-by tagging without engaging in discussion is seriously frowned upon by some editors here, in particular by some experienced math editors. There have been recent complaints at WT:WPM about mathematics articles getting tagged as essays (archived discussion). Pcap ping 13:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about who started the incident, rather just how MH started his opening post here. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How I started the opening post was a response to Kintetsubuffalo's user page and user talk page notices explaining that everyone who complains about his behavior is an inexperienced Wikipedian who refuses to bow to Kintetsubuffalo's superior record of Wikipedia edits. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't both of you just make up and go on about your business? If you need to just avoid each other, wiki is a big place. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Two points:

• Kintetsubuffalo's user talk page begins with boasts about his vast experience and an advance statement that if you ever complain about his behavior, it's because you're an inexperienced user who should be deferential to him. That is uncivil.
• If I had phrased my comment on his talk page in boilerplate wiki-lawyer language, complaining of his incivility in the edit summary, using that particular phrase rather than the word boor, which implies just the same thing, would some of the people above have responded differently? It seems quite respectable in this forum to state that a user is "uncivil", but calling a user a "boor" instead is considered offensive, even though it says the same thing. Kintetsu was uncivil; that's why this discussion is happening.

Michael Hardy (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, I don't see any relevant discussion regarding Kinetsu's page headers. Please provide a diff that would tell me otherwise. Secondly, boor and coward are insults whereas "uncivil" is used to state an action during a specific period of time. You were uncivil when... - You are a coward... - which is more professional and which is an immature insult? 19:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In this edit I have translated my comments on Kintetsubuffalo's talk page into the kind of language apparently considered legally acceptable.

Kintetsubuffalo's page headers

• say how vastly experienced he is at editing Wikipedia articles (far less than I am),
• say that we should therefore cut him some slack (but that doesn't apply to those more experienced than he is; those, he assures us, are "putzes"),
• denigrate in advance people who complain about his behavior.

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There was uncalled for, and Kintetsubuffalo is of course entitled to just remove the whole lot and ignore it. Anyway for ZooFari here's the old version of the talk page with a message pointing to the maths project talk page. Here's a pointer to the archived talk on the maths project page. And here is an example edit Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael, if you would have used your translation, we wouldn't be wasting our breaths having this problem. @ Dmcq: I don't find those links related to my point, but if it contributes to the problem then that would be between Michael and Kintetsubuffalo. 23:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for you to do that either, please desist. Could you explain what your point was please? I though you were asking for the discussion about the edits. Dmcq (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do what? My concern here was that Michael as an admin responded back rudely to a non-admin. Admins should know better. I'm not here to argue about Michael's complaint about Kin's header; that's not my business. It's a new year, this dust pile is now my past. I'm unwatching this page so don't bother replying. --ZooFari 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You would make your point better if you tried to be less confrontational. Dmcq (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never before seen a Wikipedia user's talk page beginning by being disrespectful to people who at some future time will be angry at him. It's as if their being angry at him is the future is what he intends.

One point of his that I agree with: "Jerks need to be called out", and I'm glad I made as issue of this. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing reminds me once again that within Wikipedia, a rape victim who states that the rapist is a rapist is only violating Wikipedia's policy requiring civility. Maybe one is permitted to say that what happened was a rape, but one must not call the person who did it a rapist. Maybe figuring out that that's what the rule is, is exactly what it takes to stay out of trouble.

This also leaves me still mystified. My inquiry to Kintetsubuffalo was this: In what way, specifically, did a certain article appear to him to look like a "personal reflection or essay"? I would never have guessed that that question would be considered offensive, but it was what provoked the edit summary that said he was "clearing out the Putz edits". In the case of Kintetsubuffalo, it is perhaps not surprising that his behavior is weird, given the conspicuous notices on his user page and his user talk page saying that those who will be angry with him in the future are worthless and should cut him some slack because of his vast experience. But I am still mystified because I addressed the same question to another user (whom let us call "j") who, unlike Kintetsubuffalo, gave no conspicuous reasons to think he or she was not a perfectly respectable user, and that other user also responded by saying that particular question is offensive. I don't understand that and "j" is unwilling to explain it. So I will ask this page's public if they can think of any reason for that reaction. I asked "j" what it was in two particular articles that appeared to warrant the "personal reflection or essay" tag. "j" responded that the tag was warranted because the article looked like a personal reflection or essay. Of course that's only what the tag already said, and I couldn't see any resemblance to a personal reflection or essay, so I asked for some specificity. No reply was forthcoming for a few days, so I posed the question by email and said I couldn't see any resemblance to a personal reflection or essay and wondered specifically what looked that way. The response I got was very angry but said that one of the two articles used the word "we" several times, and that justified the tag. I don't understand the reason for the anger. I pointed out that the particular use of the pronoun was a standard figure of speech not meant literally, and the other article did not have that offensive pronoun, so I was still completely puzzled by that one. And I still am now.

