This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The article Treschow (Dano-Norwegian family) has experienced the recent arrival of a user, TuriTerj,
In addition, the user has added incorrect and/or unnuanced information (and my own corrections of them have been removed), e.g. the sentence ‘nobility was abolished in Norway in 1821’.
The mentioned user dominates the article, like he/she owns it, and contributions by others are consistently removed and replaced with his/hers. It has become impossible to work on the article, since this user most likely will remove other contributions.
I will first of all ask about the following:
1st) Whether one on basis of the article's revision history (from 1 May) sees indications of the same.
2nd) How the problem may be solved.
--- Aaemn784 ( talk) 12:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Aaemn784's edits are of low quality (see the inconsistent narrative in the section "1812 ennoblement" [1]), he removes relevant information, and makes unsourced and misleading claims, e.g. that the family is of noble "origin" (the family is not of noble "origin", but a branch of the family, not the entire family, was historically noble, in the 19th century). Whether the Treschow family is rich or not has nothing to do with the edits in questions, and does absolutely not waive normal quality standards. (The persons who are "rich and famous", assuming he is referring to the ones inhabiting Fritzøehus, and who are using the name Treschow today are not aristocrats in any country, btw., and wouldn't be aristocrats even if Norway had still recognized the existence of the nobility as such. That's another misleading claim.) Aaemn784 has also refused to discuss his problematic edits on the relevant article talk page where I brought up his misleading claims months ago. "The problem may be solved" when User:Aaemn784 starts to discuss his edits. TuriTerj ( talk) 11:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
1) The Norwegian Treschow family has adopted not only a name which is indistinguishable from that of the German family, but even the coat of arms of this much older family. It's highly relevant and informative to mention this prominently, especially when discussing the coat of arms that they adopted from the German family, and to distinguish it from coats of arms used previously by the members of the Norwegian Treschow family.
2) I don't agree that the information on how noble status is inherited in this case (not universally) is "common knowledge" (it's only common knowledge for persons interested in nobility). The Treschow name is today used by many persons who are not members of what was defined as a noble family in the past, including the heirs to alleged "family seat". This is helpful and relevant information.
3) I don't object to rewording the information on the abolition of noble privileges/status. If you had explained your position in the first case, we could have found a more acceptable wording. However, the accepted position is that the concept of nobility does not exist in Norway today. If that was the case, it would somehow be officially acknowledged (by law, by the Government).
4) The term family seat is misleading for a number of reasons, both because it is the common translation of setegård or a term frequently denoting such a concept, and also because the current residents are mostly not members of the family that was historically noble. It's an expensive building from the turn of the century, but not the "seat" of anyone else than the ones residing there. Describing it as a family seat is anachronistic and misleading.
5) The nobility in Denmark and Norway is not always untitled. Untitled nobility is the common term for, well, the untitled nobility, and I fail to see what's the problem with that expression. The Wedel Jarlsberg family is, for example, a titled family whose head is lensgreve and whose younger members are barons. Multiple Danish families are titled nobles where the title is not tied to an estate/len.
6) The fact that other families have adopted (variations of) the coats of arms of unrelated families was added by yourself as far as I can tell; I merely moved it from the introduction to a more appropriate place in the article and reworded it. TuriTerj ( talk) 17:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Anglicanus and I disagree about the lede of a biographical article for a British subject usually known by a nickname should be set out. I have tried to explain my position and commented only on the issue and not on the user. Unfortunately I feel his mode of reply, in refusing to enter into proper discussion but blindly reverting and persistently accusing me of disruption, is distinctly unhelpful to resolving the underlying dispute. I have taken it up politely on his talk but it did not produce any change. I hope Anglicanus can understand that there is a difference between "an editor who disagrees with me" and "a disruptive editor". Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
(Outdent) Our own page nickname makes no British/American distinction and I personally (a Briton) have often seen Forename "Nickname" Surname – until today it had never occurred to me that that may be American usage. If anyone has a Debrett's or similar British style guide to hand, that would be handy. However, since this is posted in "Wikiquette", may I suggest that who is right is not so much our business as whether decorum and etiquette has been/is followed... D B D 19:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing incivility issues here (disagreeing with someone isn't incivil.) There is already a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Nicknames_in_lead; please continue there. Gerardw ( talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Closed discussion
| ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am almost always on the opposite side of a dispute from this user, but it has almost always been amicable and I have never seen her act the way she has in the past couple of days:
I have a lot of respect for this user, but this is persistent and has gone over the line. Given my own history, I'm not in the position to be the civility police, but this behavior from Roscelese is persistent and needs to be brought to the attention of the community. NYyankees51 ( talk) 20:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have filed an ANI report on the anti-Semitism charge. NYyankees51 ( talk) 16:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC) I am withdrawing myself from this thread; we're not getting anything constructive done here. I suggest all users do the same before things get any worse. NYyankees51 ( talk) 18:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
I have collided with this esteemed user's behaviour considered by me as impolite at AFD started by me. God knows, I hadn't wanted any flame starting the AFD. I have contributed mainly in Ru-Wiki, not here, my contributions there are not considerable, but it isn't a reason to be impolite with me, is it? :) Please help. -- Postoronniy-13 ( talk) 12:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sources of reference for Ppowered Skateboard Racing
Articles on Powered Skateboard Racing and on NAPSR, The National Association Of Powered Skateboard Racing author James Eric Hawkins August 12, 2011
www.encinovelobicycle club.com
www.napsar.bz
www.sports@dailynews.com
www.hd.net.com
www.Adrenalina World Tour 2011 marathon
Skateboarders Journal — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.151.205.48 (
talk) 04:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the Falkland Islands talk page discussion, Wee Curry Monster's attitude seems to continuously display an uncivil and accusatory tone towards other editors. This has also been in full display in his contributions at WP:RSN over the same subject. He has made a host of accusations against myself and several other editors, to include IP socking, hounding, WP:OR, etc. Assistance and oversight would be highly appreciated, thank you. Alex79818 ( talk) 20:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried take this to AN/I, to no avail. Parrot of Doom ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accused me of acting like an idiot [13]. I then asked him to be civil [14]. In response, he told me to "take your civility link and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, sunshine." [15]. Here (yesterday) [16] he calls a message left by another editor "childish prattle". Here, he again calls me an idiot [17]. Here, Parrot calls me "fucking stupid" [18]. Here, he uses "fuck off please" (directed at someone else, not at me) as an edit summary [19]. Here he tells me to fuck off in an edit summary [20]. At the very top of his user talk he states "Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer." User:Parrot of Doom is being extremely aggressive, belittling me and directing personal attacks against me and others. 79.97.144.17 ( talk) 23:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I made one constructive edit to the above article (disputed an outlandish and unsourced claim) and was personally attacked by the above user. You can see what the user said here and here. I've decided not to engage the situation anymore, however I don't appreciate the attacks directed towards me and thought I would bring it up here. Thank you. Thankyoubaby ( talk) 03:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The conflict started with some edits at the article Myrtle Allen. Rms125a@hotmail.com did a few edits that in my opinion were not okay. I reverted and added quite a few of his edits (but not all) in the article. I think I hit a nerve with that and some misery started at my talkpage.
It started with this edit in which he was questioning my "judgment" (sic) due to the fact that English is not my first language. I consider that as an unprovoked personal attack. His next reply was also blunt and again an attack on my language abilities that I consider a personal attack. His third reply is another personal attack, especially his remark proof that you have no intention of addressing the execrable state of the current Myrtle Allen article due to your poor editing. In his [ next personal attack he even dared to name me a vicious individual . But still he had not enough and came with another personal attack.
I have a good sense of humor, but that is still incompatible with this string of personal attacks. I have warned him in my replies and I have warned him ons his talkpage. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It all started one day when browsing All Music Guide website. Suddenly I noticed that there is mentioned music genre A and music genre B on 1983 album by Madonna. Since All Music Guide is well-respected and reliable, I added an AMG reference as a proof that the above album is not only genre A but also genre B (without a proper reference it is considered as original research, obviously).
The particular user reverted the edits of mine and it all seemed as "accidental" vandalism. However, the user even reverted my edits the second time although I asked him to halt the "infobox wars" process. I even tried to resolve the situation by posting one of the generic "warning" templates on his talk page. The disputer seemed to be very friendly and surely can solve issues with grace. He even calls my actions "idiotic" which I find very offensive and disrespectful.
Aside from the irrelevant mini-infobox war, I personally request the etiquette assistance since this kind of disrespectful behavior and language is absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia.
