This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The article about Vietnam People's Air Force has people with bare IP addresses going in and reverting referenced information to unsourced, and likely wildly exagerrated numbers about aircraft inventory. Is there SOMEONE who can put a lock in the article, semi-protected I guess, so this can be stopped? Openskye ( talk) 12:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
As I was inexperienced back then (a week ago or so), I thought that putting arguments on different talk pages related to the discussion would help in getting more discussion on the topic. However, I saw my mistake and eventually linked back my discussion of 2 different questions on different concerns to 2 talk pages where the discussion is supposed to take place. Now i'm accused of forum shopping ...
And as i have noticed, several users have been really antagonistic towards me in general. Maybe it's the fact that my posts are too long, but that doesn't mean they have to bash my arguments with inappropriate response, I hope someone look into this and tell me what could I do. Thank You. Redefining history ( talk) 03:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
-- Senra ( Talk) 17:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I have just about had it with this editor. I'm one of those people that when I see an article with no sources (for example), I will quickly affix an {{ unref}} tag (or a {{ refimprove}} tag if more than one section of an article is without sources). Now, other users may come across the tags, disagree, and then remove them (which is fine; not everyone is going to agree with everything you do), but...starting around here (which stemmed from this), this editor has basically been following me around and removing tags I placed; not only that, but s/he is leaving very discourteous edit summaries along with them. I took him/her to task about it, to no avail.
Afterwards, s/he continued to leave comments on my talk page, in threads with uninvolved editors, in a manner that almost suggests that s/he is trying to start a WikiBattle. I told him/her to leave me alone, which s/he said s/he would do, but eventually s/he started doing it again. S/he eventually stopped again after I warned him/her I would take the matter to an admin, but... s/he soon went back to his/her old tricks (apparently since I told him/her to stay off my talk page, s/he is now berating me in edit summaries instead).
Basically, all I want to do is place a maintenance tag and improve an article without this user disputing everything I do (and attacking me). I didn't try discussing it on his/her talk page this time because I figured it wouldn't be right to post on his/her talk page when I told him/her to stay off my talk page. Would someone please get him/her off my back? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 19:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment Deary deary me. Both of you stop it. On the one hand it is true that any edit summary is better than none at all. Help us all Erpert ( talk · contribs) please. If you are going to tag an article with a terse summary such as tag then at least take the time to explain your action on that article talk page. On the other hand, you HuskyHuskie ( talk · contribs) should calm down. Whilst your tone here remains civil, it is my opinion that it is only just so. I suggest you both take a short break from editing any articles. Then Erpert should take up HuskyHuskie's offer to discuss your differences on HuskyHuskie's talk page. Do let me know how you get on -- Senra ( Talk) 15:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Erpert, your complaint centering on the argument that "if I place a tag like {{ unref}} in an article that doesn't have any references, does that really need an explanation?" is either disingenuous or ignorant. I have specifically addressed that matter several times, including here: (emphasis added for this Wikiquette posting)
The History section of this article has had a tag added to it that claims it may have original research. Unfortunately, since the section already has several sources cited (at least five), it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain which claims the tagger considers to be original research. There is one statement "Swanson far exceeded its expectations, and ended up selling more than 10 million of these dinners in the first year of production." that (appropriately) has a "citation needed" tag on it, but that's not original research-looking, it's lack of sourcing. Frankly, when I see editors whose tagging of articles constitute in the neighborhood of 50% of their total edits, I wonder if they're helping us or not. At the very least, when someone comes along and leaves a nebulous tag like that on an article, I think they should be required to explain what their concern is. Of course, some tags do not need an explanation. For example, if a tag says that an article has "no sources, and indeed, it has none, then I can understand what's the problem. But tagging like this, without leaving an explanation, is just rude and ignorant. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 04:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC) [15]
I have never complained your tags when their purpose was comprehensible and actionable. Even those that I would not place myself, if they actually had any promise at all of eventually improving the encyclopedia, I have left alone. The problem is that you do not appear to have given any thought as to what happens after you plant your drive-by-tag. Other editors are confused and puzzled, and not knowing what to do, they do nothing. And then your tag sits there and sits there and sits there. And sits there. And sits there. That's litter. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 02:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
severe comment HuskyHuskie ( talk · contribs) cease and desist and you too Erpert ( talk · contribs). This is indeed getting tiresome. There are over 3,300 words above that could be better spent developing articles. For example, if either or both of you care to pop along to Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire#Article improvements, your writing skills could be used more effectively. You will see I am only looking for 500 words or so. In the meantime, as I stated earlier, both of you should stop editing anywhere on Wikipedia for a few days (to cool down) then come back and discuss this issue on HuskyHuskie's talk page ( here) as suggested by HuskyHuskie -- Senra ( Talk) 12:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I need only 500 words for the Ely, Cambridgeshire#Politics section as described at Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire#Article improvements. I even provided a link to one on-line source to get someone started. Any well cited prose will suffice as I can copy-edit further as necessary -- Senra ( Talk) 12:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Southpole1, who has been repeatedly blanking the article's talk page, should be reminded to avoid qualifying another editor's attitude as "obscene" (see here moved to here), particularly when the other editor has been trying to resolve an editing conflict by asking a third opinion. Racconish Tk 18:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC) ...or writing this editor is "blinded by arrogance". Racconish Tk 17:54, 27 October 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.
Ankitbhatt has repeatedly made aggressive and hostile posts in the DRN discussion thread and on the talk page for Ra. One. He has been give multiple warnings, include extremely direct statements on his talk page. Right now, his attitude is a significant impediment towards resolving the dispute and his last post suggests he intends to continue. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Andythegrump has four times accused me of conduction a smear campaign against the occupy protests, [16] [17] [18] [19] I have asked him to withdraw these allegations but he has refused and basically accused me again [20] I would appreciate him being told to remove these accusations which are obviously untrue. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The Nazi Party support for the "Occupy Wall Street" movement appears to be widely reported. It is even making news down here in Australia, just today there was a radio report of the anti-semitic nature of the protests (apparently these protesters blame Jewish bankers). Someone needs to persuasively explain to Andy the desirability of maintaining civility. -- Nug ( talk) 11:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
As ATG has refused to remove his personal attacks I have done so, he has responded with further attacks, [22] I really would appreciate someone telling him to stop accusing me of pushing an agenda and conducting a smear campaign. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 17:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Draconian solutions do not work, and the claims implicit above in one comment that a person is a sock belong in the ArbCom area, not here. Lastly, hyperbole does not suit any noticeboard when such an act is being sought in the first place. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding a content dispute on Rubén Rivera, User:Vegaswiki resorted to an ad hominem attack against me. I warned the user not to do that. The user then blanked the warning and repeated the attack. I warned the user again. In response, the user undid my reversion of the ad hominem attack. I now bring it here. – Muboshgu ( talk) 00:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I was cleaning user pages out of my watchlist and stumbled upon some Talk namespace edits that concerned me. Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Lionelt&diff=prev&oldid=457883397 I don't really remember any prior interactions with either of the editors involved, but it sure seems like at least one of the participants could use some wikiquette coaching! ( sdsds - talk) 00:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
For months now I have tried to revise and add useful information and pictures to the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. Throughout this time, my facts and pictures have been reputed and removed by User:Mtking. Even though the page has minimal pictures (compared to other large research universities), he has taken the one's I add off multiple times. The pictures that I have uploaded show the University in a good light and reflect its history and its current nature. The pictures are also copyrighted well and have been taken by myself and a colleague of mine. I feel harassed now because it is so hard to edit and revise this wikipedia page. Thank you so much for your time and effort reviewing this case.
