This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This user is often involved in Edit wars and personal attacks since many months. There are several warnings issued against that user, by many other users. The user has been blocked previously for same reasons. Still the user is making personal attacks.
The latest one is here: User_talk:Mountainwhiskey#RE:Your_Language_on_Trivandrum_Pages_and_elsewhere.21
Before to this incident, user:Mountainwhiskey dropped a message in my talk page using IP 14.96.184.149. When I checked the contributions of that IP, I found that is none other than User:Mountainwhiskey : PROOF. Hence I replied to the message in my talk page to user:Mountainwhiskey.
His reply was very much abusing me personally. Some exerts from his message : "
Thanks, -- Samaleks ( talk) 04:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Epeefleche has lied in his edit summary.
In revision 451131034 he has supplied this edit summary:
per MOS:LEDE ... this summarizes what is in the body; deletion was inappropriate
However, lets look at the revision and see if it is true. His edit adds the following to the article:
The company was founded in 1997, and is based in [[Or Yehuda]], Israel. With 100 million users in 2011, Babylon holds the record for the highest number of downloads of a language solution software.
Guinness judges arrived in Israel in July 2011 to crown Babylon for breaking the [[Guiness World Record]] for downloads for language solutions. Babylon's CEO said it had also reached the 100 million level in terms of users of its products, and joined the [[Alexa]] list of the top 100 websites.<ref name="globeswr">[http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000664305&fid=1725 "Translation co Babylon sets new Guinness record for downloads"], ''Globes'', 14 July 11</ref>
The first paragraph is perhaps "summary", perhaps not. (See The company section in the same revision.) But the second paragraph contains original information which does not appear anywhere in the article at all and even has a source! In fact, I had previously deleted these because not only they violate WP:DUE but also violate WP:RS because the source merely reiterates what company CEO has said.
If he has problem with my removal, I am completely okay with going through dispute resolution. But lying? Correct me if I am wrong: At best, lying is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility, a pillar of Wikipedia, not to mention that it is an evil vice.
Fleet Command ( talk) 15:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I might be not correct but I strongly believe that this instance is a violation of etiquette: User Epeefleche has hijacked another person's ANI case to win a content dispute in Babylon (program) is his own favor. He uses untrue statements that I think you guys will have trouble attributing to good faith mistakes, rather than lies: He has said that a consensus is established (I really like to see the diff), that a fifth person in this page has completely condemned me. (Correct me but I count four people in this discussion and no one has really commented on our content dispute.) Fleet Command ( talk) 11:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I complain on the user Yopie because of the following:
He has two times and in two different places called me 'Mr. Montagu'. See case 1 (contribution of 19 September 2011, 12:44) and case 2.
I believe that my engagement against gossip and slander in the article Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester has made this person believe that I am the person concerned, and this despite that both my profile page and my contributions of the latest year – and not to forget my obviously foreign English – strongly indicate that I am not the suggested.
I do not know whether this person often presents such speculations, but I am probably not the first victim in this regard.
Both I and other users, among others Runehelmet (see Yopie's talk page of today), complain about this person's obviously irrational reversions. The tendency is that he reverts legal contributions and re-adds illegal contributions. Like Runehelmet wrote: “It seems that you are more reverting than editing. Even when I show you the sources, you still revert.”
Already in April 2011, in the article Norwegian nobility, he reverted a whole contribution – much information – because he saw that the source's name contained the word 'wiki'. He did not even ask or try to investigate. If he had done that, he would have gotten to know that the information on the website concerned (Lokalhistoriewiki.no) is not an user-edited wiki, but unedited information directly from one of Norway's most respected and serious encyclopædias.
Also today, he has in the Manchester article several times re-added a defamatory or potentially libellous sentence added by an IP user (who before has added exactly the same pre-written sentence).
It may also be interesting to study the following: While this person obviously does not care much about defamatory or potentially libellous information about other living persons, he was exceptionally quick to remove my criticism on his talk page and thereafter to write the following on my wall: (...) your recent edits to User talk:Yopie have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. This is hypocritical, and in my eyes, it says very much about the person that one here is dealing with. There does not seem to be any coherence in his thoughts and actions as a user on Wikipedia.
It would be too drastic to block him, but as you will see by studying his patterns, he has for months demonstrated the same behaviour in which unlogical reversions and rude/senseless speculations are prominent, but not exclusive, factors. I believe that something should be done to make this better.
– – – The section below was added on 22 September. – – –
This user misuses warnings, block function and similar 1.) as a remedy against his opponents and 2.) as a primary way of or instead of communication with his opponents. (As known, he reverts opponents' posts on his talk page, often marking them as 'vandalism'.)
On 20 September, the day after this complaint was presented, this user reported me here for edit warring. In this process, he 1.) provided incorrect/false information and 2.) without mentioning for the decision-taker relevant information that the user just had received a complaint from the user he was reporting.
From the report:
Nothing was 'discussed' on my talk page. Nothing was 'discussed' on his talk page. Nothing was 'discussed' in the edit summaries. That makes me wonder why he wrote that the case had been, quote, discussed on talk pages of Aemn784, me and in edit summaries.
This user's behaviour is obviously dishonest, coward-like, and, regarding Wikipedia's internal system, abusive. 'Abusive' is when functions intended for use against vandals and conflict-makers are misused as a weapon against serious contributors who even, in this particular case, claim to support themselves on the BLP guidelines.
Quote from the BLP guidelines: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
I believe that case no. 1 is solved, as this user somehow has apologised (although not to me, and that is not necessary, as this is not a case about my person, but about wikiquette and system abuse). No. 2 and 3, however, require, as far as I see it, a closer examination by administrators so that it is possible to see whether this user has patterns of behaviour as described above and which may be considered as abusive, deconstructive or in other ways not good for Wikipedia. I am not a person on whom attacks like this have any effect, but I fear that other and less experienced/secure users, who are here with good intentions and behaving well and honest, but who are so unlucky be confronted by users as described, may resign. It is in Wikipedia's interest to take a look at this. Thanks for the attention.
--- Aaemn784 ( talk) 09:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
– – – The section above was added on 22 September. – – –
--- Aaemn784 ( talk) 15:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Your case 2 and 3 issues are beyond the scope of what this board is intended to handle. I note that Yopie's edit warring report was upheld by an administrator and an unblock request denied.[ [1]] While you could start WP:RFC/U, I strongly recommend dropping the WP:STICK and moving on. Gerardw ( talk) 10:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Now I understand why the user all the time is emptying his talk page. The list of protesting people is longer than a bad year. The present white talk page, where he though has made sure to keep the post where he says 'sorry for it', makes him appear as the most innocent angel.
Quote: “Yopie, you removed sources that meet Wikipedia's References policy. The issue has been discussed for over 10 days in the Talk, but you have not been an active participant in the discussion, yet you reverted my edits in less than an hour. Furthermore, you violated Wikipedia's policy of Good Faith. Please be more considerate to others' contributions --Hatesediting (talk) 07:34, 05 August 2011 (BST)”
This is from August 2011.
The user has also been reported for edit warring: Link
Quotes: 1.) “Both editors were already blocked in connection with the same article on 21 September, 2010 on the ground that they did not want to discuss content changes.” 2.) “(...) the edit warring has been going on for more than six months without having started a discussion between the two users on the talk page (...)”
This is from February 2011.
An example of a particular case which may be relevant, is the article Invasion, where the user has performed several reversions of other users' contributions. For example when a user added an illustrative photo, it was reverted with the explanation 'ugly pic'.
Reverts legitime edits. Refuses being more considerate to other users' contributions. Does not want to discuss content changes. Yopie's behaviour does not seem to have changed much since 2010. It is perhaps about time.
--- Aaemn784 ( talk) 12:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Plese see note of User Jaimesaid [2]. Nerêo ( talk) 13:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This seems to involve a long-standing dispute that should probably be posted on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard rather than here. There you can explain and discuss the disputed edits. Also please notify User:Jaimesaid of this and any further discussion of the matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
User:ManicPoet863 is a recently created, 100%-of-existing-edits-are-vandalism, user. I have warned the user on his/her talk page, and then both my Talk page and my User page were vandalized. There have not been multiple warnings so cannot elevate the situation to Administrator attention.
I would appreciate it if another editor would put a set of eyes on this user, and warn (or whatever) is appropriate. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 13:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Please make a note of this abuse by User:Kwamikagami here. He is saying "STOP BEATING YOUR MOTHER WITH A PIPE!!!". Sir, what is this nonsense. Please request a topic ban for this very low quality editor. Foodie 377 ( talk) 16:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Kwamikagami has engaged in an edit war with me and accused me of all sorts such as "racism" and "bigotry". This person has not been penalised for this. I thought it was reasonable to expect a higher level of standard from an Administrator like Kwami. Here he is referring to me as a racist and bigot: Here [3] and here [4].
He deleted my edits which have been sourced with notable sources and replaced them with his own as in here: [5] and in the Serer people article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamsier ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to point out that both Toddy1 and Kwamikagami just read my statements and assumed a lot. I challenge anyone to prove where I have directly said "the Fula language is a desecration or a poison". Such remarks where made in reference to the edit warring Kwami was doing and now Halaqah which is still going on and has now escalated to the Serer people and Serer Religion articles. As evident in the links, I have mentioned couple of times the relatedness of the Serer and Fula languages. I cannot be held accountable when when people take statements out of context and read what they want to read. My remarks where directed at what Kwami was doing to the articles and the kind of game he was playing between the Serer language and Fula language articles. The Muslim Mafia of Senegal is the Muslim brotherhoods of Senegal. They are among the most powerful in Senegal and control information. Since there is a big problem between them and those who adhere to Serer Religion for nearly 150 years, it is vital that they are mention. Sources:
Toddy1 also made another error regarding the "good faith" comment. Here is my direct quote:
:"You also brought in Halaqah a fellow Muslim to back up what you were doing. I originally assumed good faith until your behaviour in the relevant articles and other articles became apparent."