Thank you in advance. ItsAlwaysLupus ( talk) 18:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Although the user didn't want to discuss the issues on his talk page in the first place, he tried to harass me on my talk page (see link). It's lovely that he hasn't apologized to me yet and he still continues to behave like an arrogant person who is above the whole world. However, it seems like he is now trying to reach a consensus since The Incident. Glad to see some progress here. ItsAlwaysLupus ( talk) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am an occasional but relatively long-standing editor, who has had a few disagreements with the above user over issues of delinking and linking (although we are actually not that far apart on the issue really). Today I made about seven edits - either fairly open-minded observations on talk pages or minor content edits - including to a page they had been on recently. Anyway, is the following pattern of behaviour acceptable -
1) to describe people who disagree with them over the use of a hyphen, totally unprompted, as "ignorant"?
2) to repeatedly reinsert a "copyedit" tag onto the page, purely, it would seem on the basis of that one issue?
3) when another editor, ie me, comments on that (as noted above) in to suggest that the issues are not that definitive, while noting the rudeness and that fact that prior edits had wrecked some formatting and taken out some pictures, to then immediately follow me to a totally unrelated page they have never edited before to blindly revert me (and in doing that, restore inaccurate quotes from a novel, which I had removed. I can't believe they took the time to check or verify)?
4) to then template me and accuse me of "trolling" and warn me I will be blocked if I continue?
5) to remove a possibly firm but perfectly reasonable (crossed) comment that I had posted on his talk page with the edit summary "removing vomit"?
I am happy to discuss issues reasonably with Tony, but I am not willing to watch him accuse others of ignorance about fairly minor punctuation points; follow me and revert wrong information into an article he has never been to before simply to make a point against me; or accuse me of trolling, or posting vomit. N-HH talk/ edits 14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I notified User:Tony1 of this thread, and that post was removed with the edit summary "removing more vomit". I am slightly at a loss now. N-HH talk/ edits 14:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
As we're talking about wikiquette, I'd like to point out that here, User N-HH reverted my edits with the summary 'rv vandalism by script ...'. And since we're talking about wikistalking, I'll also mention that of his 19 article edits since returning on 25 July, three have been reverting my changes. Draw your own conclusions. Colonies Chris ( talk) 16:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with point 1, as calling an edit "ignorant" is not an insult. By definition, ignorant simply refers to a lack of knowledge in a a given area; it's not a comment on another persons intellect. Nor do I have a problem with point 2 on the basis that we can't read Tony1's mind so we don't know for sure that he was making that change based on that single problem. However, point 3 and beyond are where things begin to unravel. It certainly seems like Tony1 was hounding, and that is not okay in any circumstance. I checked his edit history through the last few thousand edits and searched for A Fringe of Leaves and did not find him contributing anywhere to it at any other point in time. Thus, it seems as though the revert was blind retaliation. Point 4 was excessive as a block warning wasn't justified in this case. N-HH had done nothing that would deserve even a warning, as he only made two edits to the page and one on the talk page. Honestly, that just seems like an attempt to intimidate. Point 5 is also out of bounds. There is simply no reason to refer to another editors edits as "vomit", especially when they're making perfectly valid points. So I don't have any doubt that Tony1 became uncivil.
As to Tony1 and his accusations of "Stalking" or "carrying on": Can you please provide some evidence of this? It seems to me that you're just tossing out unsubstantiated accusations. And while he did revert you, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. He didn't start an edit war.
Finally, Colonies Chris, if you have an issue that you feel needs to be reported then open up a formal complaint. There is no purpose in issuing this here. It's a red herring. Ultimahero ( talk) 07:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a case of a user who does not seem to understand the principles of consensus and BRD cycles, and as a result has started making several accusations of bias and POV pushing against me and other editors. The background: Gise-354x has been trying to insert links between the two articles into the See also sections of each. This is based on material that I feel is a mixture of non-RS and original research. I reverted both links, and explained at great length on the talkpage why (see here). He twice reinserted the link at News Corporation scandal (and then once more after user:Alexh19740110 also reverted his addition, and the converse link here he re-inserted once (the page is 1RR protected). That's the background.
The conversation on the talkpage is one thing (he genuinely doesn't appear to understand wikipedia core policies), but he's taken to making regular accusations of misinformation, uncivil behaviour and POV-pushing (mainly in the edit summaries, if not there, in the text).
Have I done anything wrong? In good faith, given his apparent newness to wikipedia, I suggested that the kind of material he wanted to put up was more suitable for blogging, not wikipedia (see also my talkpage link below). He found this insulting, and I apologised as one should when another editor takes offence. I also asked him if he had edited wikipedia under another name, explaining that he was editing a lot in a controversial area that has seen a lot of SPAs and problem accounts (see my talkpage link below). I don't think I was uncivil here in the way I put the question, and certainly, I don't think it has merited the persistent attacks. In essence he doesn't appear to like people disagreeing with his edits, and doesn't want to build consensus (if he understands what consensus is, which is another issue).
Attempts to talk with him have taken place, as well as on the talkpages of various articles, on my talkpage (see the two sections following each other) and on his own talkpage - to no apparent benefit. I was hoping outside input could help with this before it gets more unpleasant. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 07:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I concur. Gise seems to have exchanged boldness for rashness. VK has been very civil Yopienso ( talk) 07:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The appearance of the rather quirky counter complaint below may give a first impression of history of hostility between Gise-354x & Vsevolod. In reality, Gise-354x burst onto the scene just a few days ago (with sparse edits going back to July) and has made an alarming number of changes in a contentious topic area. When he is reverted, he tends to edit war and immediately assumes a hidden agenda - despite all appearance to outsiders that the people he is disagreeing with are in general terms on his "side" (perhaps not me though). In fairness, from reviewing his contribution history, he does appear to be taking a lot of care and acting with good intentions. And it could be said that he was encouraged a little in this folly by an experienced editor who should have known better. Nonetheless, in the matter of this News Corporation / Climategate business he is without question completely confused - and just not listening to anyone. I reverted his edit once and within minutes there was an angry message at my talk page. Edit summary: Removing undo from user who misinforms me and has an agenda, NYT source is reliable! I am concerned that if he ends up as confused about other content issues as he is on this particular issue - and if he then shows the same disregard for consensus - he is capable of creating a lot of trouble. So he does need to understand that consensus is required, in particular that he needs to assume good faith - and it would be nice if he acknowledged that Vsevolod isn't out to get him.
I also think that, as a new editor, and someone who has spent the last five days in front of his computer editing Wikipedia like a pro, Vsevolod's question about whether he's edited here in another account is probably fair enough. It'd certainly be nice if Gise would introduce himself a little. Alex Harvey ( talk) 14:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a case of a user who uses deliberately false claims for reverting new additions to the wikipedia. He does not seem to understand the principles of consensus and BRD cycles, and as a result has started making several accusations of bias and POV pushing against me. And he claims that i would do my own investigation here in the last parts. But all i did was using a reliable source. The background: VsevolodKrolikov has been trying to remove a legit link from the See also sections of the above two articles. He started here with saying, quote "Remove Newscorp scandal link. That page has nothing at all about climate change; the link cited on the talkpage here is explicitly speculation." I then went on to try to explain that this is not pure speculation and provided a source. After this he claimed the source was not reliable, when i cited another "reliable source", the New York Times. Still he can not accept that it is based none original research and reliable sources. Then he went on and reverted both links here & here, and claimed at great length on the talkpage why (see here). Later another user joined him and removed the link again, without even bothering explaining here After asking user:Alexh19740110 why he removed the link he said that user:VsevolodKrolikovreason are 100% legit here.
The case started with him pretending that the addition had no facts and was just speculation (he appears to follow an agenda and is using false accusation to make his point), from the start he asked me to leave wikipedia and go blogging here in the middle Then he claimed my source is not WP:OR or i'm WP:UNCIVIL, beside he started from the start with insulting me when asking to leave wikipedia, i called him Dude at a later point 2 times to be exact, i'm not aware of any other uncivil behavior or what he could have meant, beside this he himself called me Dude. and all the time he kept putting forth false arguments. The source is in question is a news article from last month, where the New York Times clearly says that Nahil Wasdill has been at the MET during the time of the CRU investigation. here Later in this discussion i found out he was misinforming me all the time, when calling it WP:OR. I ask him about this but with almost every reply he kept ignoring my arguments.