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Davidhar ( talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Roselese is an experienced editor with a history of incivility with a number of editors. On this particilar occasion she made this nasty accusation: "Kuru is ignoring the fact that Lionelt and NYyankees51 are tag-teaming." [25] Not only is she unfairly accusing myself and NYYankees, she is accusing Kuru of complicity. – Lionel ( talk) 03:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
User Feedback has for a long time made dickish comments to users who in his opinion are wrong including to me. I've kept quiet about this for a long time but I can't take his dickish attitude anymore. Voices in my Head WWE 02:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
An IP contributer, 75.21.113.40 made a testy demand for content on the talk page for Steampunk, which can be seen here. I replied with what I thought was a diplomatic response, and was answered with belligerence. This IP has subsequently had an angry back and forth with another user on that talk page and on their own talk pages. I won't get into those arguments here. Seeing that the IP seemed relatively new, I placed a standard welcome on the IP's talk page. I did not mean to be condescending, but that IP took it as such, and very hatefully removed the welcome. I later replied to a subsequent posting by this IP on the Steampunk page. I think my reply was quite civil, and was meant to help the IP understand how some WP policy works. The IP replied on the talk page again in an angry manner, seen here. I was later rewarded by the IP with nasty accusations, seen here on my talk page. Because I am not the only one who has been at the receiving end of this IP's talk page rants, the IP has been warned a couple of times. I am requesting that someone truly intervene to stop this IP from continued belligerence. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 13:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Once the previous complaint was archived he has again started with personal attacks [29] I should like some thing done this time please. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This began as an inappropriate imposition of a "consensus" on Free as a Bird that was developed in a time frame that meant no European was likely to be able to contribute. Despite attempts to restore the article to its state at the beginning of the WP:BRD process, DCGeist edit warred to keep his personal preferred version, a process that also involved making threats in an edit summary. Meanwhile on the talk page, we have:
To say nothing of other time-wasting contributions such as this and this while other editors have been trying to find a solution.
I admit I was frustrated at the start by the unilateral imposition of an opinion that appears to have been developed on another page, but DCGeist's conduct since then has been utterly revolting, while I believe I've been as calm as possible. I have also tried to move the discussion forward, something DCGeist doesn't seem interested in doing.
I'm looking for some advice to be given to DCGeist (who seems to be something of an infamous edit warrior, judging by his block log) along with any comments on my own conduct, should those be judged necessary. Absconded Northerner ( talk) 12:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
If you think accusing another editor of stalking is not a personal attack then I've got some bad news for you sunshine. Your whole attitude throughout this sorry affair has been one of totally unwarranted self righteous indignation. You need to learn a great deal about how to work with other people in a collegiate manner or else I suggest you might be better to leave Wikipedia to those who can. Trying to steam roller your own opinion over that of others - which you have ironically tried to do even on this noticeboard - impresses no one here and does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Instead, it wastes everyone's time and in the end I predict if you continue down the road you have apparently set for yourself you will be on the receiving end of an enforced Wikibreak. Continue on after that and you will eventually end up with a permanent block and despite what I expect will be your protestations to the contrary at that time, it will be all your own fault. - Nick Thorne talk 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Undid revision 458162180 by DCGeist ( talk); this has been discussed on the talk page (Amber Tamblyn, Odette Annable, Charlyne Yi) - and stop stalking
I'm getting a little fed up with people treating me like dirt for making a simple Wikiquette assistance request in the face of statements from DCGeist that nobody has denied are personal attacks, and harassment from DocKino that resulted in a strong piece of advice from an admin. For some reason several uninvolved non-admins are taking it upon themselves to describe me as the guilty party here. Incidentally, the irony of these people taking time away from their busy editing to tell me I should spend more time editing is breathtaking. As I've said above, every one of my claims is backed up with a diff, and I've seen nothing that denies any of my points. Why is it therefore wrong of me to continue to press for resolution on this matter? That's what this board is for and that's what I'm doing. There's an incredible amount of WP:BITE taking place here and it's pretty sickening. If I were paranoid I'd start thinking that it's a case of people deliberately BAITing me into making a personal attack, something I have never done and have no intention of doing.
Just to be clear, I'm not going to drop this until I see an admin close it. If that admin chooses to take no further action, I will be disappointed, but as long as the reason is explained - and they usually give decent reasons for any decision - I'll consider it the end of that matter. This is not too much to ask. Absconded Northerner ( talk) 15:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm really, really disappointed by the lack of any useful response to this. Maybe Onorem is right - I'll bookmark this discussion and use it in the future as yet another example of how rules are routinely ignored by admins. I don't know what the point of having policies is if you're not going to enforce them. Absconded Northerner ( talk) 10:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
As WQA is a voluntary, non-binding forum, AN is welcome to take the advice or not. The frustration appears to be a lack of understanding of the WQA process ... as Nick Thorne has noted, it is not an admin board. This is not to say no admins watch the board, merely that volunteers who respond are not expected to be admins. AN, my advice remains to adjust your own behavior and drop pursuing this issue. If you wish to pursue it further, posting a notice at [WP:ANI] is an option. Based on my observation of past disputes that I see as similar to this one, it is my opinion is likely you will receive feedback there similar to what you have received here. Gerardw ( talk) 01:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears that User:KAMiKAZOW isn't quite sure about civility. " Walter Görlitz: Shut up." and " And before Walter Görlitz starts lying again". At least the editor needs to be told to avoid personal attacks. The edit history on his talk page after notices about his editing behaviour Shut up, troll and F* off! add to my frustration with the editor. The former was after a legitimate 3RR warning was placed. The second was after the editor placed a 3RR warning on my page incorrectly.
The edit warring and not understanding WP:3RR shows that a visit from an editor who is disinterested in the subject article may be in order. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
As you can see he claims that [41] is a forbidden revert. That part was never disputed and previously simply contained false info that was corrected by me. [42] is also in no way a revert, just a clarification. He makes things up about me and purposefully provokes me all the time. As for some other edits by me, I already explained on the Ubuntu talk page that in hindsight I admit that my edits could be interpreted in a way I didn't intent. I didn't redo my misleading statements involving Fedora. Yet even after that, he accused of continued reverting, posted a made-up warning on my Talk page, ignored my wish to not talk to me anymore. I had a fruitful discussion with Josh but Walter continued to spread lies about me. I honestly feel harassed by him. -- KAMiKAZOW ( talk) 00:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I would comment that it's not entirely clear that KAMiKAZOW has exceeded three reverts. If I understand what Walter Görlitz is saying, he is counting each of the five edits linked above ( [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]) as having changed another editor's work in some form, on the technicality that at some point in the past, some other editor must have written and/or phrased the material differently, even if you have to go all the way back to September 16, 2004 when the article was first created. If that's the way it's being interpreted, I don't think that's a reasonable application of 3RR and it doesn't appear that KAMiKAZOW has been editing in bad faith. In terms of civility, however, telling other editors to shut up, f*ck off, etc., is clearly inappropriate, despite whatever perceived rationalization KAMiKAZOW might feel he has to justify uncivil behavior. Glancing at the Talk Page for the article, both editors would do well to take things down a notch or two and focus on working out the content instead of each other (just a suggestion). Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 02:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz was harassing me. I won't ever apologize for defending myself against harassment. He (falsely) invoked 3RR against me, even though he was involved in the “edit war” and the 3RR page clearly says “Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive.” This proves that he wanted to be aggressive against me. He pretends to be the victim despite being the aggressor. He demands a “civil” attitude towards him although he is actively working to push other peoples emotional buttons to anger them.
The facts are that I was the one initiating the discussion on the talk page to resolve the content dispute and that I already admitted that I used misleading language and that that was not intentional (it is clear from my user page that I am not a native English speaker and despite relatively good English skills I occasionally make mistakes as that one). After that I did not re-add the controversial part about Fedora. Nonetheless he kept escalating the dispute which peaked in this very discussion here. Under no circumstances I'll give in to his narrative that he's the victim. The worst thing I'm guilty of is getting emotional when I am attacked. He OTOH acted in cold blood. --
KAMiKAZOW (
talk) 03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Oncenawhile's behavior is unacceptably hostile on Talk:Mein Kampf in the Arabic language, constituting a violation of WP:Civility, WP:Personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith.