This demonstrates that, I initially assumed good faith. However, according to Wiki's policy, you can seaze to assume good faith when it becomes apparent that a person(s) is not acting accordingly. In light of the fact that, Kwami was and still is engage in edit wars with me in reference to all Serer related articles, and Halaqah's own account and edits, who started with the Serer people article after the incident and then moved to the Serer Religion article and is making his way down to all Serer related articles - adding "dubious dicuss" and other templates and disregarding the sources cited in the article. Here [14], [15] and [16]. I can perhaps understand an editor engaging in edit war but not from an administrator regardless of whether they are acting in the capacity of administrator or not. Once they have the administrator tag on their talk page, one expects a higher level of standard. I do not have the time to be engaged in edit wars especially with an Administrator who has the power to call the troops to his aid. Personally, I'm not bothered by it and just edit as much as I can. I have learned that fast. However, what I am worried about is the damage being done to the articles for not apparent reason other than to engage in war with me. Further, I find it hard to believe that an Adminstrator with all their status can use such language on Wiki and is allowed to get away with it. Very strange. Tamsier ( talk) 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
It is unlikely any action will be taken against this Halaqah after my previous report experience on this page but I shall report it anyway. This person has persued all my edits including removing my sources and edits as well as templates I've placed on articles and will not stop until made to stop.
Tamsier ( talk) 20:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is one of my first contributions in this Wikipedia (though I have, some time ago, contributed to a different Wikipedia), so, even though I read the policies about disputes solving, I apologise in advance if there were better places to present this one.
I did one edition in the article Falkland Islands and the user above-mentioned deleted it, leaving but a link to a Wiki policy as explanation. After analysing it, and with the knowledge I had from my previous experience, I concluded his "arguments", if I may call a link to a policy so, were inadequate. I tried, thus, reaching this user by posting on his talk page a message I deemed polite and concise.
Shortly after, I checked the article Criticism of the UN, were I had also contributed, and found that the same user had deleted my contribution there too leaving this time two links to wiki policies. Again, I read these policies, but concluded my contributions were respecting their principles.
I went back to his user talk page to check for an answer before leaving a new meessage, but he had deleted my first commentary there too, this time without even a monosyllabic or cryptic reason... which I didn't miss, anyway.
I don't know how to use a template, so I will be leaving now a personal message to this user warning him about this post.
Thank you very much. 190.195.39.223 ( talk) 23:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This was an unfounded complaint, no incivility on my part, so would someone mind closing please. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
RPSM ( talk) 13:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem with Sjö's suggestion is that I am permanently blocked forever from editing anything on Swedish WP. I cannot even compose a defence against the blocking I am subjected to on Swedish WP RPSM ( talk) 11:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
My problems on Swedish WP do not centre around Sjö and he throughout has been civil and, as I see it, acted in good faith. If he thinks it would help for me to respond to anything that is unclear, I am willing to do so at any time. RPSM ( talk) 11:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I find this type of behavior completely inappropriate. User:Lionelt is on the opposite side of a disagreement with me on Talk:Militant atheism, and I, along with several others, have raised concerns about him and another user canvassing for support at the RfC on that page - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Does_this_rise_to_the_level_of_canvassing.3F. Now it appears he is digging through my edit history (see WP:HOUND) to find other people I may have had disagreements with in the past, and canvassing for support against me, as shown int he first diff I posted above. Can someone please explain to him that this is unacceptable. I am hesitant to take this to AN/I because I don't think its at that level but if anyone thinks it belongs there instead please let me know. Griswaldo ( talk) 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
In this diff an edit I made was restored. I removed "[On Harvard Time]" as it was a TV show, and did not fit "Campus and media publications" as I saw it (a TV show is not published). ElKevbo reverted it, and as I preferred to discuss it rather than revert it out of hand I opened a thread on his talk page. As can be seen, we don't agree, and that's fine, but I will not stand by and have an editor tell me he's going to watch me because of my "limited understanding and laziness". He's gone over the line here, as well as has made an intent to Wikistalk very clear. I believe there have been similar subjective issues with him in the past as well which are also evidenced on his talk page. I would therefore like someone to follow up on this, because there's a pattern. I would also note that a heavy copyedit on the article by a third party (which I didn't see until I had to go get the diff) has more or less negated the entire issue. MSJapan ( talk) 03:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Reviewing the discussion, I'd say MSJapan's comments if you think the definition of publication is too narrow because it doesn't include TV shows, then you need to pick up a dictionary. and You don't know what something means, so I'm discriminating against "new media"? et. al. were inflammatory and that rhetorical style is best avoided in the future. As Mathsci has noted, the discussion should have taken place on the article talk page. Gerardw ( talk) 09:58, 28 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.
Hi there. Over the past few days, I have been receiving disrespectful comments from User:Tarc. This began with a good faith edit I made to Campaign for "santorum" neologism on 9/27, which Tarc reverted, referring to it as "cheerleading" in the revert comment. I posted this question on his talk page to find out why he referred to it that way, but it was removed and has gone unanswered. I then created a talk page discussion for my edit and added an rfc tag, which Tarc has referred to in comments as "irrelevant" and "useless." On 9/29 he responded to one of my comments with "Not even close, son. Maybe you're reading what you wish to see rather than what is actually there." I then opened a topic on the dispute resolution noticeboard to get additional outside input, and when I placed the required template of notification on his talk page, he reverted it with the comment "stay off my page". I addressed these comments here, stating (after he left the "stay off my page" comment): "I was required to notify you on your talk page of your involvement on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard; I would remind you to remain polite as per the talk header rules. Thank you." to which Tarc responded "Keep your reminders to yourself, if you will."
I normally would ignore comments like this but we are involved in what is likely to be a lengthy dispute on that article's talk page and I think User:Tarc's comments have been a bit uncivil and disrespectful; I'd rather quell it now than let it keep escalating. aqwfyj Talk/ Contribs 06:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
"Honestly, WQA is like some sort of ghetto'ized AN/I, the petty things people don't want to deal with just get shunted out of sight out of mind. What it is is a tattletale board, an "editor X was mean to me! BAWWWWWWWWWW!" outlet to drag someone to do when an editorial dispute isn't going your way...or it is going your way, and you want to keep your foot on your wiki-opponent's neck. Hell, I was dragged there once because I quoted the "definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result" saying in a post, and someone had a hissy fit because "you called me insane!""
— Tarc, MfD
aqwfyj, your first edit on Tarc's page was ill-advised; as Tarc noted the discussion belongs on the article talk page. Your second edit was fine, as it was a required notification and Tarc doesn't actually own his talk page. While removing it was perfectly fine I agree his edit comment was churlish. It is best ignored. My advice is to stay off his talk page except when required to post notices. To be explicit, I only mean when instructions on a board require you to notify another editor, not warning templates and the like. Gerardw ( talk) 13:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Aqwfyj, are you satisified with the community response such that can we close this now? Gerardw ( talk) 19:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
In the above section regarding Mathsci, Collect appears to confuse Mathsci and Will Beback. I attempt to clarify this on Collect's talk page, and further attempted to get him to stop engaging in battleground behavior. In response to my attempts, Collect became increasingly hostile - which eventually ended with his request that I leave his talk page. I agreed to do so, but asked that he waive the two-certifier requirement for a user-conduct RFC. He responded by calling my request "trash."
It would be helpful if another user could engage Collect and perhaps convince him that there are some aspects of his recent conduct that require slight modification. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 12:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggest my post:
More than adequately address your issues which you iterated on my UT page several times, and which I answered on my UT page several times. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:11, 30 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.
Good day! A content RfC about two months ago obtained consensus to trim some of the pejorative material from the LaRouche movement article. Since then, discussion has been ongoing about how to do this. Mathsci joined the discussion recently and focused many of his comments on other editors instead of just on content: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. I asked Mathsci not to make any more personal attacks, and suggested that his approach might not be very helpful. He deleted my remarks without comment, then immediately made a comment similar to his previous ones on the talk page, prompting a rebuke from a different editor. In my opinion, Mathsci's comments have concentrated a little too much on attacking other editors and have unhelpfully raised the heat in that talk page discussion, but I'm open to opinions from uninvolved editors since I'm so close to the subject. Thank you in advance. Cla68 ( talk) 06:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Clarification
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'd like someone to take a look at this conversation here, and also the original comment that sparked the conversation (linked to in my first comment). I was told to "go away" (because they don't like their conduct commented on) so I came here. — Jean Calleo ( talk) 04:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't agree with the above. Please look at their comment I was commenting on and tell me my message wasn't warranted. And please don't threaten me with blocks, I stopped messaging them because they told me to, I'm not disrupting anything. — Jean Calleo ( talk) 09:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I'm looking for a third person's input exactly because it's a boomerang-y situation -- whatever I may have to say now after their last reply may just be because I'm trying to defend myself and not because I want to make a neutral assessment of the situation (which I do, but obviously I'm biased now, so I can't). So I'd appreciate if a neutral person could assess both of our's conduct. I don't mind what you have to say to me, it's still true that they're being uncivil and need to be told so. — Jean Calleo ( talk) 09:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
No, no one's made their point to him, and the three of you haven't helped. I understand you guys love the boomerang irony, but if you can't let go of that and actually drop a neutral message on their talk page, then I still have an issue here. AGF is irrelevant, intention and outcome are different things. — Jean Calleo ( talk) 10:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
All right, if everyone here lacks a proper sense of judgement, then, by me, the case can be closed. Next time someone's year-old opinion on a religious article upsets me, I'll pound them with something hilariously verbose and condescending, knowing that it won't be frowned upon, and if someone dares make a comment, I can be sure they'll be threatened with blocks. Jesus H. Christ. Thank you, I'm done. — Jean Calleo ( talk) 16:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fram has objected to some of my edits to the template Template:Infobox Belgium Municipality and pointed out some faults in my editing. So far so normal, it was neither the first nor the last time that such a thing happened. What made me resort to this board is his completely uncooperative behaviour, his dismissive attitude towards my any proposal or request for some constructive criticism, and his unwillingness to either drop the matter or discuss it properly.
After I altered the template to fix the problems he had noticed he accused me unjustly of violating the BRD cycle (I never reverted), said that something else was wrong, and after fixing these perceived issues too his only further contribution to the discussion was asking that I make my case and convince him to spare my edits. Any requests for criticism more specific than "your changes made the articles worse" were ignored. ("you make changes which are not improvements, so you get reverted." [39]) All he did was sound vexed and annoyed by my requests for further discussion, even though I went to great lengths to remain conciliatory.