As communications among Wikipedians go, I would say my inquiry about this could best be described as routine. Wikipedians don't respond with anger to my routine questions or comments about editing articles when my questions or comments are on other topics than the "personal reflection or essay" tag. Something about that topic offends some people. Should it? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I read the stuff from that 'j' and where they dismissed complaints as 'ramblings'. You'll just get a heart attack if you worry about people like that. They think they're right if they quote some guideline without recognizing what 'guideline' means. All that matters is if they continue their actions. Dmcq (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway do you accept that advice as okay? I have posted advice on Kintetsubuffalo's talk page that they are entitled to ignore communications but they should not put in uncivil comments when doing so. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Blackmetalbaz

This user has repeatedly made attempts to enforce his own control/POV over the article list of nu metal bands, repeatedly adding content that is not backed up by the sources he cites. Whenever this is pointed out to him, he threatens other users by claiming that they will be banned, even though he has no authority to do so. Attempts to discuss this issue have failed, as this user will not listen to reason or logic, and continues to edit-war despite being warned not to do so. He does not comprehend the neutrality issue in regards to the article, nor does he observe the fact that his approach to editing and responses to other articles have been rude and unproductive. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Have you notified User:Blackmetalbaz on his talk page? (There are instructions on how to do this at the top of this page.) Also, please provide some diffs. Thank you. - 23:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Response on talk page for list of nu metal bands. Regards, Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Viriditas, Talk:Miraculous catch of fish#Sources supporting inclusion of a section interpreting the meaning of the 153 fish

• History2007 considers an issue-- 153 (number)#In the Bible-- WP:Fringe (it seems) because there is so not any scholarly agreement on the meaning of it (153 in John 21) and in fact any scholarly agreement seems to be that it is not symbolism-- or that any former symbolism of it is lost forever. It is also not discused at all by many or most writers on John 21.
• Viriditas thinks it is not WP:Fringe because it has been written about in print, and because there is no text that tells him "this is a fringe issue." He wants in inclued, with all the views, in Miraculous catch of fish (Miraculous catch of fish covers passages besides John 21 also) and that article aready links to 153 (number)#In the Bible, and could be linked to Bible Numerics. Viriditas is now uncivil, etc. He also began attacking and misinterpting User:7390r0g who has commented as an outside oppion.
• I basiclly agree with History2007 but feel that even if 153 in John 21 weren't "fringe" (and it is) it would still be more correctly covered in the other article(s). ^{Carlaude:Talk} 10:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a content dispute that belongs on the NPOV/RS board. The incivility actually began with disruptive behavior by Carlaude on the WikiProject Christianity project page and contines on Talk:Miraculous catch of fish, where Carlaude and History2007 have been working together to stonewall discussion. This all started when I made several mundane procedural cleanup requests at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#Redirects_by_Clinkophonist. Carlaude decided to respond to my requests by changing the subject and disruptively blanking my request for help on the project page.[19] I later started a merge discussion (which turned into an RFC) on the article talk page, and Carlaude continued to make a bizarre series of edits, restoring old, deprecated discussions and non-working links and attempting to disrupt the RFC itself. History2007 disappeared for four days, then returned to unilaterally merge the disputed pages, while Carlaude unilaterally moved the article. Both of these changes were made during an active RFC discussion, yet History2007 and Carlaude ignored it and implemented the changes without contributing to the discussion about the changes. Repeated requests for clarification of their two positions results in continued off-topic discussion, changing the subject, and wikilawyering. Recently, History2007 has threatened to edit war and revert any edits I make[20] without even bothering to discuss them. Both Carlaude and History2007 are having trouble understanding the concept of proposing edits before making them, which is my entire purpose in trying to engage them in discussion. Neither editor is willing to look at the sources or the material that I have offered, instead dismissing it out of hand as "fringe". When asked for an explanation of how the biblical scholars who published in respected, peer-reviewed journals can be considered fringe, or when asked for the names of scholars who call this material fringe, I am met with silence. As for User:7390r0g, this account has been around for a while, causing serious problems on the Obama talk pages, and most recently Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, where the user followed me over to hound me on Talk:Miraculous catch of fish. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding User:Carthage44

User:Carthage44 has been repeatedly undoing other people's legitimate edits without explanation, such as on the 2009 Maaco Bowl Las Vegas, 2009 Meineke Car Care Bowl, 2009 Emerald Bowl, 2009 Chick-fil-A Bowl, and most aggressively, 2010 Rose Bowl. Stealthninja545 wrote, "Can I help you edit the 2010 Rose Bowl? I know how to edit correctly.Stealthninja545 (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)" on Carthage44's talk page but was ignored. I wrote, "Please stop reverting everyone else's 2010 Rose Bowl edits. Reversion should be used sparingly for cases of vandalism. OCNative (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)" on Carthage44's talk page and got a response of "SHUT YOUR FACE!!!" on my talk page. I am hoping to get third party commentary on the situation. OCNative (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left him a note regarding this. I hope I managed to take the right tone. We certainly don't need to be telling each other "SHUT YOUR FACE!!!", in any circumstance, really. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIV by User:Saturday