In fact, this user precipitated an ongoing hostile debate on the page with his/her aggressive comments, "How did this propaganda survive the deletion debate?", despite knowing full well that it went through the afd process [51].
The user then later followed up with this extremely unhelpful statement which violates all that I listed above: "This debate is perhaps the most absurd of all the valiant attempts I have seen to keep Zionist propaganda out of Wikipedia" [52]. The key issue is that Oncenawhile is so comfortable bomb-throwing, tainting all of his/her opponents as propagandists, which therefore implies that he/she is the real "arbiter" of truth. One cannot work with another editor that assumes they have a monopoly on the right and attacks others that disagree.
The troubling part is when I asked Oncenawhile to strike these comments, s/he doesn't even recognize how s/he has done wrong [53]. S/he thinks its perfectly acceptable, and not even negative, to label editors propagandists or as having specific political beliefs they have not claimed. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 15:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sebastian and myself are engaged in a content dispute at another page ( New Amsterdam (TV series)) where he has made several accusations against me, and also initiated a DRN. In the meantime he's followed me to other pages, in particular to Talk:Ben Linus where I had noticed that some comments were out of sequence, and in conformance with WP:REFACTOR ( "Restructuring... Moving a comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion") I moved a few recent (well, 2009) comments placed out of sequence at the top of the page to the bottom. Shortly after I found Sebastian had reverted my edit, stating only "undo as per WP:REFACTOR", which made no sense. So I reverted it with a comment that may have been provocative ("undoing revert by stalker"). Predictably, he then reverted my edit, but added the false accusation that I had "delete[d] others' conversations". In fact, not one word was deleted. I only moved entire sections. Then he proceeded to archive the page to make reverting difficult.
The edit history:
I posted on his talk page here, pointing out that he had made a false accusation against me (now enshrined forever in the edit history) and asking him to respond. He deleted my comment and when I reposted, he made this unpleasant response, full of more accusations of bad behaviour on my part, including an assertion that my edits were wrong, though on different grounds, but not withdrawing let alone apologising for his initial charge. I'm not experienced in negotiating the formal dispute mechanisms here; though I see that Sebastian has very often, but I need a bit of guidance: First were my edits above wrong or ill-advised? Second, how do I deal with this guy, who continually attacks my work, integrity and character? Barsoomian ( talk) 04:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I can imagine the the author is angry and disappointed about the speedy deletion of his article, but his reply to me contains to many insults... Night of the Big Wind talk 09:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Lugnuts told me to stop bitching about it!., with the "it" referring to my bringing up problems with the article List of cases of penis removal. Seeing as I had already nominated the article for Afd, 'i was fixing' the problem by having the article go through deletion, but he felt the need to swear at me just because the debate wasn't going his way. (he wanted to keep the article)
When I left him an explanation as to why the article should be deleted (it wasn'ta legitimate list, it was full of cases about random people unlike other lists which link to actual wiki articles), he told me to "get the fuck off my talkpage"
He was also very nasty and rude during the debate, saying WTF?! Is that the best rationale you have? Seriously? There are lots of secondary sources from multiple reliable outlets. End of., and saying "fail" in the edit summary, and "You clearly don't understand this"
He also falsely accused me of [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cases_of_penis_removal&diff=459854566&oldid=459853455 not assuming good faith (I never attacked him, I used the word "abuse" as a synonym for the word "misuse", ie., like "abusing his powers" when I noted Lugnuts was not paying attention to wiki policy, he told me to "come back when you are relevant'". Bunser ( talk) 17:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Bubblegumcrunch is repeatedly attacking other editors as vandals. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 00:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
My position is very clear. I am not repeatedly attacking "other editors". If you read the page in question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chancellorpink you will see my position. I believe the evidence indicates that user Mark of the Beast is, at the very least, supporting vandalism by his behavior. No one else, just Mark of the Beast. I believe he nominated a page for deletion in support of a vandal, and that his nomination was not in good faith. I believe the process, as it pertains to the page in question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellorpinkto was begun with suspicious timing and motive, especially the standard for notability has been demonstrated. Mark of the Beast has never addressed why he first WENT to the page, only 3 minuets after a vandal blanked the page, to nominate it for deletion. It would take longer than 3 minutes to carefully review the page and its sources in order to reach a proper conclusion as to whether or not notability was met. Yet the nomination occurred 3 minutes after the vanadalism/reversion. That's simply not enough time to make a good faith nomination for deletion, and the timing of the visit and nomination clearly appears to aid a vandal in their desired goal: to eliminate the page.
It was a page that stood unmolested for nearly 3 years. Then a vandal blanks it and replaces it with a slur, which is immediately reverted. Then 3 minutes later, Mark of the Beast appears to nominate the page for deletion. Again, where is the time to review the page? How could a nomination be made in such short time? Why would it be made, on a page that had just been rescued from vandalism? Then after the nomination is made, the vandal reappears to add some language to the reverted page, and that language is reverted again. Mark of the Beast has never answered the questions as to why he went to the page, only 3 minutes after it was vandalized, and chose to nominate it for deletion, only three minutes after a vandal tried to remove the page, etc. His nomination comes sandwiched between two acts of vandalism by the same person, and it is made in a period of time that is simply not sufficient to indicate a good faith nomination.
I believe the timing of these acts of vandalism, in relation to Mark of the Beast's nomination for deletion, should render his nomination as questionable, at best, with respect to good faith. I believe the good faith doctrine says as much, expressly. I believe the nomination should be dismissed, especially as the nomination is meritless on the facts. If nothing else, the timing of the nomination appears to be an effort to give the vandal what the vandal wanted, the destruction of the page. I would hope this site would look down upon any efforts that would appear to aid in the service of vandalism.
One does not have to BE a vandal, but to in any way aid a vandal's end should call into question good faith. A nomination for deletion made in 3 minutes or less, following vandalism, fails to meet the standard of good faith.
As for "etiquette", I am sorry, but in a case where there are TWO separate acts of vandalism on a page, and in between those two acts, someone nominates the page for deletion, only 3 minutes later, I do not believe that good faith needs to be assumed, even by your own rules, which, about the guideline of good faith, state: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism)." Bubblegumcrunch ( talk) 00:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I need some assistance; perhaps help and advice as to how to deal with civility issues which are causing me some distress.
My belief is that I have been subject to incivilty and rudeness from a user, manifested during discussions over recent content disputes; even with false and offensive accusations being made. I have attempted to engage the user on their talkpage, but have been unable to get any constructive response.
Example diffs showing the user's actions:
Example diffs showing my attempt to engage the user:
What can be done about this - or have I got to grin and bear the false accusations and general rudeness? -- de Facto ( talk). 16:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes I am taking them at face value. However, suggesting that martinvl was being uncivil is not supported with the diffs that were offered. You may not like his actions, but that doesn't make them uncivil. Now if he used profanity or started in with ad hominem attacks the lack of civility would be clear. WP:CIVIL: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Wikipedia:Etiquette is also a good read. I don't see incivility so I'll step back and let others respond. Perhaps someone else will see it your way. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any more advice about how to deal with the false accusation of 3RR trapping in this post to another user's talkpage please? -- de Facto ( talk). 13:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Things are very unhappy and hostile on the Protect IP page atm. This conflict started when Xenophrenic started reverting all other editor's edits and then beginning a very long, pedantic, bullying process on the talk page of Protect IP and Elinruby's and my talk pages. I tried to reason with Xenophrenic on the article talk page but the things he does and the things he says on the talk page are not always the same. I suggested to Xenophrenic that both he and I refrain from editing the article and I asked for a RFC to try to get new input from other editors. And that is when Elinruby arrived. He quickly discovered that he was having exactly the same problems with Xenophrenic that I had. Once Elinruby started editing Xenophrenic seems to have forgotten about his agreement to not edit and this caused me to post on the talk page about his behaviour. I posted what I thought was a reasonable assesment of his actions, but he removed it saying it was a personal attack. He may have a point. But only a wee bit. Honest. :| Probably I could have been a bit more calm about it but frustrations levels were high as I could not get any sensible answers out of him.