All of this was only made worse by his needlessly spiteful tone, as shown by his answers below:
After I pointed out that he never actually replied my questions in the other talk page, he resorted to just deleting my messages. [43] Nero the second ( talk) 10:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Nero the second made some bold changes which I reverted. When he asked what was wrong with them, I replied, to which his initial reaction was "No, there must be some kind of mistake then." [44] In the middle of further discussion about this, Nero the second just implemented his changes (with some improvements) again, which he now claims doesn't go against WP:BRD. Anyway, I again reverted him, and again explained why [45].
I then made my first request to continue this discussion, about changes to a template, on the talk page of that template [46]. I also copied the discussion so far to that talk page. Nero the second continued posting on my talk page about this template, I replied again and asked again to continue the discussion at the template talk page [47]. Another reply on my talk page, another request to take it to the template talk page [48]. Again, and a fourth request to take this to the template talk page [49]. Nero the second continues posting to my talk page, claiming that I am not willing to discuss it while all I ask is to discuss it at the appropriate page, not at my talk page. So after four requests, I just tell him to get of my talk page [50]. So, if being asked and told five times to take it to the appropriate talk page isn't sufficient, and Nero the second again posts to my talk page, I revert him. And then we end up here...
Note that Nero the second has not made a single post about this at Template talk:Infobox Belgium Municipality, and seems only interested in badgering me on my talk page. The only Wikiquette I see that needs to be enforced is that Nero the second needs to be told that if someone asks them five times to stop posting about a subject to a user talk page, and take it to relevant talk page (in this case the template talk page) instead, that it may be more constructive to do just that. Fram ( talk) 11:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Left a friendly notice for the user regarding disruptive behaviour in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna. The user removed my message from User talk:ScottyBerg and disregarded the warning. I left another notice here, but in vain. Please explain to the user that such behaviour (in the AfD discussion) is not appropriate and take any other measures that you deem proper in restoring order in the AfD discussion. Thanks. Fayerman ( talk) 22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
No substance for this use of a noticeboard. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fayerman, please focus your discussion on the content at AFD and avoid attempting to police other editors' behavior. Gerardw ( talk) 23:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The above user has left rude and profane messages on my talk page and on the Big Brother 2011 housemates page:
The above user has an attitude problem and this language is unacceptable on this community. I want this behaviour investigated, his aggressive attitude is not becoming to a civil society. 86.176.153.183 ( talk) 21:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
As this matter seems to have been resolved, I move to close this discussion. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 00:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Collect ( talk) 06:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC) This user has often and frequently posted deprecating personal attacks on me - too numerous to count. And previously been reported for such. This particular post, however [56] is an egregious example.
Is beyond the pale. He has been reported here in the past for such personal attacks, and been told not to make them. Including [57] charges against other editors, bad SPI complaints, and has has topic bans discussed at AN/I. Also at [58] where he was reported by JustaPunk for similar behaviour again on WWE articles. And, of course, interminable discussiona at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling. So it is not just I who has been attacked by this editor, just that this example is about as clear as one could wish for in a violation. [59] shows one of several warnings by admins to him about his behaviour. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 06:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
In case anyone has any doubt see [60] after SB23's harangue ,
Mr. Stradivarius stated I recommend that you either provide some serious evidence of Collect's alleged disruptive editing, or you stick to commenting solely on content. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
[61] has Screwball23saying User:Collect is vandalizing the page again. Me and him go back very far and he knows how to game the system very well. I'll be blunt : he's one of the most destructive editors I've ever come across. He has been battling me on Linda McMahon and Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010 ever since I started editing them.
And then (with another editor - so you can be assured this is SBs normal system) [62] SB is unusually argumentative as a rule. Note further that I have had exceedingly limited contact with him, and not made such deprecating remarks as he makes, and have not made SPI accusations as he has done. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 06:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This breakdown between these two editors is very distressing to me. Screw is a member of WPConservatism, and Collect, if we had such a designation, would be an honorary member. Screw is an upcoming editor with much promise, and of course Collect's body of work speaks for itself. WPConservatism is long overdue for a GA, and IMO this dispute is holding up a promising GA for the project: Linda McMahon. I'm going to attempt to get to the root cause of the dispute, and determine a protocol for future interactions between these two. I'd appreciate it if uninvolved editors would refrain from commenting in this section. To Screw and Collect, in this section please direct your comments to me and not to each other. Thank you.– Lionel ( talk) 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Screw: what in your opinion is the worst transgression Collect committed against you?
As Screwball23 has chosen (as is their prerogative) not to participate here, I've redacted the personal attack and left warning on their talk page. Gerardw ( talk) 01:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
User Xxhollsxx has posted false information (this has been undone). No talk page exists for this user. Can this page be locked from malicious attacks?
User:Lihaas made this edit. I then reverted it. Then Lihaas made this reversion with "dont change the nom to LIE" as the edit summary. I then posted on Lihaas's talk page trying to figure out what the deal with the edits were, as I was shocked to be accused of lying. Lihaas then replied here, and I responded here. Lihaas then made this subsequent response, which I could not comprehend, so I asked for clarification here. Lihaas has not responded despite making numerous edits to Wikipedia since then. User:Hot Stop came by and offered this response. I don't care about the ITN credit; I've never accused anyone of lying on Wikipedia and I don't want to be accused of being a liar, either. OCNative ( talk) 05:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Impolite behaviour. The history page lists out the summaries of the IP. Secret of success Talk to me 12:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Needs to be educated on what vandalism is not, and that not all those who disagree with him are "Turkish troll(s)" with "third world monuments" or some such. This has been going on since September, with regards to Nicosia and related articles. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Phoenix_and_Winslow has previously been warned against making personal attacks, [63], but during an ongoing editing dispute at ugg boots the editor has been attacking User:WLRoss. Two posts in particular are a concern: [64] and [65]. The repeated raising of the "win" over the other editor at an unrelated article is frustrating, However, as I'm part of the editing dispute I don't feel that I can be a neutral commentator on this, so I figured it would be best brought here for people uninvolved to work out if this needs to be tackled and, if so, how. Hopefully it can be handled before it progresses. - Bilby ( talk) 02:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
A discussion about a change to a template has escalated into a flamewar, between two participants who have a history with one another. PK T(alk) 21:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi all -- please check out the dicussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. If there's something I've done wrong, I apologize and will recuse myself. But I feel that I've been treated unfairly and that people have ganged up on me -- thank you and warm regards -- Mig ( talk) 18:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
MikeWazowski has been repeatedly refusing to repond to editors on user or article talk pages. I first left an unanswered note on his talk page then brought this issue to ANI and was directed to WQA. (Please see the ANI report for comment by other editors.)
I'm concerned both because I believe non-response can be bitey in it's own way and because the need to discuss is basic policy. Wikipedia:Editing policy says that "Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)." Wikipedia:Etiquette asks that we "Do not ignore questions." Also according to Wikipedia:Civility "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions." (emphasis added)
Two specific examples:
More generally his current talk page shows other questions that were left unanswered or partially answered. (Note: It is difficult to evaluate the situation on his talk page at a glance because he has deleted some unanswered questions on his talk page while allowing older messages to remain visible. To see some of what is happening you need to view the page history.)
I get the impression that he believes edit summaries are all the communication needed. For example in this edit summary he says "removing this - I explained myself in the edit summaries". [67] Similarly in this discussion [68] he seems to feel he has replied to somebody who left an unanswered message on his talk page when he tells a third party that "Star in the Hood was dealt with on the pages in question, as was Brookfield - my edit summaries clearly spelled out my reasons" (To check what he meant by "dealt with on the pages in question" I went to the history of Star in the Hood's talk page [69] and Star in the Hood (company) talk page [70] and found no talk page comments by him there, just 2 page moves).
However since he did not reply to my (deleted) note [71] on his talk page and did not speak at ANI I am not certain of the reasons for his refusal to speak to some editors on talk pages.
My hope is that he will either begin using talk pages to collaborate or will switch to editing areas that require less discussion.
As to what I did wrong in this, my tone on his talk page may have been off putting even though I mentioned some areas of agreement in an attempt to be more positive. Cloveapple ( talk) 01:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This is regarding the behaviour of User: Amaroks on article Raj Thackeray. The said article is a biography of a living person who is a politician involved in many controversies. I thought that the article was strongly biased and hence placed a POV tag on the page and started a discussion on the talk page of the article. User: Amaroks removed the tag without discussion. Assuming good faith and ignorance about tags on their part, I replaced the tag and left a message on the user's talk page. His response to this was removing the tag again, deleting the message on his talk page without response, and writing impolite and irrelevant comments on the talk page of the article. Hence, I again messaged him on the talk page explaining the purpose of such tags, urging not to engage in edit warring, and warning not to persist in such unconstructive editting. Then I replaced the tag. But the user has repeated the same sequence of actions as before.
I believe I have been civil and so far have given him the benefit of doubt. Please look into this and provide appropriate assistance. My messages on his page have been removed, but can be found in the history.
Thanks. Geeteshgadkari ( talk) 12:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Really!! nice!!
It doesn't matter what you feel, This user Geeteshgadkari is placing tags which are not necessary at all. And he only feels that article is completely biased. He is not involved in any discussion whatsoever. I asked him to give valid reasons about his insecure feeling but he is not involved in any discussion. Check [72] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaroks ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your entry, Michael. It's true what you said. I'm surprised at the editing reaction this entry engendered, but I'm also surprised that the film has received such positive attention worldwide. Short films don't normally get reviewed nor covered. That's one reason I was surprised at the Wikipedia page (since removed) for "Saturday Night Special," which depicted that particular short (passing itself off for four years as a full length movie on the Wikipedia page) as a "masterpiece." But I know that short films don't get that kind of critical acclaim or press, unless someone famous is involved -- and even then. I believe that perhaps the film festival note received by "anonymous (street meat)" may be because of its subject matter -- bank and corporate abuse presented in a metaphorical manner. Incidentally, the film was also in Cyprus on Oct. 15, 2011, and I wrote to them requesting any Cyprian press coverage available -- the same with Korea and Russia. The problem, I believe, that one can't get here their local press coverage, if any exists, is that such coverage would be in the native tongue of the country and it may not be accessible through a Google search. It's also difficult to contact film festival representatives because they act in anonymity for obvious reasons.