See example edit and edit summaries, going back over the past 3 years (there are probably others): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saturday&diff=333487108&oldid=328907235, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saturday&diff=155661591&oldid=155587766, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saturday&diff=155490491&oldid=155481369, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ver%C3%B3nica_Castro&diff=115119280&oldid=115110786, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=prev&oldid=140370155 . 82.152.195.64 (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (Not logged in because, well I don't fancy being on the receiving end of more personal attacks).

Dignity

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereWithdrawn - moved to ANI

Need some help here. Pyrrhon8 (talk · contribs) and I have been in a long-standing disagreement about the content of this page. For background, the article was at one point in time a discussion of the vacuity of dignity in political discourse. it had been tagged as an essay and nominated for deletion; the decision was to merge it with the then-extant article Human Dignity. I made that merge and did some revisions to get the (until recently) current form seen here. Pyrrhon8 was the major contributer to the previous version, and has periodically attempted to resurrect all or part of that version. this would not be a problem, normally, except that Pyrrhon refuses to communicate on the talk page, is abusive, and won't edit cooperatively at all. see this comment - his only recent talk page entry - and the edit summaries here and here. I even asked for a 3O, got a response back, but Pyrrhon simply ignored the procedure and went about trying to reinstate his preferred version.

I'm usually forgiving of tendentious editors since I can be a bit bull-headed myself, but there's not much to do with an editor who's trying to juggernaut the article. Can someone please get him to be a bit more communicative and cooperative so that we can resolve this? --Ludwigs2 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 is a disruptive editor. He does not make constructive edits. He plays rhetorical games. He rearranges sentences. He moves paragraphs. He substitutes one synonym for another. Ludwigs2 has been blocked 5 times. Countless editors and administrators have told him at great length to behave himself, but he is unable to do so. He disrupts. He bickers and cavils until he is blocked.

I would like to have him blocked without all the drama. There is no point in talking to him. He does not learn. He wants his way, and that is the end of the story. There is no point in going down the path that he has been down 5 times already. He has no use for logic. He has nothing but contempt for the rules of Wikipedia. I would be pleased if an administrator would immediately do what needs to be done. Wikipedia will be a better place without Ludwigs2. PYRRHON  talk   21:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhon, would you mind substantiating any of these claims of disruptive editing with diffs that show what you mean? --Ludwigs2 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pyrrhon8, I'm not really interested in Ludwigs' past behaviour, unless that is in someway effecting the project now and you can provide diffs to show what you mean, and nor should you be interested in it, blocks are a mesure reserved for preventing disruption, not as a punitive force to punish users for past offences. When I complaint crops up against you the solution to the matter is to deal with the issues brought up in concern to you, not to try and justify your own actions based upon the behaviour of others. Although yes, you are perfectly within your right to bring up a complaint against Ludwigs, that does not excuse you of any wrongdoing.
So, regarding your own actions, I have this to say; It seems to me that you believe that Ludwigs should be blocked, and are expressing this in your interaction with them. This is the wrong thing to do. Calling another user an "asset" or telling them to go and "play on Conservapedia" are both nonconstructive whatever the surrounding circumstances are. Even is Ludwigs was being a liability to the development of an article (which I highly doubt), making judgemental comments directed at them is not helpful to the situation. What is helpful is to explain your difference of opinion in a polite and civil manner, focusing on content, and then discuss how to improve the article for the benefit of the project. Under no circumstances are the comments that you have been making acceptable.
Secondly, regarding your accusations against ludwigs; you may make a complaint against another user if you believe that their behaviour is disrupting or damaging Wikipedia in the present moment or that it will in the near future, and if you can prove this using diffs that user may get blocked.
What you may not do is to persistently call another user an asset or make similar comments about them, this is nonconstructive, and if you can't provide proof that they are being an "asset", then the accusation also becomes a personal attack.
I will be signing out until Monday morning now (it's sunday evening for me at the moment), but if you have any questions, I'll try and answer them then.
Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

note: Pyrrhon has (once again) reverted to his preferred version without talk page discussion and with a rude edit summary. I'm hoping someone here can talk some sense in to him, because if this cycle goes through one more round I'll be forced to report him to ANI and ask for administrative help, and I'd really prefer not to do that. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Wildhartlivie