Attempts to talk with him have taken place, as well as on the talkpages of various articles, on my talkpage (see the two sections following each other) and on his own talkpage - to no apparent benefit. I was hoping outside input could help with this before it gets more unpleasant. Gise-354x ( talk) 08:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
See the links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JohnLloydScharf#August_2011
NOTE: I found out he was impersonating an Administrator. JohnLloydScharf ( talk) 01:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
First edit warring and next bad language.This user seems to simply does not care or understands the Wikipedia policies.I ask for assistance in limiting him/her. Alborz Fallah ( talk) 12:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This is prompted by this User_talk:Marine_69-71#Use_of_Admin_Tools. I am not providing the diffs at this point, because an exercise of good faith on the part of Damien.rf is called for in which he owns up to scrutinizing the work and editing of User:Marine_69-71 under a microscope. What prompted me to comment was an WP:RFPP un-protect request on an article in the WikiProject Puerto Rico for which Daminen.rf didn't attempt to approach Marine_69-71, citing a self-imposed tool break. His response to me i his talk page, while civil, was disingenuous - even claiming there was no problem between the two of them. When confronted by another user and myself, he claimed defamation. Another user commented in apparent support of Damien.rf's behavior, citing the need to scrutinize admin behavior. I agree we need to scrutinize behavior, but common sense tells us that if you already have a history, it might not be wise to involve yourself, and Damien.rf has a history with Marine of at least several years. This amounts to wikihounding. I am seeking community comment on this situation and how to move forward in here - Marine is a long-time contributor and admin, and a key pillar of Wikiproject Puerto Rico, and while there might be validity in some claims made against him - which he has admitted and hence gone on self-impossed tool break - some of them are due to cultural and even age differences that those seeking to resolve disputes - rather than create drama - should be cognizant of, and hence take caution when dealing with them. The wikihounding and microscope scrutiny is worrying in its scale and methodology and it needs to stop. -- Cerejota ( talk) 12:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Further investigation shows that in my period of wikibreak, User:ScottyBerg was involved in a negative fashion with Marine Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive710#User:Marine_69-71. I will be the first to say that Marine's behavior, in particular the Wall of Dishonor was, put mildly, a serious lack of judgement, but the community expressed itself clearly and rather eloquently on the matter - and Scotty clearly is much more deeply involved in this matter than what I thought - which puts his comments above in context, a context that I lacked and he refused to give me [26] (which he cleared quickly, as is his right). The continued wikistalking of Marine is unacceptable, and if this particular alert doesn't generate any substantial un-involved response, the next incident will have to go higher in the WP:DR process. If Marine misbehaves, that is no excuse to declare open season on him. As an aside, I engaged in a civil but inconclusive thread with damines.rf in Talk:Luis Palés Matos. I think he is civil in speech and approach, but not on editing behavior, and certainly the stalking I recognize that it is nearly impossible to work in the Puerto Rico topic area without bumping into Marine's edits, so I suggested he coordinate with the Wikiproject so that there is no concern of stalking. If he continues to ignore community concern, I will consider it a continuation of stalking behavior, and go further the DR pyramid. This has to stop as it is seriously damaging the project and the quality of the encyclopedia's coverage of the topic area, which doesn't have many editors to start with.-- Cerejota ( talk) 11:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone close? Its obvious Damiens doesn't want to participate.--
Cerejota (
talk) 08:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the Rick Perry talk page, there has for a while now been a dispute going on as to whether or not to include information about Rick Perry attending the 2007 Bilderberg conference in the article. User:Sheilakissane, a single purpose account, has repeatedly pushed for the inclusion of this, and for the most part the discussion has been relatively civil. Recently, however, he has broken WP:BLP twice by posting comments on the page that are libelous, where they were promptly removed by User:Dougweller; and WP:NPA twice, where he was warned by User:N5iln. See [28], [29], [30], and [31] for specific instances. While I agree that consensus has not developed yet on the material presented, Sheilakissane has proven to be purely a single purpose account and a WP:TE, and seems to continue base most of his argument on WP:IDHT. He has refused to even address most of the concerns laid out by those editors opposed to adding the material, instead talking about the process as "yellow journalism" (see [32], [33]) or a conspiracy (see [34]).
Relevant sections of the talk page: Talk:Rick Perry#Bilderberg - Moved from WP:RFPP, Talk:Rick_Perry#Bilderberg.2FGlobalist_or_not.3F, and Talk:Rick_Perry#Should_his_biography_include_the_fact_that_he_was_a_Bilderberg_attendee, including its subsection Talk:Rick_Perry#Seeking_Compromise.
Help on determining the next step would be greatly appreciated. Kessy628 ( talk) 22:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As per your recommendation, I've reposted this on the BLP noticeboard here. Thanks! Kessy628 ( talk) 17:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
attack & vandalism
edits to correct spelling or grammar.
and initially here
Oldspammer (
talk) 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At Talk:2011 AFL season#"their" vs. "its" there was considerable discussion over whether Australian football teams should be described as "their" or "its". This discussion seemed to have wound down with a seeming consensus towards "its".
Shortly afterwards McAusten, who had initiated the above discussion but would have seen opinion swing away from his preferred position, changed portions of the article to his preferred usage of "their". This was reverted, then re-reverted by him, despite requests to him to discuss the matter (see [35], [36], [37].
Since then, many efforts have been made on the article's Talk page and at User talk:McAusten.
The problem we now have is that McAusten is ignoring all requests to communicate further on this. He will not post on the article's Talk page, and simply deletes comments on his Talk page without responding. For example, [38] and [39].
(Please excuse any errors in process here. It's my first time.) HiLo48 ( talk) 10:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I really didn't want to tackle the "its" vs "their" issue here. Those of us involved have already presented our views at Talk:2011 AFL season#"their" vs. "its". While I'm happy to be made aware of other opinions on that matter, and even be convinced that Wikipedia's policy differs from my view, if that is the case, that's not what this is about. The real issue here is the behaviour of McAusten. We have an unresolved issue, with Edit warring, and an editor refusing to participate in all normal forms of communication. That's the problem I'm seeking a solution to. HiLo48 ( talk) 10:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From what I can tell after being involved in this page discussion a little over a day now, several editors, most apparent to me, SlimVirgin, have hijacked the page discussion and are intent on moving discussion aside and squashing disagreement.
There are a couple dozen changes which span several related pages, and amount to a pattern of edit warring in order to keep discussion supposedly 'on track'. From what I can tell at this point, such behavior has failed to produce results.
I have come into the discussion as a result of someone mentioning it on Jimbo's page, and after a few discussions with editors, it seems apparent that SlimVirgin is acting both as Admin and Editor in this page.
I attempted to personally discuss things with SlimVirgin, who merely brushed me aside. Discussions on the WP:Verifiability Talk page are similarly pushed aside, mostly by SlimVirgin.
Attempts at WP:BRD have met with mere dismissive comments, however, in reviewing the page history, I see that SlimVirgin has felt free to do as she wished. diff 1 - diff 2 - diff 3.
Attempting to implement the wording that Jimbo suggested also met with a dismissive revert by SlimVirgin.
I'd like an opportunity to have a real discussion and real collaboration, but the impression I am getting from SlimVirgin is that she is unwilling to allow other editors to collaborate as they see fit, but merely imposing her will on the discussion, with the disclaimer that it is intended to improve the discussion. From what I can tell in other editor's comments, this has created resentment and a feeling that there is a bit of police state type atmosphere at this point, rather than a free and collaborative exchange of ideas.
While I can see that some of the editors have been dealing with this issue for some time, I feel that there is a developing attitude of WP:Ownership among some of them, most prominently in my mind SlimVirgin.
I'd like her to back off from acting as both Admin and Editor and choose a role for her actions in this page. Her last comment to me was that I was acting like a troll, and yet when I have tried to personally have a dialog with her, it is met with a dismissive attitude.
This comment simply reinforces my belief that she is overly involved and owner-ish at this point, rather than simply trying to engage editors in collaboration.