This is a first film, a UCLA student film, made by a screenwriting MFA TFTDM candidate, not a "directing" student per se, for an experimental film class which required that a five-minute film be completed in eleven weeks from start to finish. This is NOT a thesis film, but a class assignment. The short film was screened at UCLA bridges Theater on December 8, (I believe) 2010. Special effects were added thereafter and it was completed on January 21, 2011. So, in reality, the film was "released" in 2011.
Nonetheless, the film and I will also be covered by the Huffington Post (or a very similar on-line publication), as I was interviewed by columnist Daniel Cubias a week ago. The article is scheduled to be published at the end of October or November 1st. It will be tied to the movement "Occupy" of which I play no part.
Thanx again and kind regards, Mig ( talk) 14:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add that any recognition by a film festival of a film is not minor recognition. A screening is not minor recognition -- this is because film festivals see thousands of films before they decide on a handful of films that will become a part of their festival for their entire year -- they spent a lot of time, money and effort promoting the films selected. Being selected is in and of itself recognition. "anonymous (street meat)" represented the USA in Russia, Korea and Cyprus.
From the Wikipedia page " Film festivalFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_festival
"A film festival is an organised, extended presentation of films in one or more movie theaters or screening venues, usually in a single locality. More and more often film festivals show part of their films to the public by adding outdoor movie screenings.[1] The films may be of recent date and, depending upon the focus of the individual festival, can include international releases as well as films produced by the organisers' domestic film industry. Sometimes there is a focus on a specific film-maker or genre (e.g., film noir) or subject matter (e.g., horror film festivals). A number of film festivals specialise in short films, each with its defined maximum length. Film festivals are typically annual events."
The article also goes into how film festivals -- which vary in recognition and prestige -- charge an entry fee. "anonymous (street meat)" has been invited to most of these film festivals and the entry fee has been waived, so that does not apply. Mig ( talk) 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Mig ( talk) 15:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
User FFGR79 (?) took a decent photo of a Mitsubishi Town Box firetruck and is now set on including this photo in as many articles as possible across several languages, and refuses to accept any discussion on the topic. I first reverted one of these uses (while in passing erroneously referring to a postal vehicle as a fire truck in my edit summary) and replaced it with another photo which seemed more illustrative to me. FFGR79 proceeded to revert and make further changes. The user has then continued reverting, all the while refusing to engage in any form of conversation, instead only attacking me for not being fluent in Japanese. I obviously don't want to ban or come down heavy on this person since they are a new user, but would welcome someone else's eyes upon the Kei car talkpage conversation. Thanks, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ ( talk) 04:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You are always making an poor excuse. You had misunderstanding "Jimny is a fire truck". And you presented the obscure classic van from your poor resource. Your awkward remark is altogether recorded on wikipedia.
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.
As discussed in the previous discussion on this subject, it is my view that this user has engaged in aggressive, disrespectful behaviour against other users by threatening them with bans, quoting irrelevant policies, removing edits by users made in good faith, requesting only the use of sources that he personally approves of (while rejecting sources that are used without question elsewhere) and generally trying to make the process of improving the men's rights article much, much harder. I have attempted to communicate with him on this subject but have been met with further such behaviour. As far as I can see, the user has not attempted to contribute anything positive or constructive to the article in question and has demonstrated a general unfamiliarity with the subject in his comments on the talk page. I would ask that he just be reminded to try to be more positive in his contributions and not threaten those who disagree with him. Hermiod ( talk) 15:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Your accusation of censorship strikes me as a bit odd, because I think kgorman was actually trying to give you what you want with that proposal: an article on the men's rights movement, as distinct from the concept of men's rights. Can you explain why you view the splitting or moving of the article as censorship?
I'm quite worried by your statement that "the policies he cites are irrelevant." No, policy is never irrelevant. We are bound by WP:V, WP:RS, and all other policies - that's why they're called policies. That you don't find them useful for what you want to do may actually be a feature, not a bug - sometimes when we're deeply entrenched in a dispute, we can lose sight of where the line lies, and policies are useful for giving us a hard stop at that line, whether we see it or not. Our reliable sourcing policy, for example, tells us that blogs are not generally acceptable as sources. So when we come across a blog that we're sure tells The Real Truth and want to add it because we're sure it will finally make people understand, it's good to have that policy there to say "no, no matter how much you think the blog is true, it's not a solid source for an encyclopedia article". I think this really may be the meat of the issue, your belief that policy can be waved off as irrelevant and kgorman's belief that it can't. If that's the case, it's less an issue of wikiquette than of policy interpretation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 17:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've now opened a thread at WP:ANI about this set of issues. Kevin ( talk) 17:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Violet Fae's behavior shows a clear lack of understanding of assume good faith and civil. I'm not going to lose any sleep about this personally, but given that the user has asked that I don't contact them anymore, I feel that it is best for the project if someone drops the user a line. Bold editing in conjunction with an attitude like this doesn't bode well.
An attempt at a quick and clear summary:
1. Violet Fae removes content from the Paula Poundstone article, citing a wp:BLP concern. I disagreed and reverted the user's edits twice. I brought the issue to the talk page to what was a reasonable and civil conversation. I suggested she bring it to dispute resolution.
2. Soon after I leave for a 2.5 week vacation.
3. I come back and out of curiosity, went to see how it was resolved. There was a debate on the BLP noticeboard. A user with multiple IPs got in on the conversation with some heated comments. Apparently the debate was settled and the IPs were blocked.
Of obvious concern to me was that VioletFae strongly suggested in the nb entry that I was the IPs. I actually found this just as funny as bothersome, being that I was halfway around the world on vacation, and that I'm an experienced editor who prides himself on following guidelines, and also I had no interest in the disputed content other than what I thought was a civil dispute about the blpvio.
4. I left a msg on VioletFae's talkpage with the intent of pointing out the humor and also trying to suggest that she should be a little more careful in throwing stuff out like that in the future. [73]. In retrospect, I could've chosen my words better, but it was a pretty tame response to a sockpuppet suggestion.
5. Then VioletFae left this message on my talkpage [74]. The name calling is completely uncalled for, and again - suggestions of sockpuppetry are a serious matter and should not be thrown around lightly.
While I could see that an inexperienced editor finds it suspicious that my edits stopped and the IPs came in, the Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry essay could be helpful for the user to read.
Thank you -- CutOffTies ( talk) 09:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This editor is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia and has made many constructive edits. Much of what he has done to this day is useful and helpful to the project. However, he is mixing in some bad decisions, and our attempts to communicate with him have gone unanswered.
He is removing redlinked articles from terms that should be linked, according to WP:REDLINK. Sometimes he "fixes" redirects that are not broken, per WP:NOTBROKEN. I first noticed these edits when they intersected with WikiProject Catholicism. I reverted these three edits, among others, and left two notes for User:OOODDD on his talk page, hoping we could work it out. His response was to blank his talk and continue editing in the project. So I posted a note in WP Catholicism: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Editor_removing_red_links since this editor's volume was such that I was not sure I could keep up with checking every edit to see whether it was valid or not. The problem was not resolved there, nor did User:OOODDD post a response. Another editor from another WikiProject entered the conversation also here but was also ignored. The edits have continued to the present time, with recent ones here and here (a future film) and here. Elizium23 ( talk) 21:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
comment from Mirokado. I share the concerns about OOODDD's recent edits. Please see my second message mentioned above.
Done -- Senra ( Talk) 10:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Chiton magnificus seems to believe that accusing editors of in his words win the battles not by argument but by persistence is not uncivil. I beg to differ. Further editors who object to his words are suffering from "hypochondriac personal attack infectious disease" or "HPAID", again his words my emphasis. External comments would be welcome. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Chiton is now alleging my comments stem from a racist presumption because he is "Argentine" [75], [76]. I believe the comments about "win the battles" betray a WP:BATTLE mentality and he appears to be seeking confrontation rather than consensus. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you all for your co-operation. I have marked this thread Done. Good luck with the article -- Senra ( Talk) 10:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of an intense discussion over at Talk:Muhammad/images which is bad enough in itself, but Tarc ( talk · contribs) is apparently going out of his way to get in my face. I'd appreciate it if someone could review this and maybe clue him in on proper collegial editing?
the problem:
In short, he made exactly six posts to me on this page, and all of them were filled with attacks, threats and warnings, rude comments, and general hostility. He doesn't seem to want to discuss the topic much at all, since he spends most of his time rebuking me for raising the topic in the first place.
it seems likely that this is a BAITing tactic, but… I mean, am I wrong, or is this guy just a wee bit over the top? -- Ludwigs2 15:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The IP adress 163.152.102.45 previously vandalized the article Calabozos. When warned not to repeat vandalism, he/she replied back with uncivilized language.
Following is the conversation between him and me:
Me to 163.152.102.45:
His reply:
Request for all the admins to take some action and resolve this matter Rishabh Tatiraju ( talk) 12:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
A merger proposal was raised genuinely on two articles ( Syrian Malabar Nasrani onto Saint Thomas Christians), since both are on same people and redundancy is very high. Moreover the name Syrian Malabar Nasrani is an artificially formed one. 7 people partcipated in the discussion and noticeably some of them were administrator/Dispute Resolution Board Mediator. 5 of them supported and 2 opposed. From the opposing side, User: Thom100, removed the Merge Tag from both the articles, while the discussion was going on. He assumes some conspiracy in all these matters and sometimes attacks personally. He hasn't created a User Page yet and doesn't see or care Talk Page warnings. I doubt this account as a Socketpuppet. Ashleypt ( talk) 13:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Skater, As you suggested, the diffs have been pasted below. (Time line: Bottom to Top)
-- Ashleypt ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.72.195 ( talk) 09:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Editor will not remove, or clean up this passage on the talk page: which reads :"If we are measuring the size of our e-penises" . The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 07:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is this here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
In good faith, I nominated what I felt to be a problematic template for deletion, but in response I have received scorn and vilification in what seems to be severe disproportion. Are there other steps I should have taken prior to nomination? Some way to assuage what are obviously some hurt feelings while also redirecting discussion away from knee-jerk reactions and toward the merits of the case? Powers T 14:48, 24 October 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. |
This user is often involved in Edit wars and personal attacks since many months. There are several warnings issued against that user, by many other users. The user has been blocked previously for same reasons. Still the user is making personal attacks.