I need some help with convincing Wildhartlivie that she needs to stop lobbing insults, unfounded claims that I have mental/emotional illness, and personal attacks in my general direction. I have brought this to her attention a few weeks ago - but nothing helped. I was personally convinced that she was using a sock to leave anti-gay and other comments on my talk page, so I filed a sock report. The sock investigator concluded that she was not the sock-user, but that another user was. During the sock investigation, Wildhartlivie kept badgering me and demanding that I answer "questions" she asked of me (that were also laced with insults and personal attacks). As it is suggested by the sock-puppet investigation filing instructions, I ignored her as much as possible to try and keep tempers cool. Wildhartlivie kept coming at me in a very aggressive manner. Since the sock investigation, her comments on the Ted Bundy talk page have been uncivil and somewhat aggressive toward me. That brings us to today and her comments on the same talk page here [21] and on another talk page here [22]. I've tried my best to just ignore her mean-spirited comments directed at me, but after the above from today, I felt that enough was enough and responded on her talk page with this [23]. Her response on my talk page was this [24]. IMO, her comments have now become harassing. I've had enough and would like someone to intervene. Thank you. -SkagitRiverQueen 01:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To start, I posted an objection to the use of a YouTube video as a reference because it is a copyright violation. SkagitRiverQueen stated clearly she didn't trust my judgment on the copyright issue [25] and then further cast doubt on it when User:Moonriddengirl stated she felt it was a link violation. This progressed to reverting changes I made on the page, wherein I filed a WP:3RR notice about it, which action was confirmed here by Equazcion (who was speciously added as a "possible" sock of mine to the sock case). Her comments became increasingly accusative and agressive in nature [26] and rude and condescending to an editor who has stated she has serious health problems and was apologetic about her question with the rude comment starting with "I'm not sure if you're intentionally being obtuse or what...IMO, this thing has become more about some people being right and proving me wrong than responsible editing (and I already know that those of you who have been working against me on this issue will deny that's the case, but...whatever)." As I commented on her talk page, if she doesn't expect a response, don't open the door. She's baiting commentary in order to elicit a response so that she can file cases against people. First of all, SkagitRiverQueen made unfounded assumptions about something I would say or do in the specious sock puppet case she filed against me on Christmas day, by the way, in which she clearly stated she would apologize if she were proven wrong [27] which she has failed to do. In that case, she accused me of posting aspersions about her sexuality and her religion, something I never do. Since that time, she does not fail to drop allusions to how people feel about her when she makes talk page postings. I have characterized such statements as paranoid in nature because she claims that people are working against her, it was not a psychological evaluation, but an observation that such statements appear paranoid and delusional. I even mentioned that people don't actually care that much about her to persecute her in the way she has represented in those posts. Examples include making accusations that an editor is hounding her, trying to get my opinion and that of Crohnie on her talk archive page WP:MfD disregarded in which she characterized her opinion of our comments with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive_1&diff=333712972&oldid=333711444 "Terrific. Another vote from the "Vendetta Crew". (I can't get that to properly display.) In that post, she alleged that our opinions should not count because we've had disagreements. The question therein that I kept asking was why, if she was retaining the posts for a future dispute resolution, was she retaining a copy and pasted version of the WP:3RR report I filed. It had nothing to do with her long-term on-going dispute with the user whose posts she was keeping. That she refused to answer the pertinent question was purposeful, and germane to what she purported her page was kept for. This report is like the sock case in following up her threats, retaliatory in nature after she's baited reponses. My last post to her was quite clear that when a person baits others to respond by dropping aggressive comments that invite response, she's the one who is starting an issue. It is not civil nor appropriate to call other editors "obtuse" and talk down to them and expect the incivility to be passed by without comment. No one "hates" her, although some are growing very tired of the aggressive stance she takes against them in her posts. Crohnie told her clearly on the WP:MfD that "I really don't appreciate the personal attacks. I think this should stop already. You keep attacking editors than accuse them of some kind of conspiracy theory." Take for instance the assaultive way her comment she dropped to User:Killiondude is worded after he deleted the talk page archive she kept (which others felt were inappropriately cherry picked statements: [28]. While I don't tend to make comments regarding the religion of others, there's precious little that can be found that is "Christian" in nature in her comments - especially for someone whose userboxes say she is a Christian minister. It's regrettable that she feels this harassment, but like I said, don't open a can of worms and complain if they squirm. Personally, I'm tired of her filing reports about me and still continuing her condescenion and rudeness to others. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
There is much glossing-over, mischaracterization, and personal attack in the above. I'm going to leave it to those who do the deciding at this board to make their own decisions about what is in and comprimises a good portion of Wildhartlivie's statements above. If anyone has any questions regarding what Wildhartlivie wrote regarding me that (I could answer), feel free to ask. --SkagitRiverQueen 03:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the purpose of the many diffs I provided. So observers could read what was said and make a decision. There are no personal attacks in what I wrote, however there are facts that can be checked. The diffs speak for themselves. Your filings and comments speak for themselves. However, in fact, she incorrectly claimed that I kept pressing her for an answer on the WP:SSI she filed, when it was on the WP:MfD. The protests by others regarding her comments speak for themselves. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the two of you disengage. I can see that you're each frustrated by the other's behavior, so I suggest walking away from it. SkagitRiverQueen, you're best off not interacting at all with Wildhartlivie if you can do that. Wildhartlivie, if you think someone is baiting you, or opening a door to commentary, the correct response is to refrain. Nobody's behavior can justify your insulting them, ever. That's just not how we interact here. If SkagitRiverQueen has insulted you for any reason, that's wrong, and if you insult her, that's just as wrong, no matter what the reason, nor how provoked you feel. Respond to rudeness with courtesy, and lead by example.