I'd like SlimVirgin to stop moving and deleting other people's Talk page comments, and to back off from biting people who are also trying to see that some progress gets made in this *minor* Policy amendment. (FYI, not one person is proposing an actual change in policy, but merely a change in phrasing for clarity). -- Avanu ( talk) 22:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
:It goes a long way to harm your case that you have ignored this: "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 Template:WQA-notice --
Cerejota (
talk) 22:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the correct forum so please advise. User Snowded continually makes disparaging remarks about me and I'm pissed off with it:
[40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]
I haver not been uncivil to him and would welcome normal debate but all he does is refer to me as an SPA or an SPI and I've had enough of it. Van Speijk ( talk) 22:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
All sufficiently new editors (few edits) are likely to be "SPA" pretty much by definition (Solution: Edit in a bunch of unrelated articles)... if there is any real suspicion of being a "sock" then the issue should be raised at
WP:SPI and not otherwise. In the case at hand, an order of trout for each with a cup of tea. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 07:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Snowded has not been uncivil in any of the diffs you have posted here. He has no case to answer for stating the bleeding obvious. Beware the boomerang if you persist with this issue. - Nick Thorne talk 14:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This report on Snowded is quite weak. SPAs & Socks have a history of hovering around British Isles topics. The MidnightBlueMan farm comes to mind. Let's close this report as being merely revenge seeking in nature. GoodDay ( talk) 18:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:OpenFuture has accused me User:R-41 of soapboxing and original research on the Nazism discussion page here: [55] and heres the quote of what I found to be a personal attack: "Stop soapboxing and OR:ing. National Socialism as a concept did not appear out of a vacuum in 1919. Give up." OpenFuture. I view these accusations as false. OpenFuture has also told me to "give up" trying to make my argument, even though other users have similar views on recent material that is proposed to be added to the article. Earlier, OpenFuture used sarcasm in what I view a demeaning manner against me, I politely told OpenFuture to rescind and keep a calm head and cooperate and did rescind then and acknowledged the sarcasm. OpenFuture asked me to prove that "national socialism" as an ideology did not exist as a coherent ideology before the prior to Nazi use, with OpenFuture's contention that it existed for a long time before. I found this indirect to search for a negation, but told OpenFuture to review sources that I earlier had added to the ideological origins section of the Nazism article on Johann Plenge, who created a "national socialism" during World War I that was authoritarian in a manner similar to Nazism. A number of scholars can verify that Plenge's arguments for a "national socialism" were the origins of the ideology now known as Nazism. OpenFuture claimed this did not resolve the question, that I did not find the negations. I responded that since the material that was being debated to be added was material predating Nazism, such as references dating to the 19th century, I could not possibly examine them because they were sources predating Nazism and thus any attribution or disattribution of them to Nazism would be original research. After this, OpenFuture accused me of soapboxing, of refusing to acknowledge the "obvious" - that national socialism as related to Nazism dates back into the 19th century, and that I should "give up". I considered these accusations and demands to be aggressive and false (in the case of accusations), and asked OpenFuture to rescind these because I considered it highly offensive - as I have never been accused of soapboxing before, nor blocked, nor reprimanded for anything on Wikipedia. Considering OpenFuture's previous use of sarcasm and now accusations of wrongdoing, I told OpenFuture that I would report these accusations if he/she did not rescind. OpenFuture refused to rescind. OpenFuture claims that WP:STICK applies to her/his claim for me to "give up", but two other users have also challenged the claims of the new material and one has provided a source to disprove some of the material. I think it should be beared in mind that me and OpenFuture have not held any longstanding disagreements or grudges as may be the case in long-term cases. This summarizes what happened as I view it.-- R-41 ( talk) 22:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
As I see it, Soapboxing is when you try to use Wikipedia to promote a particular political standpoint. R-41, and several others are intent on trying to eradicate the influence socialism had on national socialism from Wikipedias articles. There is also a user Darkstar1st, who are a radical anti-socialist is intent on pushing the opposite viewpoint, namely that national socialism simply is a form of socialism. What he is doing is also clearly soapbxing. In short, there is a lot of soapboxing going on on that article. If R-41 doesn't want to be accused of soapboxing he needs to stop pushing a particular political standpoint, and look at things cooly and rationally and go with what the sources say. That would solve it. Both sides in this conflict is extremely prone to original research with to be frank, absurd logic. I don't know how to stop that, although I do my best. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 06:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there an actual complaint here? I think R-41 should examine the number of times on that article talk page that "OR" has been bandied as a claim (albeit often with the implicit meaning "I know it is not the truth, therefore it must be OR no matter the source.") This is not really the right noticeboard for the implicit issues. Anent this, with "National Socialism" appearing in print in the 19th century , one editor said the OED was "wrong" in giving dates before 1931 for the usage because (essentially) "Webster's says it was first used in 1931"! Well, Literary Digest used it before 1931 as well -- but to that editor, that fact is OR -- and Webster's must be the WP:TRUTH. Well - it takes all kinds to make a Wiki. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looneymonkey is in violation of WP:HOUND. He has been disrupting the edits of Starbucksian on Lee Fang and Ruben Hinojosa. Tommyboy1215 ( talk) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starbucksian#September_2011 Using wiki rules to intimidate other editors. Threatening Starbuckian with a block for edit warring. Tommyboy1215 ( talk) 23:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My very first time running across long-time editor Hrafn was the occasion of him wholesale reverting five of my edits to the Meyer BLP, where he sits as a primary editor, with his edit summary only mentioning the first edit he reverted (see here). It wasn't long after that that he started resorting to personal attacks. Here he calls me "willfully ignorant." Later on, he calls me a "fanatic" here, and in the same edit also makes what appears to a mocking comment about what he perceives to be my religion ("kindly stop nailing yourself to that cross -- you make a very poor martyr"). Those are the personal attacks I happen to remember. Now, he continues his tradition of personal attacks by using the scare-epithet "creationist" (see here for the essay "Creating Creationism" by leading historian on creationism Ronald Numbers, where he refers to "creationist" as an epithet: "Since at least the early 1840s Darwin had occasionally referred to "creationists" in his unpublished writings, but the epithet remained relatively uncommon." Even if he happened to know my personal views on creationism--which he doesn't--and my views were supportive of it, he would find himself in trouble with the very first item in WP:NPA policy that is considered to be a personal attack:
He neither knows my views on creationsim, nor has any evidence of my views on it (remember, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). Actually, this is at least the second time he has called me a "creationist," but like previous personal attacks, I didn't care. Now is different as he has made a personal attack in a heavily-read BLPN venue, which attracts a lot of influential admins and non-admin editors. Drrll ( talk) 15:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Forgot a few other personal attacks on me. From his user Talk page:
I was also curious about personal attacks there on other editors. Going back to July:
Also, he regularly calls me and other editors various names playing off on our usernames, such as "Deadhorse Drrll" Drrll ( talk) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
How did admin Dougweller handle this complaint? By even giving Hrafn a warning? No, but by giving him some
sympathetic "advice". In his advice to Hrafn, he referred to me and other regular targets of Hrafn's violation of the
WP:NPA policy as "rav[ing] on". Dougweller, which dictionary definition of "rave" were you using?:
Maybe someone needs to take a looksee at your violations of WP:NPA policy and keep you away from a noticeboard where instead of displaying an interest in enforcing policy, you don't mind engaging in some policy-breaking yourself. Drrll ( talk) 20:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn at most deserves a trout with a generalized appeal to be less harsh with other editors:
But they do not constitute WP:NPA violations. Just because its offensive, it doesn't mean its a personal attack. A personal attack is saying "your head is full of filth" or "you are a pedophile" or "I fuck your mother, and then stand in line for your sister". It is not "Please don't evoke the all-too-strong argumentative side of my personality by reminding me of your, and its, existence" or "twit" or "idiots". These are harsly expressed but legitimate and WP:HONESTY expressions. Hrafn should probably be WP:CIVIL but other editors should also grow thicker skins and ignore his personality and focus on the content. It takes two to fight, and it doesn't help anyone if unless a real pattern of disruptive editing emerges, and unless he doesn't address content at all, you will have to tough it out. He is not getting a pass on the rules, he is following the rules. And not hearing that is a problem in itself.-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: when provided the opportunity several weeks later to retract his personal attack on me in calling me "ignorant," Hrafn instead responded with "I'm certainly not going to disavow the adjective." here. Drrll ( talk) 00:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me wrap up my input here by giving a little background on my history on Wikipedia. I started editing about two years ago. For about two years I nearly exclusively edited politically-oriented articles. During that time, I thought that politically-oriented articles were a contentious place to be involved in editing on Wikipedia. In recent months, I started to edit articles that were related to the issue of intelligent design. Political articles are actually rather peaceful places to edit compared with what goes on in articles dealing with intelligent design and apparently also articles dealing with creationism. In these articles, one encounters much higher levels of article
ownership (even from long-time WP editors) and incivility toward anyone who asks questions that may challenge the status quo of the articles. If the person questioning the status quo doesn't go away or back down, they are subjected to increasingly higher levels of incivility, including questioning motives, intelligence, honesty, and good faith.
It is in this context of having worked for nearly two years with political articles, seeing how vastly different things were with articles dealing with intelligent design, including even BLPs of individuals associated with ID, being subjected to incivility by several editors, not just Hrafn, that after numerous instances of incivility in increasingly public WP venues, that I decided to file a WQA complaint against Hrafn--understanding that filing at WQA could not result in a ban, block, or any other formal sanction against Hrafn. After seeing what looked to be a second admin yawning about Hrafn's repeated incivility against multiple editors, I decided that it was time to file an ANI complaint.
Cerejota:
Rewinding back to the original complaint, Hrafn definitely engaged in personal attacks, but I'm not seeing much of a pattern of offensive conduct. It appears to be a content dispute with deep roots. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
@Figureofnine WP:NPA would not describe any of the actions by Hrafn as "personal attacks" - and best they are bit uncivil. A "personal attack is serious accusation or insult, like calling someone a "faggot" or "nigger". Around here those nuances do count. -- Cerejota ( talk) 23:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The article Treschow (Dano-Norwegian family) has experienced the recent arrival of a user, TuriTerj,
In addition, the user has added incorrect and/or unnuanced information (and my own corrections of them have been removed), e.g. the sentence ‘nobility was abolished in Norway in 1821’.