At this stage I am still refraining from editing the article and Elinruby is suffering the same treatment I got from Xenophrenic. It has got to the stage where they are arguing about individual words. It is difficult to cite diffs as Xenophrenic often makes edits in which he changes many things but only documents some of them. This makes the process of following what has been done very difficult. Elinruby has been doing a good job of trying to be calm and sort this out but things are not going well. Please help.
Morgan Leigh |
Talk 04:08, 11 November 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.
After spamming my talkpage with something I have no interest in, this user then resorted to name calling. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Is saying a user is actiing like a punk in an edit summery on a tal page a PA? Slatersteven ( talk) 19:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Denniss has been uncivil in edit summaries while reverting my changes to Fritz X twice (quote "what's your problem ?!?"). I left him a message on his user talk page, asking him to be a bit more civil. After that, I noticed that his user talk page contains more complaints about his edit behavior and that the history of his talk page shows he has removed at least one negative comment (from user User:JackJackUK). It seemed to me that Denniss would not get the point if I left it at that, so I gave him a "no personal attacks" caution. The user promptly removed it, again being uncivil in the edit summary (quot "You really seem to have problems ......."). I would like some advice and/or assistance on how to help Denniss understand that this is not the way to behave 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.
Please pay attention to User: Kansas Bear tone of writing here Talk:Abd al-Qadir Maraghi.He also posed unfounded accusaons and personal attacks against me here Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis to poison atmosphere against me. [71], [72], [73], [74], He accused me to do personal attacks against other users , but all of them were reaction to his unfounded claims and were not personal attacks, I also deleted some of my comments like this [75] to prevent further tension, but he continued personal attacks directed at Azerbaijani-ethnic people and me.I really could not tolerate these personal attacks,that would be of your kindness if you explain more about the problem that these statements have , to the writing editor.With Respect-- Orartu ( talk) 08:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I gave up.They can do what they want.-- Orartu ( talk) 17:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You ask what must you do. Well, first you need to acquaint yourself with the policies I mentioned above. You need to make absolutely sure that your edits comply with those policies in every particular and more important than anything else you need to assume good faith on the part of the other editors of the pages you work on. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and that is not possible if one of the parties throws unfounded and inflamatory accusations around about the others involved. Do not accuse others of racism. Do not make edits to articles that are not supported by reliable sources. Discuss proposed edits on the article talk page before you make contentious changes and if the consensus goes against what you want to do, don't make the changes anyway or continue to go on and on about it. Accept that the community has decided differently to how you may have liked, and leave it. - Nick Thorne talk 10:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Nick Thorne said "other editors seem to have been making all the appropriate comments": are these appropriate comments?"...not to reflect someone's personal vendetta against the Iranian government. And as user:In Fact has illustrated, your "posts" consist of grievances against the Iranian government and are not relevant to the discussion at hand.", other comment of User:Kansas Bear: "You are "not neutral" either. Your personal animosity towards other editors which you continue to post on SilkTork's talk page is a clear indication of your battleground mentality and non-neutral editing. -- Orartu ( talk) 12:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:NPA is intended primarily as a guide as to how we should guide our own behavior. We're not saying that other editors are following it perfectly, we're saying they are not making gross violations that warrant intervention. Your (Oratu) own conduct -- e.g. calling other editors "mafia" -- is not appropriate. What I suggest is ensuring your own behavior is scrupulously correct. You will then get a much better reaction from other editors. Gerardw ( talk) 13:23, 16 November 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.
A editor with a history of ethnic promotion seems to clash with several editors prior to my arrival. Unfortunately I am the current pick. The list is long so i will focus on the recent attacks. What confuses everyone is why they edit the editor and avoid discussing the issues with an edit - inline with policy? But Usually other editors get reported [83] but that usually backfires.
With regard to their claim of Stalking When an editor does things like this: [90] and Tamsier has even nominated the Islam article for speedy deletion [91] and edit warred over it! [92] He also nominated a user page for speedy [93]; attacked the admin in an unblock request calling them " people like you always cowar to the muslims" We keep tabs on their habits.-- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 13:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
etc etc.
Whilst I come here to edit and source and clean up unsourced articles, this editor this editor add tags and insults in the edit summary and is making people leave Wiki (e.g MenAfruka). I want this editor to be barred from editing Serer related articles especially when it concerns Serer religion and Serer medieval history which has a huge chunk detailing Serer resistance to Islamization and Arabization. I have lost total trust and confidence in this editor. Sorry I'm being honest. It would be preferred if other editors edit Serer related articles. Not this one.
Tamsier ( talk) 15:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I can only see section titles like this as uncivil and tainting any discussion that might occur on the talk page. I attempted to retitle, notifying Bittergrey ( talk · contribs) appropriately and it was not received well. I'm not bothering to engage substantively in the actual content of the section because I believe it will be fruitless, all I want is that my user name not be mentioned in an accusing title per WP:TALKNEW. Feedback or suggestions would be welcome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Now that we might have some unbiased eyes on the article, I'm going to reattempt an edit [103]. Per the Fringe theories guideline: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Since A) Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al are not independent and B) it contradicts the APA's widely published consensus document, the Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders, Blanchard's fringe theory must go. In WLU's version, it is discussed in three locations in the article. (Two of those locations contradict each other.) While this edit might seem a no-brainer, WLU has reverted it five times [104] [105] [106] [107] [108]. However, he seems not even to be clear on who's fringe theory it is [109]. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At user talk:Sarah777 SSwonk made a statement that I considered to be highly inappropriate [110], so I gave a "formal warning" explaining why I felt that way [111] (copied also to Sswonk's talk page). Perhaps this was over the top, and certainly Everclear has disagreed with my assessment. I disagree that it was, and would normally just continue to discuss it civilly so we could reach an agreement. If I had been presudaded that it was inappropriate, then I would have redacted and/or altered all or part of my statement. However, Sswonk's response to me [112] (also at mine and his talk) was full of personal attacks, "I formally reject your authority, because you use it to stifle critics, prop up your ego and spread fantastic, poisonous lies about other editors", leaving me disinclined to reconsider my original statement.
I would like independent validation that Sswonk's comments were personal attacks, that they are and were inappropriate and either a civility block of Sswonk, or a statement noting that a block was considered but rejected that explains why it was rejected (this is not saying that I cannot see any justification for not blocking, quite the opposite, but if a block is not considered appropriate I feel it would benefit all parties to understand why). Additionally, I would like independent eyes on my original "formal warning" and feedback on it's appropriateness or otherwise. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has basically accused me of article ownership and having a "personal grudge" in my editing. Ceoil responded, sort of agreeing with the anon. When I responded, merely asking the anon. to assume good faith, Ceoil's response here was to accuse me of being dismissive and arrogant. It is one thing to face baseless accusations from an anon. who, as far as I can tell, has made no positive contribution to the article, but to be attacked by an established editor, one who should know better, is another matter altogether. Rather than lose my temper, as I have in the past, and say something I would regret, I would rather someone intervene and suggest everyone be civil. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 19:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
* I have
removed the thread because it violates
talkpage guidelines. The anon's commentary on editors' behavior is out of place and would not bear fruit leading to improving the article...it essentially amounts to trolling and such threads should be removed on sight. I suggest ignoring Ceoil's lack of judgment.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Informed accused party of dispute - requested submissions before preliminary judgement is issued -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 17:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The article about Vietnam People's Air Force has people with bare IP addresses going in and reverting referenced information to unsourced, and likely wildly exagerrated numbers about aircraft inventory. Is there SOMEONE who can put a lock in the article, semi-protected I guess, so this can be stopped? Openskye ( talk) 12:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
As I was inexperienced back then (a week ago or so), I thought that putting arguments on different talk pages related to the discussion would help in getting more discussion on the topic. However, I saw my mistake and eventually linked back my discussion of 2 different questions on different concerns to 2 talk pages where the discussion is supposed to take place. Now i'm accused of forum shopping ...