The latest one is here: User_talk:Mountainwhiskey#RE:Your_Language_on_Trivandrum_Pages_and_elsewhere.21
Before to this incident, user:Mountainwhiskey dropped a message in my talk page using IP 14.96.184.149. When I checked the contributions of that IP, I found that is none other than User:Mountainwhiskey : PROOF. Hence I replied to the message in my talk page to user:Mountainwhiskey.
His reply was very much abusing me personally. Some exerts from his message : "
Thanks, -- Samaleks ( talk) 04:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Epeefleche has lied in his edit summary.
In revision 451131034 he has supplied this edit summary:
per MOS:LEDE ... this summarizes what is in the body; deletion was inappropriate
However, lets look at the revision and see if it is true. His edit adds the following to the article:
The company was founded in 1997, and is based in [[Or Yehuda]], Israel. With 100 million users in 2011, Babylon holds the record for the highest number of downloads of a language solution software.
Guinness judges arrived in Israel in July 2011 to crown Babylon for breaking the [[Guiness World Record]] for downloads for language solutions. Babylon's CEO said it had also reached the 100 million level in terms of users of its products, and joined the [[Alexa]] list of the top 100 websites.<ref name="globeswr">[http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000664305&fid=1725 "Translation co Babylon sets new Guinness record for downloads"], ''Globes'', 14 July 11</ref>
The first paragraph is perhaps "summary", perhaps not. (See The company section in the same revision.) But the second paragraph contains original information which does not appear anywhere in the article at all and even has a source! In fact, I had previously deleted these because not only they violate WP:DUE but also violate WP:RS because the source merely reiterates what company CEO has said.
If he has problem with my removal, I am completely okay with going through dispute resolution. But lying? Correct me if I am wrong: At best, lying is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility, a pillar of Wikipedia, not to mention that it is an evil vice.
Fleet Command ( talk) 15:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I might be not correct but I strongly believe that this instance is a violation of etiquette: User Epeefleche has hijacked another person's ANI case to win a content dispute in Babylon (program) is his own favor. He uses untrue statements that I think you guys will have trouble attributing to good faith mistakes, rather than lies: He has said that a consensus is established (I really like to see the diff), that a fifth person in this page has completely condemned me. (Correct me but I count four people in this discussion and no one has really commented on our content dispute.) Fleet Command ( talk) 11:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I complain on the user Yopie because of the following:
He has two times and in two different places called me 'Mr. Montagu'. See case 1 (contribution of 19 September 2011, 12:44) and case 2.
I believe that my engagement against gossip and slander in the article Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester has made this person believe that I am the person concerned, and this despite that both my profile page and my contributions of the latest year – and not to forget my obviously foreign English – strongly indicate that I am not the suggested.
I do not know whether this person often presents such speculations, but I am probably not the first victim in this regard.
Both I and other users, among others Runehelmet (see Yopie's talk page of today), complain about this person's obviously irrational reversions. The tendency is that he reverts legal contributions and re-adds illegal contributions. Like Runehelmet wrote: “It seems that you are more reverting than editing. Even when I show you the sources, you still revert.”
Already in April 2011, in the article Norwegian nobility, he reverted a whole contribution – much information – because he saw that the source's name contained the word 'wiki'. He did not even ask or try to investigate. If he had done that, he would have gotten to know that the information on the website concerned (Lokalhistoriewiki.no) is not an user-edited wiki, but unedited information directly from one of Norway's most respected and serious encyclopædias.
Also today, he has in the Manchester article several times re-added a defamatory or potentially libellous sentence added by an IP user (who before has added exactly the same pre-written sentence).
It may also be interesting to study the following: While this person obviously does not care much about defamatory or potentially libellous information about other living persons, he was exceptionally quick to remove my criticism on his talk page and thereafter to write the following on my wall: (...) your recent edits to User talk:Yopie have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. This is hypocritical, and in my eyes, it says very much about the person that one here is dealing with. There does not seem to be any coherence in his thoughts and actions as a user on Wikipedia.
It would be too drastic to block him, but as you will see by studying his patterns, he has for months demonstrated the same behaviour in which unlogical reversions and rude/senseless speculations are prominent, but not exclusive, factors. I believe that something should be done to make this better.
– – – The section below was added on 22 September. – – –
This user misuses warnings, block function and similar 1.) as a remedy against his opponents and 2.) as a primary way of or instead of communication with his opponents. (As known, he reverts opponents' posts on his talk page, often marking them as 'vandalism'.)
On 20 September, the day after this complaint was presented, this user reported me here for edit warring. In this process, he 1.) provided incorrect/false information and 2.) without mentioning for the decision-taker relevant information that the user just had received a complaint from the user he was reporting.
From the report:
Nothing was 'discussed' on my talk page. Nothing was 'discussed' on his talk page. Nothing was 'discussed' in the edit summaries. That makes me wonder why he wrote that the case had been, quote, discussed on talk pages of Aemn784, me and in edit summaries.
This user's behaviour is obviously dishonest, coward-like, and, regarding Wikipedia's internal system, abusive. 'Abusive' is when functions intended for use against vandals and conflict-makers are misused as a weapon against serious contributors who even, in this particular case, claim to support themselves on the BLP guidelines.
Quote from the BLP guidelines: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
I believe that case no. 1 is solved, as this user somehow has apologised (although not to me, and that is not necessary, as this is not a case about my person, but about wikiquette and system abuse). No. 2 and 3, however, require, as far as I see it, a closer examination by administrators so that it is possible to see whether this user has patterns of behaviour as described above and which may be considered as abusive, deconstructive or in other ways not good for Wikipedia. I am not a person on whom attacks like this have any effect, but I fear that other and less experienced/secure users, who are here with good intentions and behaving well and honest, but who are so unlucky be confronted by users as described, may resign. It is in Wikipedia's interest to take a look at this. Thanks for the attention.
--- Aaemn784 ( talk) 09:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
– – – The section above was added on 22 September. – – –
--- Aaemn784 ( talk) 15:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Your case 2 and 3 issues are beyond the scope of what this board is intended to handle. I note that Yopie's edit warring report was upheld by an administrator and an unblock request denied.[ [1]] While you could start WP:RFC/U, I strongly recommend dropping the WP:STICK and moving on. Gerardw ( talk) 10:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Now I understand why the user all the time is emptying his talk page. The list of protesting people is longer than a bad year. The present white talk page, where he though has made sure to keep the post where he says 'sorry for it', makes him appear as the most innocent angel.
Quote: “Yopie, you removed sources that meet Wikipedia's References policy. The issue has been discussed for over 10 days in the Talk, but you have not been an active participant in the discussion, yet you reverted my edits in less than an hour. Furthermore, you violated Wikipedia's policy of Good Faith. Please be more considerate to others' contributions --Hatesediting (talk) 07:34, 05 August 2011 (BST)”
This is from August 2011.
The user has also been reported for edit warring: Link
Quotes: 1.) “Both editors were already blocked in connection with the same article on 21 September, 2010 on the ground that they did not want to discuss content changes.” 2.) “(...) the edit warring has been going on for more than six months without having started a discussion between the two users on the talk page (...)”
This is from February 2011.
An example of a particular case which may be relevant, is the article Invasion, where the user has performed several reversions of other users' contributions. For example when a user added an illustrative photo, it was reverted with the explanation 'ugly pic'.
Reverts legitime edits. Refuses being more considerate to other users' contributions. Does not want to discuss content changes. Yopie's behaviour does not seem to have changed much since 2010. It is perhaps about time.
--- Aaemn784 ( talk) 12:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Plese see note of User Jaimesaid [2]. Nerêo ( talk) 13:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This seems to involve a long-standing dispute that should probably be posted on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard rather than here. There you can explain and discuss the disputed edits. Also please notify User:Jaimesaid of this and any further discussion of the matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
User:ManicPoet863 is a recently created, 100%-of-existing-edits-are-vandalism, user. I have warned the user on his/her talk page, and then both my Talk page and my User page were vandalized. There have not been multiple warnings so cannot elevate the situation to Administrator attention.
I would appreciate it if another editor would put a set of eyes on this user, and warn (or whatever) is appropriate. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 13:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Please make a note of this abuse by User:Kwamikagami here. He is saying "STOP BEATING YOUR MOTHER WITH A PIPE!!!". Sir, what is this nonsense. Please request a topic ban for this very low quality editor. Foodie 377 ( talk) 16:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Kwamikagami has engaged in an edit war with me and accused me of all sorts such as "racism" and "bigotry". This person has not been penalised for this. I thought it was reasonable to expect a higher level of standard from an Administrator like Kwami. Here he is referring to me as a racist and bigot: Here [3] and here [4].
He deleted my edits which have been sourced with notable sources and replaced them with his own as in here: [5] and in the Serer people article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamsier ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to point out that both Toddy1 and Kwamikagami just read my statements and assumed a lot. I challenge anyone to prove where I have directly said "the Fula language is a desecration or a poison". Such remarks where made in reference to the edit warring Kwami was doing and now Halaqah which is still going on and has now escalated to the Serer people and Serer Religion articles. As evident in the links, I have mentioned couple of times the relatedness of the Serer and Fula languages. I cannot be held accountable when when people take statements out of context and read what they want to read. My remarks where directed at what Kwami was doing to the articles and the kind of game he was playing between the Serer language and Fula language articles. The Muslim Mafia of Senegal is the Muslim brotherhoods of Senegal. They are among the most powerful in Senegal and control information. Since there is a big problem between them and those who adhere to Serer Religion for nearly 150 years, it is vital that they are mention. Sources:
Toddy1 also made another error regarding the "good faith" comment. Here is my direct quote:
:"You also brought in Halaqah a fellow Muslim to back up what you were doing. I originally assumed good faith until your behaviour in the relevant articles and other articles became apparent."