The mentioned user dominates the article, like he/she owns it, and contributions by others are consistently removed and replaced with his/hers. It has become impossible to work on the article, since this user most likely will remove other contributions.
I will first of all ask about the following:
1st) Whether one on basis of the article's revision history (from 1 May) sees indications of the same.
2nd) How the problem may be solved.
--- Aaemn784 ( talk) 12:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Aaemn784's edits are of low quality (see the inconsistent narrative in the section "1812 ennoblement" [1]), he removes relevant information, and makes unsourced and misleading claims, e.g. that the family is of noble "origin" (the family is not of noble "origin", but a branch of the family, not the entire family, was historically noble, in the 19th century). Whether the Treschow family is rich or not has nothing to do with the edits in questions, and does absolutely not waive normal quality standards. (The persons who are "rich and famous", assuming he is referring to the ones inhabiting Fritzøehus, and who are using the name Treschow today are not aristocrats in any country, btw., and wouldn't be aristocrats even if Norway had still recognized the existence of the nobility as such. That's another misleading claim.) Aaemn784 has also refused to discuss his problematic edits on the relevant article talk page where I brought up his misleading claims months ago. "The problem may be solved" when User:Aaemn784 starts to discuss his edits. TuriTerj ( talk) 11:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
1) The Norwegian Treschow family has adopted not only a name which is indistinguishable from that of the German family, but even the coat of arms of this much older family. It's highly relevant and informative to mention this prominently, especially when discussing the coat of arms that they adopted from the German family, and to distinguish it from coats of arms used previously by the members of the Norwegian Treschow family.
2) I don't agree that the information on how noble status is inherited in this case (not universally) is "common knowledge" (it's only common knowledge for persons interested in nobility). The Treschow name is today used by many persons who are not members of what was defined as a noble family in the past, including the heirs to alleged "family seat". This is helpful and relevant information.
3) I don't object to rewording the information on the abolition of noble privileges/status. If you had explained your position in the first case, we could have found a more acceptable wording. However, the accepted position is that the concept of nobility does not exist in Norway today. If that was the case, it would somehow be officially acknowledged (by law, by the Government).
4) The term family seat is misleading for a number of reasons, both because it is the common translation of setegård or a term frequently denoting such a concept, and also because the current residents are mostly not members of the family that was historically noble. It's an expensive building from the turn of the century, but not the "seat" of anyone else than the ones residing there. Describing it as a family seat is anachronistic and misleading.
5) The nobility in Denmark and Norway is not always untitled. Untitled nobility is the common term for, well, the untitled nobility, and I fail to see what's the problem with that expression. The Wedel Jarlsberg family is, for example, a titled family whose head is lensgreve and whose younger members are barons. Multiple Danish families are titled nobles where the title is not tied to an estate/len.
6) The fact that other families have adopted (variations of) the coats of arms of unrelated families was added by yourself as far as I can tell; I merely moved it from the introduction to a more appropriate place in the article and reworded it. TuriTerj ( talk) 17:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Anglicanus and I disagree about the lede of a biographical article for a British subject usually known by a nickname should be set out. I have tried to explain my position and commented only on the issue and not on the user. Unfortunately I feel his mode of reply, in refusing to enter into proper discussion but blindly reverting and persistently accusing me of disruption, is distinctly unhelpful to resolving the underlying dispute. I have taken it up politely on his talk but it did not produce any change. I hope Anglicanus can understand that there is a difference between "an editor who disagrees with me" and "a disruptive editor". Sam Blacketer ( talk) 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
(Outdent) Our own page nickname makes no British/American distinction and I personally (a Briton) have often seen Forename "Nickname" Surname – until today it had never occurred to me that that may be American usage. If anyone has a Debrett's or similar British style guide to hand, that would be handy. However, since this is posted in "Wikiquette", may I suggest that who is right is not so much our business as whether decorum and etiquette has been/is followed... D B D 19:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing incivility issues here (disagreeing with someone isn't incivil.) There is already a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Nicknames_in_lead; please continue there. Gerardw ( talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Closed discussion
| ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am almost always on the opposite side of a dispute from this user, but it has almost always been amicable and I have never seen her act the way she has in the past couple of days:
I have a lot of respect for this user, but this is persistent and has gone over the line. Given my own history, I'm not in the position to be the civility police, but this behavior from Roscelese is persistent and needs to be brought to the attention of the community. NYyankees51 ( talk) 20:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have filed an ANI report on the anti-Semitism charge. NYyankees51 ( talk) 16:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC) I am withdrawing myself from this thread; we're not getting anything constructive done here. I suggest all users do the same before things get any worse. NYyankees51 ( talk) 18:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
I have collided with this esteemed user's behaviour considered by me as impolite at AFD started by me. God knows, I hadn't wanted any flame starting the AFD. I have contributed mainly in Ru-Wiki, not here, my contributions there are not considerable, but it isn't a reason to be impolite with me, is it? :) Please help. -- Postoronniy-13 ( talk) 12:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Sources of reference for Ppowered Skateboard Racing
Articles on Powered Skateboard Racing and on NAPSR, The National Association Of Powered Skateboard Racing author James Eric Hawkins August 12, 2011
www.encinovelobicycle club.com
www.napsar.bz
www.sports@dailynews.com
www.hd.net.com
www.Adrenalina World Tour 2011 marathon
Skateboarders Journal — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.151.205.48 (
talk) 04:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the Falkland Islands talk page discussion, Wee Curry Monster's attitude seems to continuously display an uncivil and accusatory tone towards other editors. This has also been in full display in his contributions at WP:RSN over the same subject. He has made a host of accusations against myself and several other editors, to include IP socking, hounding, WP:OR, etc. Assistance and oversight would be highly appreciated, thank you. Alex79818 ( talk) 20:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I tried take this to AN/I, to no avail. Parrot of Doom ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) accused me of acting like an idiot [13]. I then asked him to be civil [14]. In response, he told me to "take your civility link and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, sunshine." [15]. Here (yesterday) [16] he calls a message left by another editor "childish prattle". Here, he again calls me an idiot [17]. Here, Parrot calls me "fucking stupid" [18]. Here, he uses "fuck off please" (directed at someone else, not at me) as an edit summary [19]. Here he tells me to fuck off in an edit summary [20]. At the very top of his user talk he states "Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer." User:Parrot of Doom is being extremely aggressive, belittling me and directing personal attacks against me and others. 79.97.144.17 ( talk) 23:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I made one constructive edit to the above article (disputed an outlandish and unsourced claim) and was personally attacked by the above user. You can see what the user said here and here. I've decided not to engage the situation anymore, however I don't appreciate the attacks directed towards me and thought I would bring it up here. Thank you. Thankyoubaby ( talk) 03:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The conflict started with some edits at the article Myrtle Allen. Rms125a@hotmail.com did a few edits that in my opinion were not okay. I reverted and added quite a few of his edits (but not all) in the article. I think I hit a nerve with that and some misery started at my talkpage.
It started with this edit in which he was questioning my "judgment" (sic) due to the fact that English is not my first language. I consider that as an unprovoked personal attack. His next reply was also blunt and again an attack on my language abilities that I consider a personal attack. His third reply is another personal attack, especially his remark proof that you have no intention of addressing the execrable state of the current Myrtle Allen article due to your poor editing. In his [ next personal attack he even dared to name me a vicious individual . But still he had not enough and came with another personal attack.
I have a good sense of humor, but that is still incompatible with this string of personal attacks. I have warned him in my replies and I have warned him ons his talkpage. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It all started one day when browsing All Music Guide website. Suddenly I noticed that there is mentioned music genre A and music genre B on 1983 album by Madonna. Since All Music Guide is well-respected and reliable, I added an AMG reference as a proof that the above album is not only genre A but also genre B (without a proper reference it is considered as original research, obviously).
The particular user reverted the edits of mine and it all seemed as "accidental" vandalism. However, the user even reverted my edits the second time although I asked him to halt the "infobox wars" process. I even tried to resolve the situation by posting one of the generic "warning" templates on his talk page. The disputer seemed to be very friendly and surely can solve issues with grace. He even calls my actions "idiotic" which I find very offensive and disrespectful.
Aside from the irrelevant mini-infobox war, I personally request the etiquette assistance since this kind of disrespectful behavior and language is absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia.