And as i have noticed, several users have been really antagonistic towards me in general. Maybe it's the fact that my posts are too long, but that doesn't mean they have to bash my arguments with inappropriate response, I hope someone look into this and tell me what could I do. Thank You. Redefining history ( talk) 03:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
-- Senra ( Talk) 17:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I have just about had it with this editor. I'm one of those people that when I see an article with no sources (for example), I will quickly affix an {{ unref}} tag (or a {{ refimprove}} tag if more than one section of an article is without sources). Now, other users may come across the tags, disagree, and then remove them (which is fine; not everyone is going to agree with everything you do), but...starting around here (which stemmed from this), this editor has basically been following me around and removing tags I placed; not only that, but s/he is leaving very discourteous edit summaries along with them. I took him/her to task about it, to no avail.
Afterwards, s/he continued to leave comments on my talk page, in threads with uninvolved editors, in a manner that almost suggests that s/he is trying to start a WikiBattle. I told him/her to leave me alone, which s/he said s/he would do, but eventually s/he started doing it again. S/he eventually stopped again after I warned him/her I would take the matter to an admin, but... s/he soon went back to his/her old tricks (apparently since I told him/her to stay off my talk page, s/he is now berating me in edit summaries instead).
Basically, all I want to do is place a maintenance tag and improve an article without this user disputing everything I do (and attacking me). I didn't try discussing it on his/her talk page this time because I figured it wouldn't be right to post on his/her talk page when I told him/her to stay off my talk page. Would someone please get him/her off my back? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 19:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment Deary deary me. Both of you stop it. On the one hand it is true that any edit summary is better than none at all. Help us all Erpert ( talk · contribs) please. If you are going to tag an article with a terse summary such as tag then at least take the time to explain your action on that article talk page. On the other hand, you HuskyHuskie ( talk · contribs) should calm down. Whilst your tone here remains civil, it is my opinion that it is only just so. I suggest you both take a short break from editing any articles. Then Erpert should take up HuskyHuskie's offer to discuss your differences on HuskyHuskie's talk page. Do let me know how you get on -- Senra ( Talk) 15:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Erpert, your complaint centering on the argument that "if I place a tag like {{ unref}} in an article that doesn't have any references, does that really need an explanation?" is either disingenuous or ignorant. I have specifically addressed that matter several times, including here: (emphasis added for this Wikiquette posting)
The History section of this article has had a tag added to it that claims it may have original research. Unfortunately, since the section already has several sources cited (at least five), it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain which claims the tagger considers to be original research. There is one statement "Swanson far exceeded its expectations, and ended up selling more than 10 million of these dinners in the first year of production." that (appropriately) has a "citation needed" tag on it, but that's not original research-looking, it's lack of sourcing. Frankly, when I see editors whose tagging of articles constitute in the neighborhood of 50% of their total edits, I wonder if they're helping us or not. At the very least, when someone comes along and leaves a nebulous tag like that on an article, I think they should be required to explain what their concern is. Of course, some tags do not need an explanation. For example, if a tag says that an article has "no sources, and indeed, it has none, then I can understand what's the problem. But tagging like this, without leaving an explanation, is just rude and ignorant. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 04:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC) [15]
I have never complained your tags when their purpose was comprehensible and actionable. Even those that I would not place myself, if they actually had any promise at all of eventually improving the encyclopedia, I have left alone. The problem is that you do not appear to have given any thought as to what happens after you plant your drive-by-tag. Other editors are confused and puzzled, and not knowing what to do, they do nothing. And then your tag sits there and sits there and sits there. And sits there. And sits there. That's litter. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 02:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
severe comment HuskyHuskie ( talk · contribs) cease and desist and you too Erpert ( talk · contribs). This is indeed getting tiresome. There are over 3,300 words above that could be better spent developing articles. For example, if either or both of you care to pop along to Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire#Article improvements, your writing skills could be used more effectively. You will see I am only looking for 500 words or so. In the meantime, as I stated earlier, both of you should stop editing anywhere on Wikipedia for a few days (to cool down) then come back and discuss this issue on HuskyHuskie's talk page ( here) as suggested by HuskyHuskie -- Senra ( Talk) 12:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I need only 500 words for the Ely, Cambridgeshire#Politics section as described at Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire#Article improvements. I even provided a link to one on-line source to get someone started. Any well cited prose will suffice as I can copy-edit further as necessary -- Senra ( Talk) 12:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Southpole1, who has been repeatedly blanking the article's talk page, should be reminded to avoid qualifying another editor's attitude as "obscene" (see here moved to here), particularly when the other editor has been trying to resolve an editing conflict by asking a third opinion. Racconish Tk 18:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC) ...or writing this editor is "blinded by arrogance". Racconish Tk 17:54, 27 October 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.
Ankitbhatt has repeatedly made aggressive and hostile posts in the DRN discussion thread and on the talk page for Ra. One. He has been give multiple warnings, include extremely direct statements on his talk page. Right now, his attitude is a significant impediment towards resolving the dispute and his last post suggests he intends to continue. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Andythegrump has four times accused me of conduction a smear campaign against the occupy protests, [16] [17] [18] [19] I have asked him to withdraw these allegations but he has refused and basically accused me again [20] I would appreciate him being told to remove these accusations which are obviously untrue. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The Nazi Party support for the "Occupy Wall Street" movement appears to be widely reported. It is even making news down here in Australia, just today there was a radio report of the anti-semitic nature of the protests (apparently these protesters blame Jewish bankers). Someone needs to persuasively explain to Andy the desirability of maintaining civility. -- Nug ( talk) 11:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
As ATG has refused to remove his personal attacks I have done so, he has responded with further attacks, [22] I really would appreciate someone telling him to stop accusing me of pushing an agenda and conducting a smear campaign. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 17:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Draconian solutions do not work, and the claims implicit above in one comment that a person is a sock belong in the ArbCom area, not here. Lastly, hyperbole does not suit any noticeboard when such an act is being sought in the first place. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Regarding a content dispute on Rubén Rivera, User:Vegaswiki resorted to an ad hominem attack against me. I warned the user not to do that. The user then blanked the warning and repeated the attack. I warned the user again. In response, the user undid my reversion of the ad hominem attack. I now bring it here. – Muboshgu ( talk) 00:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I was cleaning user pages out of my watchlist and stumbled upon some Talk namespace edits that concerned me. Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Lionelt&diff=prev&oldid=457883397 I don't really remember any prior interactions with either of the editors involved, but it sure seems like at least one of the participants could use some wikiquette coaching! ( sdsds - talk) 00:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
For months now I have tried to revise and add useful information and pictures to the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York. Throughout this time, my facts and pictures have been reputed and removed by User:Mtking. Even though the page has minimal pictures (compared to other large research universities), he has taken the one's I add off multiple times. The pictures that I have uploaded show the University in a good light and reflect its history and its current nature. The pictures are also copyrighted well and have been taken by myself and a colleague of mine. I feel harassed now because it is so hard to edit and revise this wikipedia page. Thank you so much for your time and effort reviewing this case.