This demonstrates that, I initially assumed good faith. However, according to Wiki's policy, you can seaze to assume good faith when it becomes apparent that a person(s) is not acting accordingly. In light of the fact that, Kwami was and still is engage in edit wars with me in reference to all Serer related articles, and Halaqah's own account and edits, who started with the Serer people article after the incident and then moved to the Serer Religion article and is making his way down to all Serer related articles - adding "dubious dicuss" and other templates and disregarding the sources cited in the article. Here [14], [15] and [16]. I can perhaps understand an editor engaging in edit war but not from an administrator regardless of whether they are acting in the capacity of administrator or not. Once they have the administrator tag on their talk page, one expects a higher level of standard. I do not have the time to be engaged in edit wars especially with an Administrator who has the power to call the troops to his aid. Personally, I'm not bothered by it and just edit as much as I can. I have learned that fast. However, what I am worried about is the damage being done to the articles for not apparent reason other than to engage in war with me. Further, I find it hard to believe that an Adminstrator with all their status can use such language on Wiki and is allowed to get away with it. Very strange. Tamsier ( talk) 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
It is unlikely any action will be taken against this Halaqah after my previous report experience on this page but I shall report it anyway. This person has persued all my edits including removing my sources and edits as well as templates I've placed on articles and will not stop until made to stop.
Tamsier ( talk) 20:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is one of my first contributions in this Wikipedia (though I have, some time ago, contributed to a different Wikipedia), so, even though I read the policies about disputes solving, I apologise in advance if there were better places to present this one.
I did one edition in the article Falkland Islands and the user above-mentioned deleted it, leaving but a link to a Wiki policy as explanation. After analysing it, and with the knowledge I had from my previous experience, I concluded his "arguments", if I may call a link to a policy so, were inadequate. I tried, thus, reaching this user by posting on his talk page a message I deemed polite and concise.
Shortly after, I checked the article Criticism of the UN, were I had also contributed, and found that the same user had deleted my contribution there too leaving this time two links to wiki policies. Again, I read these policies, but concluded my contributions were respecting their principles.
I went back to his user talk page to check for an answer before leaving a new meessage, but he had deleted my first commentary there too, this time without even a monosyllabic or cryptic reason... which I didn't miss, anyway.
I don't know how to use a template, so I will be leaving now a personal message to this user warning him about this post.
Thank you very much. 190.195.39.223 ( talk) 23:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
This was an unfounded complaint, no incivility on my part, so would someone mind closing please. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
RPSM ( talk) 13:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem with Sjö's suggestion is that I am permanently blocked forever from editing anything on Swedish WP. I cannot even compose a defence against the blocking I am subjected to on Swedish WP RPSM ( talk) 11:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
My problems on Swedish WP do not centre around Sjö and he throughout has been civil and, as I see it, acted in good faith. If he thinks it would help for me to respond to anything that is unclear, I am willing to do so at any time. RPSM ( talk) 11:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I find this type of behavior completely inappropriate. User:Lionelt is on the opposite side of a disagreement with me on Talk:Militant atheism, and I, along with several others, have raised concerns about him and another user canvassing for support at the RfC on that page - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Does_this_rise_to_the_level_of_canvassing.3F. Now it appears he is digging through my edit history (see WP:HOUND) to find other people I may have had disagreements with in the past, and canvassing for support against me, as shown int he first diff I posted above. Can someone please explain to him that this is unacceptable. I am hesitant to take this to AN/I because I don't think its at that level but if anyone thinks it belongs there instead please let me know. Griswaldo ( talk) 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
In this diff an edit I made was restored. I removed "[On Harvard Time]" as it was a TV show, and did not fit "Campus and media publications" as I saw it (a TV show is not published). ElKevbo reverted it, and as I preferred to discuss it rather than revert it out of hand I opened a thread on his talk page. As can be seen, we don't agree, and that's fine, but I will not stand by and have an editor tell me he's going to watch me because of my "limited understanding and laziness". He's gone over the line here, as well as has made an intent to Wikistalk very clear. I believe there have been similar subjective issues with him in the past as well which are also evidenced on his talk page. I would therefore like someone to follow up on this, because there's a pattern. I would also note that a heavy copyedit on the article by a third party (which I didn't see until I had to go get the diff) has more or less negated the entire issue. MSJapan ( talk) 03:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Reviewing the discussion, I'd say MSJapan's comments if you think the definition of publication is too narrow because it doesn't include TV shows, then you need to pick up a dictionary. and You don't know what something means, so I'm discriminating against "new media"? et. al. were inflammatory and that rhetorical style is best avoided in the future. As Mathsci has noted, the discussion should have taken place on the article talk page. Gerardw ( talk) 09:58, 28 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.
Hi there. Over the past few days, I have been receiving disrespectful comments from User:Tarc. This began with a good faith edit I made to Campaign for "santorum" neologism on 9/27, which Tarc reverted, referring to it as "cheerleading" in the revert comment. I posted this question on his talk page to find out why he referred to it that way, but it was removed and has gone unanswered. I then created a talk page discussion for my edit and added an rfc tag, which Tarc has referred to in comments as "irrelevant" and "useless." On 9/29 he responded to one of my comments with "Not even close, son. Maybe you're reading what you wish to see rather than what is actually there." I then opened a topic on the dispute resolution noticeboard to get additional outside input, and when I placed the required template of notification on his talk page, he reverted it with the comment "stay off my page". I addressed these comments here, stating (after he left the "stay off my page" comment): "I was required to notify you on your talk page of your involvement on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard; I would remind you to remain polite as per the talk header rules. Thank you." to which Tarc responded "Keep your reminders to yourself, if you will."
I normally would ignore comments like this but we are involved in what is likely to be a lengthy dispute on that article's talk page and I think User:Tarc's comments have been a bit uncivil and disrespectful; I'd rather quell it now than let it keep escalating. aqwfyj Talk/ Contribs 06:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
"Honestly, WQA is like some sort of ghetto'ized AN/I, the petty things people don't want to deal with just get shunted out of sight out of mind. What it is is a tattletale board, an "editor X was mean to me! BAWWWWWWWWWW!" outlet to drag someone to do when an editorial dispute isn't going your way...or it is going your way, and you want to keep your foot on your wiki-opponent's neck. Hell, I was dragged there once because I quoted the "definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different result" saying in a post, and someone had a hissy fit because "you called me insane!""
— Tarc, MfD
aqwfyj, your first edit on Tarc's page was ill-advised; as Tarc noted the discussion belongs on the article talk page. Your second edit was fine, as it was a required notification and Tarc doesn't actually own his talk page. While removing it was perfectly fine I agree his edit comment was churlish. It is best ignored. My advice is to stay off his talk page except when required to post notices. To be explicit, I only mean when instructions on a board require you to notify another editor, not warning templates and the like. Gerardw ( talk) 13:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Aqwfyj, are you satisified with the community response such that can we close this now? Gerardw ( talk) 19:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
In the above section regarding Mathsci, Collect appears to confuse Mathsci and Will Beback. I attempt to clarify this on Collect's talk page, and further attempted to get him to stop engaging in battleground behavior. In response to my attempts, Collect became increasingly hostile - which eventually ended with his request that I leave his talk page. I agreed to do so, but asked that he waive the two-certifier requirement for a user-conduct RFC. He responded by calling my request "trash."
It would be helpful if another user could engage Collect and perhaps convince him that there are some aspects of his recent conduct that require slight modification. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 12:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggest my post:
More than adequately address your issues which you iterated on my UT page several times, and which I answered on my UT page several times. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:11, 30 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.
Good day! A content RfC about two months ago obtained consensus to trim some of the pejorative material from the LaRouche movement article. Since then, discussion has been ongoing about how to do this. Mathsci joined the discussion recently and focused many of his comments on other editors instead of just on content: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. I asked Mathsci not to make any more personal attacks, and suggested that his approach might not be very helpful. He deleted my remarks without comment, then immediately made a comment similar to his previous ones on the talk page, prompting a rebuke from a different editor. In my opinion, Mathsci's comments have concentrated a little too much on attacking other editors and have unhelpfully raised the heat in that talk page discussion, but I'm open to opinions from uninvolved editors since I'm so close to the subject. Thank you in advance. Cla68 ( talk) 06:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Clarification
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'd like someone to take a look at this conversation here, and also the original comment that sparked the conversation (linked to in my first comment). I was told to "go away" (because they don't like their conduct commented on) so I came here. — Jean Calleo ( talk) 04:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't agree with the above. Please look at their comment I was commenting on and tell me my message wasn't warranted. And please don't threaten me with blocks, I stopped messaging them because they told me to, I'm not disrupting anything. — Jean Calleo ( talk) 09:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC) I'm looking for a third person's input exactly because it's a boomerang-y situation -- whatever I may have to say now after their last reply may just be because I'm trying to defend myself and not because I want to make a neutral assessment of the situation (which I do, but obviously I'm biased now, so I can't). So I'd appreciate if a neutral person could assess both of our's conduct. I don't mind what you have to say to me, it's still true that they're being uncivil and need to be told so. — Jean Calleo ( talk) 09:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
No, no one's made their point to him, and the three of you haven't helped. I understand you guys love the boomerang irony, but if you can't let go of that and actually drop a neutral message on their talk page, then I still have an issue here. AGF is irrelevant, intention and outcome are different things. — Jean Calleo ( talk) 10:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
All right, if everyone here lacks a proper sense of judgement, then, by me, the case can be closed. Next time someone's year-old opinion on a religious article upsets me, I'll pound them with something hilariously verbose and condescending, knowing that it won't be frowned upon, and if someone dares make a comment, I can be sure they'll be threatened with blocks. Jesus H. Christ. Thank you, I'm done. — Jean Calleo ( talk) 16:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fram has objected to some of my edits to the template Template:Infobox Belgium Municipality and pointed out some faults in my editing. So far so normal, it was neither the first nor the last time that such a thing happened. What made me resort to this board is his completely uncooperative behaviour, his dismissive attitude towards my any proposal or request for some constructive criticism, and his unwillingness to either drop the matter or discuss it properly.
After I altered the template to fix the problems he had noticed he accused me unjustly of violating the BRD cycle (I never reverted), said that something else was wrong, and after fixing these perceived issues too his only further contribution to the discussion was asking that I make my case and convince him to spare my edits. Any requests for criticism more specific than "your changes made the articles worse" were ignored. ("you make changes which are not improvements, so you get reverted." [39]) All he did was sound vexed and annoyed by my requests for further discussion, even though I went to great lengths to remain conciliatory.