I strongly suggest that both of you refrain from making any further ad hominem remarks about the other. Stick to "comment on the content, not the contributor", and everything should be fine. If that's not possible, then please explain why. Is there an article or set of articles on which you work together, where you can't restrict your comments to content issues?

These remarks do not constitute a judgment against either of you. These are simply my recommendations if you want this conflict to end. Seeking some kind of satisfaction against the other is unlikely to be productive. It seldom is 'round here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All good advice ^^^^^^ As far as "disengaging", I already have. Last week. The comments I made, however, regarding my belief that the content dispute at the Ted Bundy article talk page has become more about others being right and me being wrong stands (if you wish, see the discussion here [29], in the section titled "Judge's words"). What's more, those comments I made were not directed at anyone in particular - IOW, there was no personal attack made, just a general observation given. I most certainly want this conflict to end - exactly why I brought it here. The only satisfaction I am looking for is being satisfied that Wildhartlivie's aspersions on my mental/emotional health and the personal attacks, digs, and aggressiveness stop. --SkagitRiverQueen 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. Wildhartlivie, are you comfortable with this solution, that both of you simply cease from making personally directed remarks about each other? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Butting in where I'm not wanted for a moment, I see that Skag's comment about this being "more about some people being right and proving me wrong than responsible editing" was personal enough, even if her comment didn't explicitly name a party. It was fairly clear that she was implicating her two adversaries in the exchange, and with that comment, she was the first to "engage". Wild just responded in kind; not that two wrongs make a right, and the suggestion for both to disengage is still sound. I only point that out because I have a feeling that won't be the end of this, as someone here has a hair trigger for "engaging" thusly. This is just the latest mini-dispute in a larger chain of events, some involving Wildhartlivie, and many not.

I agree with you, Equazcion and thanks. I just want her to leave me alone, issue the sock puppet case apology she so clearly promised and to stop making demeaning and belittling comments such as the "purposely obtuse" comment to Cronhie, and to stop making baited comments about how people are against her. And in case it was missed, I want to reiterate that I am not making comments or psychological statements about her mental health, but observations about how the comments she makes carry a paranoid air. It is nearly impossible to have a discussion with her without such statements being dropped right and left. It's no wonder she has conflicts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, if you want this to end, stop making any kind of ad hominem remarks. That means that what you just said: "the comments she makes carry a paranoid air", should stop. Don't use the word "paranoid", because it clearly upsets the other person. Just actually drop it. All of it. If she doesn't drop it, just let me know, but you have to drop it too. Fully drop it, forever. No remarks about her. Can you do that? If you can, I will help ensure that SRQ does as well. If you make further remarks about your perception of the character of her statements, then you're asking for more. Get it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading my comment above, I just want to clarify why I felt the need to drudge up the "who did what" argument. The problem is that SRQ claims to have already "disengaged" a while ago, and sees nothing wrong with her comment that IMO started this particular dispute. That makes this agreement for both parties to "disengage" rather pointless. If SRQ's version of disengagement is comments like this, then this is just going to happen again.