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Davidhar ( talk) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Roselese is an experienced editor with a history of incivility with a number of editors. On this particilar occasion she made this nasty accusation: "Kuru is ignoring the fact that Lionelt and NYyankees51 are tag-teaming." [25] Not only is she unfairly accusing myself and NYYankees, she is accusing Kuru of complicity. – Lionel ( talk) 03:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
User Feedback has for a long time made dickish comments to users who in his opinion are wrong including to me. I've kept quiet about this for a long time but I can't take his dickish attitude anymore. Voices in my Head WWE 02:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
An IP contributer, 75.21.113.40 made a testy demand for content on the talk page for Steampunk, which can be seen here. I replied with what I thought was a diplomatic response, and was answered with belligerence. This IP has subsequently had an angry back and forth with another user on that talk page and on their own talk pages. I won't get into those arguments here. Seeing that the IP seemed relatively new, I placed a standard welcome on the IP's talk page. I did not mean to be condescending, but that IP took it as such, and very hatefully removed the welcome. I later replied to a subsequent posting by this IP on the Steampunk page. I think my reply was quite civil, and was meant to help the IP understand how some WP policy works. The IP replied on the talk page again in an angry manner, seen here. I was later rewarded by the IP with nasty accusations, seen here on my talk page. Because I am not the only one who has been at the receiving end of this IP's talk page rants, the IP has been warned a couple of times. I am requesting that someone truly intervene to stop this IP from continued belligerence. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 13:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Once the previous complaint was archived he has again started with personal attacks [29] I should like some thing done this time please. The Last Angry Man ( talk) 18:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This began as an inappropriate imposition of a "consensus" on Free as a Bird that was developed in a time frame that meant no European was likely to be able to contribute. Despite attempts to restore the article to its state at the beginning of the WP:BRD process, DCGeist edit warred to keep his personal preferred version, a process that also involved making threats in an edit summary. Meanwhile on the talk page, we have:
To say nothing of other time-wasting contributions such as this and this while other editors have been trying to find a solution.
I admit I was frustrated at the start by the unilateral imposition of an opinion that appears to have been developed on another page, but DCGeist's conduct since then has been utterly revolting, while I believe I've been as calm as possible. I have also tried to move the discussion forward, something DCGeist doesn't seem interested in doing.
I'm looking for some advice to be given to DCGeist (who seems to be something of an infamous edit warrior, judging by his block log) along with any comments on my own conduct, should those be judged necessary. Absconded Northerner ( talk) 12:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
If you think accusing another editor of stalking is not a personal attack then I've got some bad news for you sunshine. Your whole attitude throughout this sorry affair has been one of totally unwarranted self righteous indignation. You need to learn a great deal about how to work with other people in a collegiate manner or else I suggest you might be better to leave Wikipedia to those who can. Trying to steam roller your own opinion over that of others - which you have ironically tried to do even on this noticeboard - impresses no one here and does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Instead, it wastes everyone's time and in the end I predict if you continue down the road you have apparently set for yourself you will be on the receiving end of an enforced Wikibreak. Continue on after that and you will eventually end up with a permanent block and despite what I expect will be your protestations to the contrary at that time, it will be all your own fault. - Nick Thorne talk 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Undid revision 458162180 by DCGeist ( talk); this has been discussed on the talk page (Amber Tamblyn, Odette Annable, Charlyne Yi) - and stop stalking
I'm getting a little fed up with people treating me like dirt for making a simple Wikiquette assistance request in the face of statements from DCGeist that nobody has denied are personal attacks, and harassment from DocKino that resulted in a strong piece of advice from an admin. For some reason several uninvolved non-admins are taking it upon themselves to describe me as the guilty party here. Incidentally, the irony of these people taking time away from their busy editing to tell me I should spend more time editing is breathtaking. As I've said above, every one of my claims is backed up with a diff, and I've seen nothing that denies any of my points. Why is it therefore wrong of me to continue to press for resolution on this matter? That's what this board is for and that's what I'm doing. There's an incredible amount of WP:BITE taking place here and it's pretty sickening. If I were paranoid I'd start thinking that it's a case of people deliberately BAITing me into making a personal attack, something I have never done and have no intention of doing.
Just to be clear, I'm not going to drop this until I see an admin close it. If that admin chooses to take no further action, I will be disappointed, but as long as the reason is explained - and they usually give decent reasons for any decision - I'll consider it the end of that matter. This is not too much to ask. Absconded Northerner ( talk) 15:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm really, really disappointed by the lack of any useful response to this. Maybe Onorem is right - I'll bookmark this discussion and use it in the future as yet another example of how rules are routinely ignored by admins. I don't know what the point of having policies is if you're not going to enforce them. Absconded Northerner ( talk) 10:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
As WQA is a voluntary, non-binding forum, AN is welcome to take the advice or not. The frustration appears to be a lack of understanding of the WQA process ... as Nick Thorne has noted, it is not an admin board. This is not to say no admins watch the board, merely that volunteers who respond are not expected to be admins. AN, my advice remains to adjust your own behavior and drop pursuing this issue. If you wish to pursue it further, posting a notice at [WP:ANI] is an option. Based on my observation of past disputes that I see as similar to this one, it is my opinion is likely you will receive feedback there similar to what you have received here. Gerardw ( talk) 01:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears that User:KAMiKAZOW isn't quite sure about civility. " Walter Görlitz: Shut up." and " And before Walter Görlitz starts lying again". At least the editor needs to be told to avoid personal attacks. The edit history on his talk page after notices about his editing behaviour Shut up, troll and F* off! add to my frustration with the editor. The former was after a legitimate 3RR warning was placed. The second was after the editor placed a 3RR warning on my page incorrectly.
The edit warring and not understanding WP:3RR shows that a visit from an editor who is disinterested in the subject article may be in order. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
As you can see he claims that [41] is a forbidden revert. That part was never disputed and previously simply contained false info that was corrected by me. [42] is also in no way a revert, just a clarification. He makes things up about me and purposefully provokes me all the time. As for some other edits by me, I already explained on the Ubuntu talk page that in hindsight I admit that my edits could be interpreted in a way I didn't intent. I didn't redo my misleading statements involving Fedora. Yet even after that, he accused of continued reverting, posted a made-up warning on my Talk page, ignored my wish to not talk to me anymore. I had a fruitful discussion with Josh but Walter continued to spread lies about me. I honestly feel harassed by him. -- KAMiKAZOW ( talk) 00:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, I would comment that it's not entirely clear that KAMiKAZOW has exceeded three reverts. If I understand what Walter Görlitz is saying, he is counting each of the five edits linked above ( [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]) as having changed another editor's work in some form, on the technicality that at some point in the past, some other editor must have written and/or phrased the material differently, even if you have to go all the way back to September 16, 2004 when the article was first created. If that's the way it's being interpreted, I don't think that's a reasonable application of 3RR and it doesn't appear that KAMiKAZOW has been editing in bad faith. In terms of civility, however, telling other editors to shut up, f*ck off, etc., is clearly inappropriate, despite whatever perceived rationalization KAMiKAZOW might feel he has to justify uncivil behavior. Glancing at the Talk Page for the article, both editors would do well to take things down a notch or two and focus on working out the content instead of each other (just a suggestion). Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 02:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz was harassing me. I won't ever apologize for defending myself against harassment. He (falsely) invoked 3RR against me, even though he was involved in the “edit war” and the 3RR page clearly says “Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive.” This proves that he wanted to be aggressive against me. He pretends to be the victim despite being the aggressor. He demands a “civil” attitude towards him although he is actively working to push other peoples emotional buttons to anger them.
The facts are that I was the one initiating the discussion on the talk page to resolve the content dispute and that I already admitted that I used misleading language and that that was not intentional (it is clear from my user page that I am not a native English speaker and despite relatively good English skills I occasionally make mistakes as that one). After that I did not re-add the controversial part about Fedora. Nonetheless he kept escalating the dispute which peaked in this very discussion here. Under no circumstances I'll give in to his narrative that he's the victim. The worst thing I'm guilty of is getting emotional when I am attacked. He OTOH acted in cold blood. --
KAMiKAZOW (
talk) 03:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Oncenawhile's behavior is unacceptably hostile on Talk:Mein Kampf in the Arabic language, constituting a violation of WP:Civility, WP:Personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith.