Thank you in advance. ItsAlwaysLupus ( talk) 18:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Although the user didn't want to discuss the issues on his talk page in the first place, he tried to harass me on my talk page (see link). It's lovely that he hasn't apologized to me yet and he still continues to behave like an arrogant person who is above the whole world. However, it seems like he is now trying to reach a consensus since The Incident. Glad to see some progress here. ItsAlwaysLupus ( talk) 00:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am an occasional but relatively long-standing editor, who has had a few disagreements with the above user over issues of delinking and linking (although we are actually not that far apart on the issue really). Today I made about seven edits - either fairly open-minded observations on talk pages or minor content edits - including to a page they had been on recently. Anyway, is the following pattern of behaviour acceptable -
1) to describe people who disagree with them over the use of a hyphen, totally unprompted, as "ignorant"?
2) to repeatedly reinsert a "copyedit" tag onto the page, purely, it would seem on the basis of that one issue?
3) when another editor, ie me, comments on that (as noted above) in to suggest that the issues are not that definitive, while noting the rudeness and that fact that prior edits had wrecked some formatting and taken out some pictures, to then immediately follow me to a totally unrelated page they have never edited before to blindly revert me (and in doing that, restore inaccurate quotes from a novel, which I had removed. I can't believe they took the time to check or verify)?
4) to then template me and accuse me of "trolling" and warn me I will be blocked if I continue?
5) to remove a possibly firm but perfectly reasonable (crossed) comment that I had posted on his talk page with the edit summary "removing vomit"?
I am happy to discuss issues reasonably with Tony, but I am not willing to watch him accuse others of ignorance about fairly minor punctuation points; follow me and revert wrong information into an article he has never been to before simply to make a point against me; or accuse me of trolling, or posting vomit. N-HH talk/ edits 14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I notified User:Tony1 of this thread, and that post was removed with the edit summary "removing more vomit". I am slightly at a loss now. N-HH talk/ edits 14:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
As we're talking about wikiquette, I'd like to point out that here, User N-HH reverted my edits with the summary 'rv vandalism by script ...'. And since we're talking about wikistalking, I'll also mention that of his 19 article edits since returning on 25 July, three have been reverting my changes. Draw your own conclusions. Colonies Chris ( talk) 16:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with point 1, as calling an edit "ignorant" is not an insult. By definition, ignorant simply refers to a lack of knowledge in a a given area; it's not a comment on another persons intellect. Nor do I have a problem with point 2 on the basis that we can't read Tony1's mind so we don't know for sure that he was making that change based on that single problem. However, point 3 and beyond are where things begin to unravel. It certainly seems like Tony1 was hounding, and that is not okay in any circumstance. I checked his edit history through the last few thousand edits and searched for A Fringe of Leaves and did not find him contributing anywhere to it at any other point in time. Thus, it seems as though the revert was blind retaliation. Point 4 was excessive as a block warning wasn't justified in this case. N-HH had done nothing that would deserve even a warning, as he only made two edits to the page and one on the talk page. Honestly, that just seems like an attempt to intimidate. Point 5 is also out of bounds. There is simply no reason to refer to another editors edits as "vomit", especially when they're making perfectly valid points. So I don't have any doubt that Tony1 became uncivil.
As to Tony1 and his accusations of "Stalking" or "carrying on": Can you please provide some evidence of this? It seems to me that you're just tossing out unsubstantiated accusations. And while he did revert you, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. He didn't start an edit war.
Finally, Colonies Chris, if you have an issue that you feel needs to be reported then open up a formal complaint. There is no purpose in issuing this here. It's a red herring. Ultimahero ( talk) 07:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a case of a user who does not seem to understand the principles of consensus and BRD cycles, and as a result has started making several accusations of bias and POV pushing against me and other editors. The background: Gise-354x has been trying to insert links between the two articles into the See also sections of each. This is based on material that I feel is a mixture of non-RS and original research. I reverted both links, and explained at great length on the talkpage why (see here). He twice reinserted the link at News Corporation scandal (and then once more after user:Alexh19740110 also reverted his addition, and the converse link here he re-inserted once (the page is 1RR protected). That's the background.
The conversation on the talkpage is one thing (he genuinely doesn't appear to understand wikipedia core policies), but he's taken to making regular accusations of misinformation, uncivil behaviour and POV-pushing (mainly in the edit summaries, if not there, in the text).
Have I done anything wrong? In good faith, given his apparent newness to wikipedia, I suggested that the kind of material he wanted to put up was more suitable for blogging, not wikipedia (see also my talkpage link below). He found this insulting, and I apologised as one should when another editor takes offence. I also asked him if he had edited wikipedia under another name, explaining that he was editing a lot in a controversial area that has seen a lot of SPAs and problem accounts (see my talkpage link below). I don't think I was uncivil here in the way I put the question, and certainly, I don't think it has merited the persistent attacks. In essence he doesn't appear to like people disagreeing with his edits, and doesn't want to build consensus (if he understands what consensus is, which is another issue).
Attempts to talk with him have taken place, as well as on the talkpages of various articles, on my talkpage (see the two sections following each other) and on his own talkpage - to no apparent benefit. I was hoping outside input could help with this before it gets more unpleasant. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 07:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I concur. Gise seems to have exchanged boldness for rashness. VK has been very civil Yopienso ( talk) 07:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The appearance of the rather quirky counter complaint below may give a first impression of history of hostility between Gise-354x & Vsevolod. In reality, Gise-354x burst onto the scene just a few days ago (with sparse edits going back to July) and has made an alarming number of changes in a contentious topic area. When he is reverted, he tends to edit war and immediately assumes a hidden agenda - despite all appearance to outsiders that the people he is disagreeing with are in general terms on his "side" (perhaps not me though). In fairness, from reviewing his contribution history, he does appear to be taking a lot of care and acting with good intentions. And it could be said that he was encouraged a little in this folly by an experienced editor who should have known better. Nonetheless, in the matter of this News Corporation / Climategate business he is without question completely confused - and just not listening to anyone. I reverted his edit once and within minutes there was an angry message at my talk page. Edit summary: Removing undo from user who misinforms me and has an agenda, NYT source is reliable! I am concerned that if he ends up as confused about other content issues as he is on this particular issue - and if he then shows the same disregard for consensus - he is capable of creating a lot of trouble. So he does need to understand that consensus is required, in particular that he needs to assume good faith - and it would be nice if he acknowledged that Vsevolod isn't out to get him.
I also think that, as a new editor, and someone who has spent the last five days in front of his computer editing Wikipedia like a pro, Vsevolod's question about whether he's edited here in another account is probably fair enough. It'd certainly be nice if Gise would introduce himself a little. Alex Harvey ( talk) 14:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a case of a user who uses deliberately false claims for reverting new additions to the wikipedia. He does not seem to understand the principles of consensus and BRD cycles, and as a result has started making several accusations of bias and POV pushing against me. And he claims that i would do my own investigation here in the last parts. But all i did was using a reliable source. The background: VsevolodKrolikov has been trying to remove a legit link from the See also sections of the above two articles. He started here with saying, quote "Remove Newscorp scandal link. That page has nothing at all about climate change; the link cited on the talkpage here is explicitly speculation." I then went on to try to explain that this is not pure speculation and provided a source. After this he claimed the source was not reliable, when i cited another "reliable source", the New York Times. Still he can not accept that it is based none original research and reliable sources. Then he went on and reverted both links here & here, and claimed at great length on the talkpage why (see here). Later another user joined him and removed the link again, without even bothering explaining here After asking user:Alexh19740110 why he removed the link he said that user:VsevolodKrolikovreason are 100% legit here.
The case started with him pretending that the addition had no facts and was just speculation (he appears to follow an agenda and is using false accusation to make his point), from the start he asked me to leave wikipedia and go blogging here in the middle Then he claimed my source is not WP:OR or i'm WP:UNCIVIL, beside he started from the start with insulting me when asking to leave wikipedia, i called him Dude at a later point 2 times to be exact, i'm not aware of any other uncivil behavior or what he could have meant, beside this he himself called me Dude. and all the time he kept putting forth false arguments. The source is in question is a news article from last month, where the New York Times clearly says that Nahil Wasdill has been at the MET during the time of the CRU investigation. here Later in this discussion i found out he was misinforming me all the time, when calling it WP:OR. I ask him about this but with almost every reply he kept ignoring my arguments.