No. If they simply actually disengage, nothing more will happen. There are no "versions" of disengaging. I'm talking about actually never saying a word about the other. If both parties just do this, then it's over. If they're unable to do that, then perhaps we'll have to enforce their not talking about each other more firmly. There remains to excuse for "taking the bait", ever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"I just want her to leave me alone". I haven't said anything or addressed anything to you directly since before I filed the sock-puppet case - how much more "leaving [you] alone" can I do than that? "issue the sock puppet case apology" Please accept my apologies for accusing you of sock-puppetry. At the time, I felt I had good reason to do so - if I didn't, I wouldn't have accused you. No matter what you believed then or believe now, I did it because I thought it to be the case - not out of retaliation. And now that I think about it...I think you owe me an apology for insisting that my filing of the sock-puppet case was based on vengeance or spite. It had nothing to do with that whatsoever. I don't play games like that. "stop making demeaning and belittling comments such as the "purposely obtuse" comment to Cronhie" I didn't make demeaning comments to Chronie - I was trying to get her to tell me if she was being intentionally obtuse (people do that in online forums, you know) or was unintentionally obtuse. She still insists on bringing up the YouTube video as a source - which hasn't been the issue for a couple of weeks now - after I have explained to her time and again it's no longer the issue. Continuing to bring up the video made me wonder why she was doing so. My question was honestly asked of her because I didn't (and still don't) understand why she's beating a dead horse. But let's consider this: why can't Chronie speak for herself if what I said was such a problem for her and why does what I say to her bother you so much? Are we not all adults here? Unless you're the official spokesperson for Chronie, I don't see why she can't address an issue she has with me (if she does, indeed, have an issue with me) all by herself. "stop making baited comments about how people are against her." First of all, I don't make "baited comments" - I say what I think right out in the open. As I have explained to Equazcion last week, with me, what you see is what you get. You don't have to decode my words - they're plainly put and reading between the lines and making assumptions is not necessary. Secondly, in the Ted Bundy article, please be honest and admit that you, Chronie, and now Vidor, have been doing what you can to stick it to me since the thing with the documentary reference started. Also, please admit that you and Chronie (or at the very least) Chronie have been following me around Wikipedia since this thing with the reference began. for that matter, Equazcion is now doing the same. Everywhere I go when it comes to making reports or comments or any contributions, you all are watching. Why are you dogging me? "I want to reiterate that I am not making comments or psychological statements about her mental health, but observations about how the comments she makes carry a paranoid air". Sorry, but I have to say "baloney". When you continually comment on someone's alleged "paranoia" and "delusions", that's commenting on someone's mental and emotional health and you know it. You can go ahead and try to weasel your way out of what you've said all you like, but I'm not buying your excuses on this one. And no matter how you try to paint or excuse these types of comments, they are personal attacks, plain and simple. There's no call for them - and they need to stop.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that you are now all about me leaving you alone, however, I *have* done that - and you're still not satisfied. You're still making negative comments about me to others, you're still obsessing over the sock-puppet case, you're still calling my mental health into question, you're leaving uncivil comments on my talk page and making excuses for why your incivility is justified, and you and your personal friend Chronie are dogging me in Wikipedia. When is *all that* going to stop? --SkagitRiverQueen 17:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

SRQ, just stop typing about this issue. Say nothing about Wildhartlivie, and if she talks about you in any way, just let me know, in 50 words or less. Don't say anything about Wildhartlivie except to let someone know - in 50 words or less - if she talks about you. You both need to find a way to walk away, for real. If this continues, it will become reasonable to block either or both of you for continuing disruption. Walk away. Bite your tongues, and walk away. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no good reason to attack someone for defending an editor who has been demeaned or call them into question for it. Calling someone "purposely obtuse" is indefensible, no matter how you try to gussy it up after the fact. It would behoove everyone to remember that such comments are rarely made in good faith, but in shortness of patience and antipathy. I saw her asking if there was a video online besides the YouTube video, she didn't deserve the "obtuse" statement. And now you drag another name into this because Vidor disagrees with you. It's time someone accepts that others don't agree with her and stop asserting that there is a conspiracy and bad faith efforts against her. You have no basis to make such a claim, nor stating that people are stalking you. A copyright expert, Moonriddengirl, was brought in, who disagreed with you, perhaps she is part of the conspiracy too? If so, prove it. And for the record, I see paranoia in the statements that people are ganging up on you. If you see that as a personal attack, perhaps you should stop claiming that over and over. I agree, it is a characterization of the comments you make, not a personal asssessment of your mental health. If you can't see the difference, that, in essence, is your problem. The purpose for the miscellany for discussion was to delete a page you kept containing comments from persons you deem as enemies. It's time to grow up and stop seeing enemies behind every post that crosses your path. That's what led to the sock puppet case, the WP:MfD and that's what led to this. Try not creating enemies for a change. LaVidaLoca (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, saying "for the record, I see paranoia in the statements that people are ganging up on you", and "it's time to grow up" is completely unhelpful, and likely to inflame rather than end a dispute. Do you not realize this? Do you wish to inflame a dispute? Please refrain from saying things like that "for the record". Let the record reflect good de-escalation skills instead, and that you led by example. Practice constant courtesy.