All of this was only made worse by his needlessly spiteful tone, as shown by his answers below:
After I pointed out that he never actually replied my questions in the other talk page, he resorted to just deleting my messages. [43] Nero the second ( talk) 10:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Nero the second made some bold changes which I reverted. When he asked what was wrong with them, I replied, to which his initial reaction was "No, there must be some kind of mistake then." [44] In the middle of further discussion about this, Nero the second just implemented his changes (with some improvements) again, which he now claims doesn't go against WP:BRD. Anyway, I again reverted him, and again explained why [45].
I then made my first request to continue this discussion, about changes to a template, on the talk page of that template [46]. I also copied the discussion so far to that talk page. Nero the second continued posting on my talk page about this template, I replied again and asked again to continue the discussion at the template talk page [47]. Another reply on my talk page, another request to take it to the template talk page [48]. Again, and a fourth request to take this to the template talk page [49]. Nero the second continues posting to my talk page, claiming that I am not willing to discuss it while all I ask is to discuss it at the appropriate page, not at my talk page. So after four requests, I just tell him to get of my talk page [50]. So, if being asked and told five times to take it to the appropriate talk page isn't sufficient, and Nero the second again posts to my talk page, I revert him. And then we end up here...
Note that Nero the second has not made a single post about this at Template talk:Infobox Belgium Municipality, and seems only interested in badgering me on my talk page. The only Wikiquette I see that needs to be enforced is that Nero the second needs to be told that if someone asks them five times to stop posting about a subject to a user talk page, and take it to relevant talk page (in this case the template talk page) instead, that it may be more constructive to do just that. Fram ( talk) 11:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Left a friendly notice for the user regarding disruptive behaviour in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna. The user removed my message from User talk:ScottyBerg and disregarded the warning. I left another notice here, but in vain. Please explain to the user that such behaviour (in the AfD discussion) is not appropriate and take any other measures that you deem proper in restoring order in the AfD discussion. Thanks. Fayerman ( talk) 22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
No substance for this use of a noticeboard. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Fayerman, please focus your discussion on the content at AFD and avoid attempting to police other editors' behavior. Gerardw ( talk) 23:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The above user has left rude and profane messages on my talk page and on the Big Brother 2011 housemates page:
The above user has an attitude problem and this language is unacceptable on this community. I want this behaviour investigated, his aggressive attitude is not becoming to a civil society. 86.176.153.183 ( talk) 21:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
As this matter seems to have been resolved, I move to close this discussion. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 00:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Collect ( talk) 06:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC) This user has often and frequently posted deprecating personal attacks on me - too numerous to count. And previously been reported for such. This particular post, however [56] is an egregious example.
Is beyond the pale. He has been reported here in the past for such personal attacks, and been told not to make them. Including [57] charges against other editors, bad SPI complaints, and has has topic bans discussed at AN/I. Also at [58] where he was reported by JustaPunk for similar behaviour again on WWE articles. And, of course, interminable discussiona at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling. So it is not just I who has been attacked by this editor, just that this example is about as clear as one could wish for in a violation. [59] shows one of several warnings by admins to him about his behaviour. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 06:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
In case anyone has any doubt see [60] after SB23's harangue ,
Mr. Stradivarius stated I recommend that you either provide some serious evidence of Collect's alleged disruptive editing, or you stick to commenting solely on content. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
[61] has Screwball23saying User:Collect is vandalizing the page again. Me and him go back very far and he knows how to game the system very well. I'll be blunt : he's one of the most destructive editors I've ever come across. He has been battling me on Linda McMahon and Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010 ever since I started editing them.
And then (with another editor - so you can be assured this is SBs normal system) [62] SB is unusually argumentative as a rule. Note further that I have had exceedingly limited contact with him, and not made such deprecating remarks as he makes, and have not made SPI accusations as he has done. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 06:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This breakdown between these two editors is very distressing to me. Screw is a member of WPConservatism, and Collect, if we had such a designation, would be an honorary member. Screw is an upcoming editor with much promise, and of course Collect's body of work speaks for itself. WPConservatism is long overdue for a GA, and IMO this dispute is holding up a promising GA for the project: Linda McMahon. I'm going to attempt to get to the root cause of the dispute, and determine a protocol for future interactions between these two. I'd appreciate it if uninvolved editors would refrain from commenting in this section. To Screw and Collect, in this section please direct your comments to me and not to each other. Thank you.– Lionel ( talk) 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Screw: what in your opinion is the worst transgression Collect committed against you?
As Screwball23 has chosen (as is their prerogative) not to participate here, I've redacted the personal attack and left warning on their talk page. Gerardw ( talk) 01:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
User Xxhollsxx has posted false information (this has been undone). No talk page exists for this user. Can this page be locked from malicious attacks?
User:Lihaas made this edit. I then reverted it. Then Lihaas made this reversion with "dont change the nom to LIE" as the edit summary. I then posted on Lihaas's talk page trying to figure out what the deal with the edits were, as I was shocked to be accused of lying. Lihaas then replied here, and I responded here. Lihaas then made this subsequent response, which I could not comprehend, so I asked for clarification here. Lihaas has not responded despite making numerous edits to Wikipedia since then. User:Hot Stop came by and offered this response. I don't care about the ITN credit; I've never accused anyone of lying on Wikipedia and I don't want to be accused of being a liar, either. OCNative ( talk) 05:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Impolite behaviour. The history page lists out the summaries of the IP. Secret of success Talk to me 12:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Needs to be educated on what vandalism is not, and that not all those who disagree with him are "Turkish troll(s)" with "third world monuments" or some such. This has been going on since September, with regards to Nicosia and related articles. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Phoenix_and_Winslow has previously been warned against making personal attacks, [63], but during an ongoing editing dispute at ugg boots the editor has been attacking User:WLRoss. Two posts in particular are a concern: [64] and [65]. The repeated raising of the "win" over the other editor at an unrelated article is frustrating, However, as I'm part of the editing dispute I don't feel that I can be a neutral commentator on this, so I figured it would be best brought here for people uninvolved to work out if this needs to be tackled and, if so, how. Hopefully it can be handled before it progresses. - Bilby ( talk) 02:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
A discussion about a change to a template has escalated into a flamewar, between two participants who have a history with one another. PK T(alk) 21:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi all -- please check out the dicussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. If there's something I've done wrong, I apologize and will recuse myself. But I feel that I've been treated unfairly and that people have ganged up on me -- thank you and warm regards -- Mig ( talk) 18:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
MikeWazowski has been repeatedly refusing to repond to editors on user or article talk pages. I first left an unanswered note on his talk page then brought this issue to ANI and was directed to WQA. (Please see the ANI report for comment by other editors.)
I'm concerned both because I believe non-response can be bitey in it's own way and because the need to discuss is basic policy. Wikipedia:Editing policy says that "Discussion is, however, called for if you think the edit might be controversial or if someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page)." Wikipedia:Etiquette asks that we "Do not ignore questions." Also according to Wikipedia:Civility "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions." (emphasis added)
Two specific examples:
More generally his current talk page shows other questions that were left unanswered or partially answered. (Note: It is difficult to evaluate the situation on his talk page at a glance because he has deleted some unanswered questions on his talk page while allowing older messages to remain visible. To see some of what is happening you need to view the page history.)
I get the impression that he believes edit summaries are all the communication needed. For example in this edit summary he says "removing this - I explained myself in the edit summaries". [67] Similarly in this discussion [68] he seems to feel he has replied to somebody who left an unanswered message on his talk page when he tells a third party that "Star in the Hood was dealt with on the pages in question, as was Brookfield - my edit summaries clearly spelled out my reasons" (To check what he meant by "dealt with on the pages in question" I went to the history of Star in the Hood's talk page [69] and Star in the Hood (company) talk page [70] and found no talk page comments by him there, just 2 page moves).
However since he did not reply to my (deleted) note [71] on his talk page and did not speak at ANI I am not certain of the reasons for his refusal to speak to some editors on talk pages.
My hope is that he will either begin using talk pages to collaborate or will switch to editing areas that require less discussion.
As to what I did wrong in this, my tone on his talk page may have been off putting even though I mentioned some areas of agreement in an attempt to be more positive. Cloveapple ( talk) 01:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This is regarding the behaviour of User: Amaroks on article Raj Thackeray. The said article is a biography of a living person who is a politician involved in many controversies. I thought that the article was strongly biased and hence placed a POV tag on the page and started a discussion on the talk page of the article. User: Amaroks removed the tag without discussion. Assuming good faith and ignorance about tags on their part, I replaced the tag and left a message on the user's talk page. His response to this was removing the tag again, deleting the message on his talk page without response, and writing impolite and irrelevant comments on the talk page of the article. Hence, I again messaged him on the talk page explaining the purpose of such tags, urging not to engage in edit warring, and warning not to persist in such unconstructive editting. Then I replaced the tag. But the user has repeated the same sequence of actions as before.
I believe I have been civil and so far have given him the benefit of doubt. Please look into this and provide appropriate assistance. My messages on his page have been removed, but can be found in the history.
Thanks. Geeteshgadkari ( talk) 12:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Really!! nice!!
It doesn't matter what you feel, This user Geeteshgadkari is placing tags which are not necessary at all. And he only feels that article is completely biased. He is not involved in any discussion whatsoever. I asked him to give valid reasons about his insecure feeling but he is not involved in any discussion. Check [72] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaroks ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your entry, Michael. It's true what you said. I'm surprised at the editing reaction this entry engendered, but I'm also surprised that the film has received such positive attention worldwide. Short films don't normally get reviewed nor covered. That's one reason I was surprised at the Wikipedia page (since removed) for "Saturday Night Special," which depicted that particular short (passing itself off for four years as a full length movie on the Wikipedia page) as a "masterpiece." But I know that short films don't get that kind of critical acclaim or press, unless someone famous is involved -- and even then. I believe that perhaps the film festival note received by "anonymous (street meat)" may be because of its subject matter -- bank and corporate abuse presented in a metaphorical manner. Incidentally, the film was also in Cyprus on Oct. 15, 2011, and I wrote to them requesting any Cyprian press coverage available -- the same with Korea and Russia. The problem, I believe, that one can't get here their local press coverage, if any exists, is that such coverage would be in the native tongue of the country and it may not be accessible through a Google search. It's also difficult to contact film festival representatives because they act in anonymity for obvious reasons.