Attempts to talk with him have taken place, as well as on the talkpages of various articles, on my talkpage (see the two sections following each other) and on his own talkpage - to no apparent benefit. I was hoping outside input could help with this before it gets more unpleasant. Gise-354x ( talk) 08:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
See the links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JohnLloydScharf#August_2011
NOTE: I found out he was impersonating an Administrator. JohnLloydScharf ( talk) 01:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
First edit warring and next bad language.This user seems to simply does not care or understands the Wikipedia policies.I ask for assistance in limiting him/her. Alborz Fallah ( talk) 12:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This is prompted by this User_talk:Marine_69-71#Use_of_Admin_Tools. I am not providing the diffs at this point, because an exercise of good faith on the part of Damien.rf is called for in which he owns up to scrutinizing the work and editing of User:Marine_69-71 under a microscope. What prompted me to comment was an WP:RFPP un-protect request on an article in the WikiProject Puerto Rico for which Daminen.rf didn't attempt to approach Marine_69-71, citing a self-imposed tool break. His response to me i his talk page, while civil, was disingenuous - even claiming there was no problem between the two of them. When confronted by another user and myself, he claimed defamation. Another user commented in apparent support of Damien.rf's behavior, citing the need to scrutinize admin behavior. I agree we need to scrutinize behavior, but common sense tells us that if you already have a history, it might not be wise to involve yourself, and Damien.rf has a history with Marine of at least several years. This amounts to wikihounding. I am seeking community comment on this situation and how to move forward in here - Marine is a long-time contributor and admin, and a key pillar of Wikiproject Puerto Rico, and while there might be validity in some claims made against him - which he has admitted and hence gone on self-impossed tool break - some of them are due to cultural and even age differences that those seeking to resolve disputes - rather than create drama - should be cognizant of, and hence take caution when dealing with them. The wikihounding and microscope scrutiny is worrying in its scale and methodology and it needs to stop. -- Cerejota ( talk) 12:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Further investigation shows that in my period of wikibreak, User:ScottyBerg was involved in a negative fashion with Marine Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive710#User:Marine_69-71. I will be the first to say that Marine's behavior, in particular the Wall of Dishonor was, put mildly, a serious lack of judgement, but the community expressed itself clearly and rather eloquently on the matter - and Scotty clearly is much more deeply involved in this matter than what I thought - which puts his comments above in context, a context that I lacked and he refused to give me [26] (which he cleared quickly, as is his right). The continued wikistalking of Marine is unacceptable, and if this particular alert doesn't generate any substantial un-involved response, the next incident will have to go higher in the WP:DR process. If Marine misbehaves, that is no excuse to declare open season on him. As an aside, I engaged in a civil but inconclusive thread with damines.rf in Talk:Luis Palés Matos. I think he is civil in speech and approach, but not on editing behavior, and certainly the stalking I recognize that it is nearly impossible to work in the Puerto Rico topic area without bumping into Marine's edits, so I suggested he coordinate with the Wikiproject so that there is no concern of stalking. If he continues to ignore community concern, I will consider it a continuation of stalking behavior, and go further the DR pyramid. This has to stop as it is seriously damaging the project and the quality of the encyclopedia's coverage of the topic area, which doesn't have many editors to start with.-- Cerejota ( talk) 11:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone close? Its obvious Damiens doesn't want to participate.--
Cerejota (
talk) 08:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On the Rick Perry talk page, there has for a while now been a dispute going on as to whether or not to include information about Rick Perry attending the 2007 Bilderberg conference in the article. User:Sheilakissane, a single purpose account, has repeatedly pushed for the inclusion of this, and for the most part the discussion has been relatively civil. Recently, however, he has broken WP:BLP twice by posting comments on the page that are libelous, where they were promptly removed by User:Dougweller; and WP:NPA twice, where he was warned by User:N5iln. See [28], [29], [30], and [31] for specific instances. While I agree that consensus has not developed yet on the material presented, Sheilakissane has proven to be purely a single purpose account and a WP:TE, and seems to continue base most of his argument on WP:IDHT. He has refused to even address most of the concerns laid out by those editors opposed to adding the material, instead talking about the process as "yellow journalism" (see [32], [33]) or a conspiracy (see [34]).
Relevant sections of the talk page: Talk:Rick Perry#Bilderberg - Moved from WP:RFPP, Talk:Rick_Perry#Bilderberg.2FGlobalist_or_not.3F, and Talk:Rick_Perry#Should_his_biography_include_the_fact_that_he_was_a_Bilderberg_attendee, including its subsection Talk:Rick_Perry#Seeking_Compromise.
Help on determining the next step would be greatly appreciated. Kessy628 ( talk) 22:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As per your recommendation, I've reposted this on the BLP noticeboard here. Thanks! Kessy628 ( talk) 17:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
attack & vandalism
edits to correct spelling or grammar.
and initially here
Oldspammer (
talk) 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At Talk:2011 AFL season#"their" vs. "its" there was considerable discussion over whether Australian football teams should be described as "their" or "its". This discussion seemed to have wound down with a seeming consensus towards "its".
Shortly afterwards McAusten, who had initiated the above discussion but would have seen opinion swing away from his preferred position, changed portions of the article to his preferred usage of "their". This was reverted, then re-reverted by him, despite requests to him to discuss the matter (see [35], [36], [37].
Since then, many efforts have been made on the article's Talk page and at User talk:McAusten.
The problem we now have is that McAusten is ignoring all requests to communicate further on this. He will not post on the article's Talk page, and simply deletes comments on his Talk page without responding. For example, [38] and [39].
(Please excuse any errors in process here. It's my first time.) HiLo48 ( talk) 10:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I really didn't want to tackle the "its" vs "their" issue here. Those of us involved have already presented our views at Talk:2011 AFL season#"their" vs. "its". While I'm happy to be made aware of other opinions on that matter, and even be convinced that Wikipedia's policy differs from my view, if that is the case, that's not what this is about. The real issue here is the behaviour of McAusten. We have an unresolved issue, with Edit warring, and an editor refusing to participate in all normal forms of communication. That's the problem I'm seeking a solution to. HiLo48 ( talk) 10:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From what I can tell after being involved in this page discussion a little over a day now, several editors, most apparent to me, SlimVirgin, have hijacked the page discussion and are intent on moving discussion aside and squashing disagreement.
There are a couple dozen changes which span several related pages, and amount to a pattern of edit warring in order to keep discussion supposedly 'on track'. From what I can tell at this point, such behavior has failed to produce results.
I have come into the discussion as a result of someone mentioning it on Jimbo's page, and after a few discussions with editors, it seems apparent that SlimVirgin is acting both as Admin and Editor in this page.
I attempted to personally discuss things with SlimVirgin, who merely brushed me aside. Discussions on the WP:Verifiability Talk page are similarly pushed aside, mostly by SlimVirgin.
Attempts at WP:BRD have met with mere dismissive comments, however, in reviewing the page history, I see that SlimVirgin has felt free to do as she wished. diff 1 - diff 2 - diff 3.
Attempting to implement the wording that Jimbo suggested also met with a dismissive revert by SlimVirgin.
I'd like an opportunity to have a real discussion and real collaboration, but the impression I am getting from SlimVirgin is that she is unwilling to allow other editors to collaborate as they see fit, but merely imposing her will on the discussion, with the disclaimer that it is intended to improve the discussion. From what I can tell in other editor's comments, this has created resentment and a feeling that there is a bit of police state type atmosphere at this point, rather than a free and collaborative exchange of ideas.
While I can see that some of the editors have been dealing with this issue for some time, I feel that there is a developing attitude of WP:Ownership among some of them, most prominently in my mind SlimVirgin.
I'd like her to back off from acting as both Admin and Editor and choose a role for her actions in this page. Her last comment to me was that I was acting like a troll, and yet when I have tried to personally have a dialog with her, it is met with a dismissive attitude.
This comment simply reinforces my belief that she is overly involved and owner-ish at this point, rather than simply trying to engage editors in collaboration.