SkagitRiverQueen, for the sake of peace, please refrain from responding to the above remarks by LaVidaLoca. Our goal is to stop fighting, and work together. Let's say there's been enough nastiness, and just stop. Does that work? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The above from LaVida is rife with biased mischaracterization and out-and-out untruth. The abuse one is subjected to when bringing problems and complaints to a Wikipedia notification board has brought this to the point of ridiculous. Why should the person with the problem be allowed to be subjected to abuse from those posting their comments? Why is it that a notification board in Wikipedia is not about helping out those who have been wronged but about allowing those being reported (and their friends) to bully and intimidate the complaintant? A notification board should be a safe place to go - but in Wikipedia, it is not. This is wrong and it needs to be changed. IMO, bullies are now controlling Wikipedia - administrators included - and the above is a perfect example (not including you, GT - but I've seen administrators behave worse than non-admins in these types of compaints toward to complaintant). It really doesn't matter anymore how this turns out - because it won't make a bit of differance in how bullying editors like Livie, Vidor, and LaVida operate in Wikipedia. They'll just continue with the same behavior. And then, when some other dope like me comes along and says, "hey, wait a minute...", they will once again join forces and point the finger of blame back on the victim of their abuse and bad behavior - not once taking a good look at how they have contributed to the breakdown of communication and not once caring that they, and a host of editors just like them are part of the problem - not the solution to the problem - in Wikipedia. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Blaming anyone for anything is a waste of time. What is not a waste of time is dropping this now. If you feel bullied, we can talk about that, but in this case, I see that you haven't tried step 1, which is to completely refrain from talking about those people in any way. Even when you feel bullied, simply describe the behavior to me. don't call anyone a bully. It's a poor, ineffective strategy; it doesn't make them stop.

You are not being "blamed" for anything; you simply have the opportunity to end this by rising above it. I will support you in that 100%. Would you like to take this opportunity? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I was posting the above before I read your request for me to not respond to LaVidaLoca. I didn't intentionally ignore your suggestion. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Now we've all joined the "conspiracy of bullies" being put forth here, including administrators. When someone files a complaint against someone else, expect the filer's conduct to be examined as well. It seems to me that GTBacchus is saying the filer here is as culpable in this as anyone else. And I object to being characterized as a bully. You have nothing except my support for User:LaVidaLoca, User:Crohnie and User:Vidor as evidence against me. You seem to have left out Equazcion, who also posted against you. Should he be notified as well? Also, since you posted that you want others entire username used in posts, show other editors the "courtesy" you demand. If it seems the entire Wikipedia world is against you, then perhaps self-examinination is in order. I have notified User:Vidor and User:Crohnie of this accusation that we are all bullies. As I said, prove it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying anyone is "culpable". I don't find that designation interesting. I am saying that you, Wildhartlivie, have the opportunity to make this end now by dropping it. You don't seem to be taking that suggestion. Why? Is proving a case against this other person important to you? It certainly has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Drop it, really. Unless you're trying to start some kind of fight, drop it. Stop trying to prove anything. This is a very strong suggestion. If this escalates, you will not be pleased with the outcome. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The problem here is this comes from and is mucking up discussion at Talk:Ted Bundy with similar accusations that we are working against her in some unnamed conspiracy. How does one build an encyclopedia article in the face of this? All the named "co-conspirators" included are from that page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now we're talking about a concrete article. Shall I watchlist that page? I agree that there is no need to introduce talk about conspiracies to any discussion here; we comment on edits, not on editors. What's the underlying edit in dispute there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The point under discussion is how a quote from the judge who sentenced Bundy (while praising his abilities legally) should be sourced. It has variously been sourced to a YouTube posting of a documentary, which was objectionable because the YouTube post is a copyright violation, then the video was combined with the statement written in a book by Ann Rule, which was objectionable as synthesis of two sources. Editors have posted their support for 1) using the Rule book only; 2) finding a legally obtained copy of the actual court transcript, and 3) Using the IMDB listing of the airing of the documentary (not on YouTube). Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, now we're talking content, so perhaps a change of venue is in order? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, don't panic I am not here to fight and too tired for much of anything but maybe some suggestions. How about this, GTBacchus, if you don't mind watching the Ted Bundy article and it's talk page that may help a lot. I have been trying to understand some things being said and maybe I am slow but I am not being obtuse or rude or hounding or anything else above. I am recovering slowly from neck surgery and lots of meds seem to slow my thinking down. Wildhartlivie is aware of my medical and helps me out esp. if I lose focus plus I don't do battles very well. I don't like arguing in RL and I come here for fun and to try to help where I can in writing articles. There is no reason for any of this. I've never even been to your talk page so I don't know how I am hounding but I will promise to not bother you or your talk page. I am sure I can get Wildhartlivie to promise the same. Which means ScagitRiverQueen you have to abide by this also. Maybe with a little time angers will calm down and we can all hopefully get past this but not right now. We are going to meet up though at the article. This appears to be of interest to all above so I guess a moderator for a brief period until we get past this damn judge's words which is ridiculous already would be nice. How aboout everyone? Peace now, everyone got it off their chests? Now let's write some articles or patrol or have a good laugh but sheesh not this serious so close to my bedtime! :) I just happened to pop in to check my mail and found I forgot to sign off. So, I'm done for today. If there is anything of importance please pop a note to me on my talk page. If no note in the morning I am going to assume that my suggestions above are agreeable to everyone. I think I covered everything in a fair and neutral way. Good night everyone and thanks Wildhartivie for helping me out. I still appreciate it from you and the others. Be well all,--CrohnieGal^Talk 22:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaint about #wikipedia-en-help channel