In fact, this user precipitated an ongoing hostile debate on the page with his/her aggressive comments, "How did this propaganda survive the deletion debate?", despite knowing full well that it went through the afd process [51].
The user then later followed up with this extremely unhelpful statement which violates all that I listed above: "This debate is perhaps the most absurd of all the valiant attempts I have seen to keep Zionist propaganda out of Wikipedia" [52]. The key issue is that Oncenawhile is so comfortable bomb-throwing, tainting all of his/her opponents as propagandists, which therefore implies that he/she is the real "arbiter" of truth. One cannot work with another editor that assumes they have a monopoly on the right and attacks others that disagree.
The troubling part is when I asked Oncenawhile to strike these comments, s/he doesn't even recognize how s/he has done wrong [53]. S/he thinks its perfectly acceptable, and not even negative, to label editors propagandists or as having specific political beliefs they have not claimed. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 15:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sebastian and myself are engaged in a content dispute at another page ( New Amsterdam (TV series)) where he has made several accusations against me, and also initiated a DRN. In the meantime he's followed me to other pages, in particular to Talk:Ben Linus where I had noticed that some comments were out of sequence, and in conformance with WP:REFACTOR ( "Restructuring... Moving a comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion") I moved a few recent (well, 2009) comments placed out of sequence at the top of the page to the bottom. Shortly after I found Sebastian had reverted my edit, stating only "undo as per WP:REFACTOR", which made no sense. So I reverted it with a comment that may have been provocative ("undoing revert by stalker"). Predictably, he then reverted my edit, but added the false accusation that I had "delete[d] others' conversations". In fact, not one word was deleted. I only moved entire sections. Then he proceeded to archive the page to make reverting difficult.
The edit history:
I posted on his talk page here, pointing out that he had made a false accusation against me (now enshrined forever in the edit history) and asking him to respond. He deleted my comment and when I reposted, he made this unpleasant response, full of more accusations of bad behaviour on my part, including an assertion that my edits were wrong, though on different grounds, but not withdrawing let alone apologising for his initial charge. I'm not experienced in negotiating the formal dispute mechanisms here; though I see that Sebastian has very often, but I need a bit of guidance: First were my edits above wrong or ill-advised? Second, how do I deal with this guy, who continually attacks my work, integrity and character? Barsoomian ( talk) 04:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I can imagine the the author is angry and disappointed about the speedy deletion of his article, but his reply to me contains to many insults... Night of the Big Wind talk 09:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Lugnuts told me to stop bitching about it!., with the "it" referring to my bringing up problems with the article List of cases of penis removal. Seeing as I had already nominated the article for Afd, 'i was fixing' the problem by having the article go through deletion, but he felt the need to swear at me just because the debate wasn't going his way. (he wanted to keep the article)
When I left him an explanation as to why the article should be deleted (it wasn'ta legitimate list, it was full of cases about random people unlike other lists which link to actual wiki articles), he told me to "get the fuck off my talkpage"
He was also very nasty and rude during the debate, saying WTF?! Is that the best rationale you have? Seriously? There are lots of secondary sources from multiple reliable outlets. End of., and saying "fail" in the edit summary, and "You clearly don't understand this"
He also falsely accused me of [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cases_of_penis_removal&diff=459854566&oldid=459853455 not assuming good faith (I never attacked him, I used the word "abuse" as a synonym for the word "misuse", ie., like "abusing his powers" when I noted Lugnuts was not paying attention to wiki policy, he told me to "come back when you are relevant'". Bunser ( talk) 17:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Bubblegumcrunch is repeatedly attacking other editors as vandals. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 00:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
My position is very clear. I am not repeatedly attacking "other editors". If you read the page in question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chancellorpink you will see my position. I believe the evidence indicates that user Mark of the Beast is, at the very least, supporting vandalism by his behavior. No one else, just Mark of the Beast. I believe he nominated a page for deletion in support of a vandal, and that his nomination was not in good faith. I believe the process, as it pertains to the page in question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellorpinkto was begun with suspicious timing and motive, especially the standard for notability has been demonstrated. Mark of the Beast has never addressed why he first WENT to the page, only 3 minuets after a vandal blanked the page, to nominate it for deletion. It would take longer than 3 minutes to carefully review the page and its sources in order to reach a proper conclusion as to whether or not notability was met. Yet the nomination occurred 3 minutes after the vanadalism/reversion. That's simply not enough time to make a good faith nomination for deletion, and the timing of the visit and nomination clearly appears to aid a vandal in their desired goal: to eliminate the page.
It was a page that stood unmolested for nearly 3 years. Then a vandal blanks it and replaces it with a slur, which is immediately reverted. Then 3 minutes later, Mark of the Beast appears to nominate the page for deletion. Again, where is the time to review the page? How could a nomination be made in such short time? Why would it be made, on a page that had just been rescued from vandalism? Then after the nomination is made, the vandal reappears to add some language to the reverted page, and that language is reverted again. Mark of the Beast has never answered the questions as to why he went to the page, only 3 minutes after it was vandalized, and chose to nominate it for deletion, only three minutes after a vandal tried to remove the page, etc. His nomination comes sandwiched between two acts of vandalism by the same person, and it is made in a period of time that is simply not sufficient to indicate a good faith nomination.
I believe the timing of these acts of vandalism, in relation to Mark of the Beast's nomination for deletion, should render his nomination as questionable, at best, with respect to good faith. I believe the good faith doctrine says as much, expressly. I believe the nomination should be dismissed, especially as the nomination is meritless on the facts. If nothing else, the timing of the nomination appears to be an effort to give the vandal what the vandal wanted, the destruction of the page. I would hope this site would look down upon any efforts that would appear to aid in the service of vandalism.
One does not have to BE a vandal, but to in any way aid a vandal's end should call into question good faith. A nomination for deletion made in 3 minutes or less, following vandalism, fails to meet the standard of good faith.
As for "etiquette", I am sorry, but in a case where there are TWO separate acts of vandalism on a page, and in between those two acts, someone nominates the page for deletion, only 3 minutes later, I do not believe that good faith needs to be assumed, even by your own rules, which, about the guideline of good faith, state: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (vandalism)." Bubblegumcrunch ( talk) 00:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I need some assistance; perhaps help and advice as to how to deal with civility issues which are causing me some distress.
My belief is that I have been subject to incivilty and rudeness from a user, manifested during discussions over recent content disputes; even with false and offensive accusations being made. I have attempted to engage the user on their talkpage, but have been unable to get any constructive response.
Example diffs showing the user's actions:
Example diffs showing my attempt to engage the user:
What can be done about this - or have I got to grin and bear the false accusations and general rudeness? -- de Facto ( talk). 16:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes I am taking them at face value. However, suggesting that martinvl was being uncivil is not supported with the diffs that were offered. You may not like his actions, but that doesn't make them uncivil. Now if he used profanity or started in with ad hominem attacks the lack of civility would be clear. WP:CIVIL: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Wikipedia:Etiquette is also a good read. I don't see incivility so I'll step back and let others respond. Perhaps someone else will see it your way. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Is there any more advice about how to deal with the false accusation of 3RR trapping in this post to another user's talkpage please? -- de Facto ( talk). 13:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Things are very unhappy and hostile on the Protect IP page atm. This conflict started when Xenophrenic started reverting all other editor's edits and then beginning a very long, pedantic, bullying process on the talk page of Protect IP and Elinruby's and my talk pages. I tried to reason with Xenophrenic on the article talk page but the things he does and the things he says on the talk page are not always the same. I suggested to Xenophrenic that both he and I refrain from editing the article and I asked for a RFC to try to get new input from other editors. And that is when Elinruby arrived. He quickly discovered that he was having exactly the same problems with Xenophrenic that I had. Once Elinruby started editing Xenophrenic seems to have forgotten about his agreement to not edit and this caused me to post on the talk page about his behaviour. I posted what I thought was a reasonable assesment of his actions, but he removed it saying it was a personal attack. He may have a point. But only a wee bit. Honest. :| Probably I could have been a bit more calm about it but frustrations levels were high as I could not get any sensible answers out of him.