I'd like SlimVirgin to stop moving and deleting other people's Talk page comments, and to back off from biting people who are also trying to see that some progress gets made in this *minor* Policy amendment. (FYI, not one person is proposing an actual change in policy, but merely a change in phrasing for clarity). -- Avanu ( talk) 22:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
:It goes a long way to harm your case that you have ignored this: "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 Template:WQA-notice --
Cerejota (
talk) 22:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the correct forum so please advise. User Snowded continually makes disparaging remarks about me and I'm pissed off with it:
[40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]
I haver not been uncivil to him and would welcome normal debate but all he does is refer to me as an SPA or an SPI and I've had enough of it. Van Speijk ( talk) 22:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
All sufficiently new editors (few edits) are likely to be "SPA" pretty much by definition (Solution: Edit in a bunch of unrelated articles)... if there is any real suspicion of being a "sock" then the issue should be raised at
WP:SPI and not otherwise. In the case at hand, an order of trout for each with a cup of tea. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 07:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Snowded has not been uncivil in any of the diffs you have posted here. He has no case to answer for stating the bleeding obvious. Beware the boomerang if you persist with this issue. - Nick Thorne talk 14:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This report on Snowded is quite weak. SPAs & Socks have a history of hovering around British Isles topics. The MidnightBlueMan farm comes to mind. Let's close this report as being merely revenge seeking in nature. GoodDay ( talk) 18:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:OpenFuture has accused me User:R-41 of soapboxing and original research on the Nazism discussion page here: [55] and heres the quote of what I found to be a personal attack: "Stop soapboxing and OR:ing. National Socialism as a concept did not appear out of a vacuum in 1919. Give up." OpenFuture. I view these accusations as false. OpenFuture has also told me to "give up" trying to make my argument, even though other users have similar views on recent material that is proposed to be added to the article. Earlier, OpenFuture used sarcasm in what I view a demeaning manner against me, I politely told OpenFuture to rescind and keep a calm head and cooperate and did rescind then and acknowledged the sarcasm. OpenFuture asked me to prove that "national socialism" as an ideology did not exist as a coherent ideology before the prior to Nazi use, with OpenFuture's contention that it existed for a long time before. I found this indirect to search for a negation, but told OpenFuture to review sources that I earlier had added to the ideological origins section of the Nazism article on Johann Plenge, who created a "national socialism" during World War I that was authoritarian in a manner similar to Nazism. A number of scholars can verify that Plenge's arguments for a "national socialism" were the origins of the ideology now known as Nazism. OpenFuture claimed this did not resolve the question, that I did not find the negations. I responded that since the material that was being debated to be added was material predating Nazism, such as references dating to the 19th century, I could not possibly examine them because they were sources predating Nazism and thus any attribution or disattribution of them to Nazism would be original research. After this, OpenFuture accused me of soapboxing, of refusing to acknowledge the "obvious" - that national socialism as related to Nazism dates back into the 19th century, and that I should "give up". I considered these accusations and demands to be aggressive and false (in the case of accusations), and asked OpenFuture to rescind these because I considered it highly offensive - as I have never been accused of soapboxing before, nor blocked, nor reprimanded for anything on Wikipedia. Considering OpenFuture's previous use of sarcasm and now accusations of wrongdoing, I told OpenFuture that I would report these accusations if he/she did not rescind. OpenFuture refused to rescind. OpenFuture claims that WP:STICK applies to her/his claim for me to "give up", but two other users have also challenged the claims of the new material and one has provided a source to disprove some of the material. I think it should be beared in mind that me and OpenFuture have not held any longstanding disagreements or grudges as may be the case in long-term cases. This summarizes what happened as I view it.-- R-41 ( talk) 22:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
As I see it, Soapboxing is when you try to use Wikipedia to promote a particular political standpoint. R-41, and several others are intent on trying to eradicate the influence socialism had on national socialism from Wikipedias articles. There is also a user Darkstar1st, who are a radical anti-socialist is intent on pushing the opposite viewpoint, namely that national socialism simply is a form of socialism. What he is doing is also clearly soapbxing. In short, there is a lot of soapboxing going on on that article. If R-41 doesn't want to be accused of soapboxing he needs to stop pushing a particular political standpoint, and look at things cooly and rationally and go with what the sources say. That would solve it. Both sides in this conflict is extremely prone to original research with to be frank, absurd logic. I don't know how to stop that, although I do my best. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 06:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there an actual complaint here? I think R-41 should examine the number of times on that article talk page that "OR" has been bandied as a claim (albeit often with the implicit meaning "I know it is not the truth, therefore it must be OR no matter the source.") This is not really the right noticeboard for the implicit issues. Anent this, with "National Socialism" appearing in print in the 19th century , one editor said the OED was "wrong" in giving dates before 1931 for the usage because (essentially) "Webster's says it was first used in 1931"! Well, Literary Digest used it before 1931 as well -- but to that editor, that fact is OR -- and Webster's must be the WP:TRUTH. Well - it takes all kinds to make a Wiki. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Looneymonkey is in violation of WP:HOUND. He has been disrupting the edits of Starbucksian on Lee Fang and Ruben Hinojosa. Tommyboy1215 ( talk) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starbucksian#September_2011 Using wiki rules to intimidate other editors. Threatening Starbuckian with a block for edit warring. Tommyboy1215 ( talk) 23:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My very first time running across long-time editor Hrafn was the occasion of him wholesale reverting five of my edits to the Meyer BLP, where he sits as a primary editor, with his edit summary only mentioning the first edit he reverted (see here). It wasn't long after that that he started resorting to personal attacks. Here he calls me "willfully ignorant." Later on, he calls me a "fanatic" here, and in the same edit also makes what appears to a mocking comment about what he perceives to be my religion ("kindly stop nailing yourself to that cross -- you make a very poor martyr"). Those are the personal attacks I happen to remember. Now, he continues his tradition of personal attacks by using the scare-epithet "creationist" (see here for the essay "Creating Creationism" by leading historian on creationism Ronald Numbers, where he refers to "creationist" as an epithet: "Since at least the early 1840s Darwin had occasionally referred to "creationists" in his unpublished writings, but the epithet remained relatively uncommon." Even if he happened to know my personal views on creationism--which he doesn't--and my views were supportive of it, he would find himself in trouble with the very first item in WP:NPA policy that is considered to be a personal attack:
He neither knows my views on creationsim, nor has any evidence of my views on it (remember, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"). Actually, this is at least the second time he has called me a "creationist," but like previous personal attacks, I didn't care. Now is different as he has made a personal attack in a heavily-read BLPN venue, which attracts a lot of influential admins and non-admin editors. Drrll ( talk) 15:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Forgot a few other personal attacks on me. From his user Talk page:
I was also curious about personal attacks there on other editors. Going back to July:
Also, he regularly calls me and other editors various names playing off on our usernames, such as "Deadhorse Drrll" Drrll ( talk) 20:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
How did admin Dougweller handle this complaint? By even giving Hrafn a warning? No, but by giving him some
sympathetic "advice". In his advice to Hrafn, he referred to me and other regular targets of Hrafn's violation of the
WP:NPA policy as "rav[ing] on". Dougweller, which dictionary definition of "rave" were you using?:
Maybe someone needs to take a looksee at your violations of WP:NPA policy and keep you away from a noticeboard where instead of displaying an interest in enforcing policy, you don't mind engaging in some policy-breaking yourself. Drrll ( talk) 20:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn at most deserves a trout with a generalized appeal to be less harsh with other editors:
But they do not constitute WP:NPA violations. Just because its offensive, it doesn't mean its a personal attack. A personal attack is saying "your head is full of filth" or "you are a pedophile" or "I fuck your mother, and then stand in line for your sister". It is not "Please don't evoke the all-too-strong argumentative side of my personality by reminding me of your, and its, existence" or "twit" or "idiots". These are harsly expressed but legitimate and WP:HONESTY expressions. Hrafn should probably be WP:CIVIL but other editors should also grow thicker skins and ignore his personality and focus on the content. It takes two to fight, and it doesn't help anyone if unless a real pattern of disruptive editing emerges, and unless he doesn't address content at all, you will have to tough it out. He is not getting a pass on the rules, he is following the rules. And not hearing that is a problem in itself.-- Cerejota ( talk) 03:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: when provided the opportunity several weeks later to retract his personal attack on me in calling me "ignorant," Hrafn instead responded with "I'm certainly not going to disavow the adjective." here. Drrll ( talk) 00:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me wrap up my input here by giving a little background on my history on Wikipedia. I started editing about two years ago. For about two years I nearly exclusively edited politically-oriented articles. During that time, I thought that politically-oriented articles were a contentious place to be involved in editing on Wikipedia. In recent months, I started to edit articles that were related to the issue of intelligent design. Political articles are actually rather peaceful places to edit compared with what goes on in articles dealing with intelligent design and apparently also articles dealing with creationism. In these articles, one encounters much higher levels of article
ownership (even from long-time WP editors) and incivility toward anyone who asks questions that may challenge the status quo of the articles. If the person questioning the status quo doesn't go away or back down, they are subjected to increasingly higher levels of incivility, including questioning motives, intelligence, honesty, and good faith.
It is in this context of having worked for nearly two years with political articles, seeing how vastly different things were with articles dealing with intelligent design, including even BLPs of individuals associated with ID, being subjected to incivility by several editors, not just Hrafn, that after numerous instances of incivility in increasingly public WP venues, that I decided to file a WQA complaint against Hrafn--understanding that filing at WQA could not result in a ban, block, or any other formal sanction against Hrafn. After seeing what looked to be a second admin yawning about Hrafn's repeated incivility against multiple editors, I decided that it was time to file an ANI complaint.
Cerejota:
Rewinding back to the original complaint, Hrafn definitely engaged in personal attacks, but I'm not seeing much of a pattern of offensive conduct. It appears to be a content dispute with deep roots. Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
@Figureofnine WP:NPA would not describe any of the actions by Hrafn as "personal attacks" - and best they are bit uncivil. A "personal attack is serious accusation or insult, like calling someone a "faggot" or "nigger". Around here those nuances do count. -- Cerejota ( talk) 23:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)