This is a first film, a UCLA student film, made by a screenwriting MFA TFTDM candidate, not a "directing" student per se, for an experimental film class which required that a five-minute film be completed in eleven weeks from start to finish. This is NOT a thesis film, but a class assignment. The short film was screened at UCLA bridges Theater on December 8, (I believe) 2010. Special effects were added thereafter and it was completed on January 21, 2011. So, in reality, the film was "released" in 2011.
Nonetheless, the film and I will also be covered by the Huffington Post (or a very similar on-line publication), as I was interviewed by columnist Daniel Cubias a week ago. The article is scheduled to be published at the end of October or November 1st. It will be tied to the movement "Occupy" of which I play no part.
Thanx again and kind regards, Mig ( talk) 14:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add that any recognition by a film festival of a film is not minor recognition. A screening is not minor recognition -- this is because film festivals see thousands of films before they decide on a handful of films that will become a part of their festival for their entire year -- they spent a lot of time, money and effort promoting the films selected. Being selected is in and of itself recognition. "anonymous (street meat)" represented the USA in Russia, Korea and Cyprus.
From the Wikipedia page " Film festivalFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_festival
"A film festival is an organised, extended presentation of films in one or more movie theaters or screening venues, usually in a single locality. More and more often film festivals show part of their films to the public by adding outdoor movie screenings.[1] The films may be of recent date and, depending upon the focus of the individual festival, can include international releases as well as films produced by the organisers' domestic film industry. Sometimes there is a focus on a specific film-maker or genre (e.g., film noir) or subject matter (e.g., horror film festivals). A number of film festivals specialise in short films, each with its defined maximum length. Film festivals are typically annual events."
The article also goes into how film festivals -- which vary in recognition and prestige -- charge an entry fee. "anonymous (street meat)" has been invited to most of these film festivals and the entry fee has been waived, so that does not apply. Mig ( talk) 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Mig ( talk) 15:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
User FFGR79 (?) took a decent photo of a Mitsubishi Town Box firetruck and is now set on including this photo in as many articles as possible across several languages, and refuses to accept any discussion on the topic. I first reverted one of these uses (while in passing erroneously referring to a postal vehicle as a fire truck in my edit summary) and replaced it with another photo which seemed more illustrative to me. FFGR79 proceeded to revert and make further changes. The user has then continued reverting, all the while refusing to engage in any form of conversation, instead only attacking me for not being fluent in Japanese. I obviously don't want to ban or come down heavy on this person since they are a new user, but would welcome someone else's eyes upon the Kei car talkpage conversation. Thanks, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ ( talk) 04:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You are always making an poor excuse. You had misunderstanding "Jimny is a fire truck". And you presented the obscure classic van from your poor resource. Your awkward remark is altogether recorded on wikipedia.
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.
As discussed in the previous discussion on this subject, it is my view that this user has engaged in aggressive, disrespectful behaviour against other users by threatening them with bans, quoting irrelevant policies, removing edits by users made in good faith, requesting only the use of sources that he personally approves of (while rejecting sources that are used without question elsewhere) and generally trying to make the process of improving the men's rights article much, much harder. I have attempted to communicate with him on this subject but have been met with further such behaviour. As far as I can see, the user has not attempted to contribute anything positive or constructive to the article in question and has demonstrated a general unfamiliarity with the subject in his comments on the talk page. I would ask that he just be reminded to try to be more positive in his contributions and not threaten those who disagree with him. Hermiod ( talk) 15:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Your accusation of censorship strikes me as a bit odd, because I think kgorman was actually trying to give you what you want with that proposal: an article on the men's rights movement, as distinct from the concept of men's rights. Can you explain why you view the splitting or moving of the article as censorship?
I'm quite worried by your statement that "the policies he cites are irrelevant." No, policy is never irrelevant. We are bound by WP:V, WP:RS, and all other policies - that's why they're called policies. That you don't find them useful for what you want to do may actually be a feature, not a bug - sometimes when we're deeply entrenched in a dispute, we can lose sight of where the line lies, and policies are useful for giving us a hard stop at that line, whether we see it or not. Our reliable sourcing policy, for example, tells us that blogs are not generally acceptable as sources. So when we come across a blog that we're sure tells The Real Truth and want to add it because we're sure it will finally make people understand, it's good to have that policy there to say "no, no matter how much you think the blog is true, it's not a solid source for an encyclopedia article". I think this really may be the meat of the issue, your belief that policy can be waved off as irrelevant and kgorman's belief that it can't. If that's the case, it's less an issue of wikiquette than of policy interpretation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 17:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've now opened a thread at WP:ANI about this set of issues. Kevin ( talk) 17:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Violet Fae's behavior shows a clear lack of understanding of assume good faith and civil. I'm not going to lose any sleep about this personally, but given that the user has asked that I don't contact them anymore, I feel that it is best for the project if someone drops the user a line. Bold editing in conjunction with an attitude like this doesn't bode well.
An attempt at a quick and clear summary:
1. Violet Fae removes content from the Paula Poundstone article, citing a wp:BLP concern. I disagreed and reverted the user's edits twice. I brought the issue to the talk page to what was a reasonable and civil conversation. I suggested she bring it to dispute resolution.
2. Soon after I leave for a 2.5 week vacation.
3. I come back and out of curiosity, went to see how it was resolved. There was a debate on the BLP noticeboard. A user with multiple IPs got in on the conversation with some heated comments. Apparently the debate was settled and the IPs were blocked.
Of obvious concern to me was that VioletFae strongly suggested in the nb entry that I was the IPs. I actually found this just as funny as bothersome, being that I was halfway around the world on vacation, and that I'm an experienced editor who prides himself on following guidelines, and also I had no interest in the disputed content other than what I thought was a civil dispute about the blpvio.
4. I left a msg on VioletFae's talkpage with the intent of pointing out the humor and also trying to suggest that she should be a little more careful in throwing stuff out like that in the future. [73]. In retrospect, I could've chosen my words better, but it was a pretty tame response to a sockpuppet suggestion.
5. Then VioletFae left this message on my talkpage [74]. The name calling is completely uncalled for, and again - suggestions of sockpuppetry are a serious matter and should not be thrown around lightly.
While I could see that an inexperienced editor finds it suspicious that my edits stopped and the IPs came in, the Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry essay could be helpful for the user to read.
Thank you -- CutOffTies ( talk) 09:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This editor is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia and has made many constructive edits. Much of what he has done to this day is useful and helpful to the project. However, he is mixing in some bad decisions, and our attempts to communicate with him have gone unanswered.
He is removing redlinked articles from terms that should be linked, according to WP:REDLINK. Sometimes he "fixes" redirects that are not broken, per WP:NOTBROKEN. I first noticed these edits when they intersected with WikiProject Catholicism. I reverted these three edits, among others, and left two notes for User:OOODDD on his talk page, hoping we could work it out. His response was to blank his talk and continue editing in the project. So I posted a note in WP Catholicism: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Editor_removing_red_links since this editor's volume was such that I was not sure I could keep up with checking every edit to see whether it was valid or not. The problem was not resolved there, nor did User:OOODDD post a response. Another editor from another WikiProject entered the conversation also here but was also ignored. The edits have continued to the present time, with recent ones here and here (a future film) and here. Elizium23 ( talk) 21:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
comment from Mirokado. I share the concerns about OOODDD's recent edits. Please see my second message mentioned above.
Done -- Senra ( Talk) 10:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Chiton magnificus seems to believe that accusing editors of in his words win the battles not by argument but by persistence is not uncivil. I beg to differ. Further editors who object to his words are suffering from "hypochondriac personal attack infectious disease" or "HPAID", again his words my emphasis. External comments would be welcome. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Chiton is now alleging my comments stem from a racist presumption because he is "Argentine" [75], [76]. I believe the comments about "win the battles" betray a WP:BATTLE mentality and he appears to be seeking confrontation rather than consensus. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you all for your co-operation. I have marked this thread Done. Good luck with the article -- Senra ( Talk) 10:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of an intense discussion over at Talk:Muhammad/images which is bad enough in itself, but Tarc ( talk · contribs) is apparently going out of his way to get in my face. I'd appreciate it if someone could review this and maybe clue him in on proper collegial editing?
the problem:
In short, he made exactly six posts to me on this page, and all of them were filled with attacks, threats and warnings, rude comments, and general hostility. He doesn't seem to want to discuss the topic much at all, since he spends most of his time rebuking me for raising the topic in the first place.
it seems likely that this is a BAITing tactic, but… I mean, am I wrong, or is this guy just a wee bit over the top? -- Ludwigs2 15:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The IP adress 163.152.102.45 previously vandalized the article Calabozos. When warned not to repeat vandalism, he/she replied back with uncivilized language.
Following is the conversation between him and me:
Me to 163.152.102.45:
His reply:
Request for all the admins to take some action and resolve this matter Rishabh Tatiraju ( talk) 12:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
A merger proposal was raised genuinely on two articles ( Syrian Malabar Nasrani onto Saint Thomas Christians), since both are on same people and redundancy is very high. Moreover the name Syrian Malabar Nasrani is an artificially formed one. 7 people partcipated in the discussion and noticeably some of them were administrator/Dispute Resolution Board Mediator. 5 of them supported and 2 opposed. From the opposing side, User: Thom100, removed the Merge Tag from both the articles, while the discussion was going on. He assumes some conspiracy in all these matters and sometimes attacks personally. He hasn't created a User Page yet and doesn't see or care Talk Page warnings. I doubt this account as a Socketpuppet. Ashleypt ( talk) 13:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Skater, As you suggested, the diffs have been pasted below. (Time line: Bottom to Top)
-- Ashleypt ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.72.195 ( talk) 09:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Editor will not remove, or clean up this passage on the talk page: which reads :"If we are measuring the size of our e-penises" . The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous ( talk) 07:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is this here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
In good faith, I nominated what I felt to be a problematic template for deletion, but in response I have received scorn and vilification in what seems to be severe disproportion. Are there other steps I should have taken prior to nomination? Some way to assuage what are obviously some hurt feelings while also redirecting discussion away from knee-jerk reactions and toward the merits of the case? Powers T 14:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)