At this stage I am still refraining from editing the article and Elinruby is suffering the same treatment I got from Xenophrenic. It has got to the stage where they are arguing about individual words. It is difficult to cite diffs as Xenophrenic often makes edits in which he changes many things but only documents some of them. This makes the process of following what has been done very difficult. Elinruby has been doing a good job of trying to be calm and sort this out but things are not going well. Please help.
Morgan Leigh |
Talk 04:08, 11 November 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.
After spamming my talkpage with something I have no interest in, this user then resorted to name calling. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 18:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Is saying a user is actiing like a punk in an edit summery on a tal page a PA? Slatersteven ( talk) 19:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Denniss has been uncivil in edit summaries while reverting my changes to Fritz X twice (quote "what's your problem ?!?"). I left him a message on his user talk page, asking him to be a bit more civil. After that, I noticed that his user talk page contains more complaints about his edit behavior and that the history of his talk page shows he has removed at least one negative comment (from user User:JackJackUK). It seemed to me that Denniss would not get the point if I left it at that, so I gave him a "no personal attacks" caution. The user promptly removed it, again being uncivil in the edit summary (quot "You really seem to have problems ......."). I would like some advice and/or assistance on how to help Denniss understand that this is not the way to behave 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.
Please pay attention to User: Kansas Bear tone of writing here Talk:Abd al-Qadir Maraghi.He also posed unfounded accusaons and personal attacks against me here Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis to poison atmosphere against me. [71], [72], [73], [74], He accused me to do personal attacks against other users , but all of them were reaction to his unfounded claims and were not personal attacks, I also deleted some of my comments like this [75] to prevent further tension, but he continued personal attacks directed at Azerbaijani-ethnic people and me.I really could not tolerate these personal attacks,that would be of your kindness if you explain more about the problem that these statements have , to the writing editor.With Respect-- Orartu ( talk) 08:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I gave up.They can do what they want.-- Orartu ( talk) 17:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You ask what must you do. Well, first you need to acquaint yourself with the policies I mentioned above. You need to make absolutely sure that your edits comply with those policies in every particular and more important than anything else you need to assume good faith on the part of the other editors of the pages you work on. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and that is not possible if one of the parties throws unfounded and inflamatory accusations around about the others involved. Do not accuse others of racism. Do not make edits to articles that are not supported by reliable sources. Discuss proposed edits on the article talk page before you make contentious changes and if the consensus goes against what you want to do, don't make the changes anyway or continue to go on and on about it. Accept that the community has decided differently to how you may have liked, and leave it. - Nick Thorne talk 10:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Nick Thorne said "other editors seem to have been making all the appropriate comments": are these appropriate comments?"...not to reflect someone's personal vendetta against the Iranian government. And as user:In Fact has illustrated, your "posts" consist of grievances against the Iranian government and are not relevant to the discussion at hand.", other comment of User:Kansas Bear: "You are "not neutral" either. Your personal animosity towards other editors which you continue to post on SilkTork's talk page is a clear indication of your battleground mentality and non-neutral editing. -- Orartu ( talk) 12:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:NPA is intended primarily as a guide as to how we should guide our own behavior. We're not saying that other editors are following it perfectly, we're saying they are not making gross violations that warrant intervention. Your (Oratu) own conduct -- e.g. calling other editors "mafia" -- is not appropriate. What I suggest is ensuring your own behavior is scrupulously correct. You will then get a much better reaction from other editors. Gerardw ( talk) 13:23, 16 November 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.
A editor with a history of ethnic promotion seems to clash with several editors prior to my arrival. Unfortunately I am the current pick. The list is long so i will focus on the recent attacks. What confuses everyone is why they edit the editor and avoid discussing the issues with an edit - inline with policy? But Usually other editors get reported [83] but that usually backfires.
With regard to their claim of Stalking When an editor does things like this: [90] and Tamsier has even nominated the Islam article for speedy deletion [91] and edit warred over it! [92] He also nominated a user page for speedy [93]; attacked the admin in an unblock request calling them " people like you always cowar to the muslims" We keep tabs on their habits.-- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 13:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
etc etc.
Whilst I come here to edit and source and clean up unsourced articles, this editor this editor add tags and insults in the edit summary and is making people leave Wiki (e.g MenAfruka). I want this editor to be barred from editing Serer related articles especially when it concerns Serer religion and Serer medieval history which has a huge chunk detailing Serer resistance to Islamization and Arabization. I have lost total trust and confidence in this editor. Sorry I'm being honest. It would be preferred if other editors edit Serer related articles. Not this one.
Tamsier ( talk) 15:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I can only see section titles like this as uncivil and tainting any discussion that might occur on the talk page. I attempted to retitle, notifying Bittergrey ( talk · contribs) appropriately and it was not received well. I'm not bothering to engage substantively in the actual content of the section because I believe it will be fruitless, all I want is that my user name not be mentioned in an accusing title per WP:TALKNEW. Feedback or suggestions would be welcome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Now that we might have some unbiased eyes on the article, I'm going to reattempt an edit [103]. Per the Fringe theories guideline: "Fringe theories may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way." Since A) Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al are not independent and B) it contradicts the APA's widely published consensus document, the Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders, Blanchard's fringe theory must go. In WLU's version, it is discussed in three locations in the article. (Two of those locations contradict each other.) While this edit might seem a no-brainer, WLU has reverted it five times [104] [105] [106] [107] [108]. However, he seems not even to be clear on who's fringe theory it is [109]. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At user talk:Sarah777 SSwonk made a statement that I considered to be highly inappropriate [110], so I gave a "formal warning" explaining why I felt that way [111] (copied also to Sswonk's talk page). Perhaps this was over the top, and certainly Everclear has disagreed with my assessment. I disagree that it was, and would normally just continue to discuss it civilly so we could reach an agreement. If I had been presudaded that it was inappropriate, then I would have redacted and/or altered all or part of my statement. However, Sswonk's response to me [112] (also at mine and his talk) was full of personal attacks, "I formally reject your authority, because you use it to stifle critics, prop up your ego and spread fantastic, poisonous lies about other editors", leaving me disinclined to reconsider my original statement.
I would like independent validation that Sswonk's comments were personal attacks, that they are and were inappropriate and either a civility block of Sswonk, or a statement noting that a block was considered but rejected that explains why it was rejected (this is not saying that I cannot see any justification for not blocking, quite the opposite, but if a block is not considered appropriate I feel it would benefit all parties to understand why). Additionally, I would like independent eyes on my original "formal warning" and feedback on it's appropriateness or otherwise. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has basically accused me of article ownership and having a "personal grudge" in my editing. Ceoil responded, sort of agreeing with the anon. When I responded, merely asking the anon. to assume good faith, Ceoil's response here was to accuse me of being dismissive and arrogant. It is one thing to face baseless accusations from an anon. who, as far as I can tell, has made no positive contribution to the article, but to be attacked by an established editor, one who should know better, is another matter altogether. Rather than lose my temper, as I have in the past, and say something I would regret, I would rather someone intervene and suggest everyone be civil. Thanks. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 19:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
* I have
removed the thread because it violates
talkpage guidelines. The anon's commentary on editors' behavior is out of place and would not bear fruit leading to improving the article...it essentially amounts to trolling and such threads should be removed on sight. I suggest ignoring Ceoil's lack of judgment.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Informed accused party of dispute - requested submissions before preliminary judgement is issued -- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 17:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)