Editing as an IP resulting in bullying

See User_talk:JohnBlackburne#Accusations_of_vandalism. There is very little I can do or say in relation to this discussion that doesn't provoke comments suggesting that my actions are vandalism, or less important because they come from an IP address. Trying to join in with a conversation about the quality of material on Wikipedia feels like a lost cause when made by a casual Wikipedia reader like myself. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You being

• 90.217.104.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log),

and clearly also having used

• 90.215.124.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.215.124.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log),

to make a specific point on Centrifugal force, can you elaborate on the rationale behind the edit summary of this edit? DVdm (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Judging by timing, this IP may also be User:WeDon'tWantAny, the originator of this RFC. These IP addresses started editing when User:WeDon'tWantAny stopped, and their language looks similar. I'm not sure, and I don't know if a checkuser request is needed or not. Plvekamp (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As quickly noted in this I was wrong to call it vandalism in the edit summary, and have said so, but I still think I was right to revert, once, an inappropriate removal. I cannot see how that or anyone else's contribution on that page is bullying.--John Blackburne (words ‡ deeds) 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I had another puppetmaster in mind, one who is currently experiencing a year long ban on physics related articles, and who has been a disrupting contributor to Centrifugal force in the past. The link "they" are trying to remove is sort of orthogonal to this person's long time pov. DVdm (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An offensive edit summary such as this is considered vandalism, however. Plvekamp (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you at least pretended not to be working as a team! Have you considered that different people in the same household might be involved in editing the same article, particularly when they may have discussed the articles offline? "Involved" is an optimistic way to describe it, as any edit I make is met with extreme passive-aggressive policy quoting and instant dismissal, even when the edits echo the sentiments of established users. 90.217.104.238 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really have a legitimate complaint here, please provide some diffs so that we can see what you are talking about. Hyperbolic statements of how others have done you wrong do not help you case, especially when a cursory examination of your edit history raises questions about your own behaviour. - 07:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon90, people "working in the same household" working on the same mission are treated like one single set of single purpose sockpuppets, and de-facto as one person. As an experienced editor (judged from your editing style here), you probably know this already. Consider being careful. DVdm (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Spyro02

Hi, User:Spyro02 wrote this in Germany. I reverted it and put a uw-vandalism3 template on his talk page as the user has been warned before (see [30] or [31]). He responded with this: [32]. Quote: "Correction: oh, yes, you are a Nazi if your first language is German...". To me this is a clear violation of WP:PA. I don't think that a discussion with this user makes any sense at all if such abuse is his way of talking to me. So can please anyone remind him to be civil? --Jaellee (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Jaellee - his contribution is unsourced and a bit odd, but it probably wasn't a good idea to jump straight to the 'level 4' and 'last warning' templates. it's almost always better to work your way up through the numbers - that way, if and when it reaches ANI, you will have covered all your bases and the admins will have a clear pattern of problematic behavior to look at.

Spyro. please don't call people offensive names - it goes against wp:civility policy and generally makes people feel bad. The opinion on Germany that you are trying to enter into the article is actually an oldish (if minor) line of thought that started back at the end of WWI - it's one of the reasons why Germany was broken up into separate states after WWII - so I know that there are at least a few reliable sources that discuss the issue. If you want to add this to the article, please find those sources to substantiate your additions and cooperate with other editors. simply trying to force the text into the article will make people angry, get your efforts reverted, and ultimately get you blocked from editing for a while. --Ludwigs2 17:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, if you look at his talk page history, you will see that he has been given multiple escalating warnings in the past, all of which he has blanked. For example, he was already given a final warning in July, for a previous nonsense edit to Germany. It appears that, with the exception of 5 edits related to a particular Gynasium in Germany, all of his edits have been disruption, vandalism, edit warring, POV pushing, or ethnic insults. Were it up to me, I'd block for a week for this latest completely unacceptable behavior, to be followed by an indef block if the behavior continues. I don't think we should be coddling people who say, outright, that all Germans are Nazis. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, did you read Spyro02's contribution until the end? For example: "... and current politics by Angela Merkel are similiar to those of Adolf Hitler in his first years of chancelorship." If you have sources for this, I would be really interested. From my point of view Spyro02 was vandalising the article. I did also not jump straight to level 4, it was level 3 (as I said above) which was justified after a look at his talk page history (I also provided diff links for above). A more than superficial inspection of this case would have been nice. --Jaellee (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The warning levels aren't "per lifetime". While editors should use their best judgment, it's often a good idea for each new problem to start at the beginning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions for article: