This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Please could I have some assistance on the above article which I believe to be a vanity biography created by the user Ranger2006 - who appears to be Celia Green. Please see my comments in the discussion, but put simply, this article has been referenced to in a newspaper advertisement to suggest that this person is notable and requesting money for her. 86.160.229.161 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I ran across some comments that SpigotMap let on Talk:Bong. While I respect that SpigotMap wants to increase the quality of the article and the article desperately needs attention, SpigotMap is following a course of action on the talk page that is in direct violation of WP:CIVIL. I left a message on his talk page informing him of this, informing them that as a member of this community they must abide by the community guidelines including WP:CIVIL, and that failure to follow those guidelines can result in blocking. The response they left on my page was not in the spirit of cooperating or Wikipedia, basically coming down to "if others are not civil to me, I will not be civil to them." I do not wish to block this editor but I get the idea that they do understand the community guidelines, they do understand the ramifications, and they just do not care. Can someone please give this editor (or me, if I'm in the wrong here) some neutral feedback so they can understand how important the community process is? Triddle 15:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have put warning on his page that he should not post NON-neutral viewpoints. - He just keeps erasing the warnings. - In addition, he keeps trying to add "most successful console" WITHOUT any citations. - .... even though he's been asked by the other editors to stop doing that & stop adding non-neutral viewpoints. - Thus his additions have gone from merely "non-neutral" to annoying & repetitive. - i.e. Vandalism.
I've had enough of his refusing to listen. - Theaveng 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
He's back. This time he revealed my personal info (real name) on the Talk page. Also it appears he may be using a sockpuppet (Ciao90) but there's no way for me to know for sure. - Theaveng 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Skipping boring background... i'm making a huge effort to work with said user but the interaction has gone so wrong that i'm posting here.
A little while back he asked i find the "book of hebron" ( "Sefer Hebron" request - I added here, 17 Sep.). At first he accepted the source ( and even reverted it back in (1) (2)), but later he started objecting to information from the source being put into the introduction in what seemed to be a response to my rejection of jewsagainstzionism.com ( about us), a website introduced by a POV partner, User:PalestineRemembered. later he cited bigoted explanations on how racist and criminal the people of Hebron are (7000 people) to justify his rejection and insisted either we accept both or reject both.
Despite him asking me to find out (and translate) material from the source ( see here), he refuses to state acceptance of the source as valid on it's own - as is evident in this subsection.
sample diff: attempt at reconciliation - response.
-- Jaakobou Chalk Talk 23:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
As a note, this dispute also seems to be occurring on ANI here. -- Bfigura ( talk) 20:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've looked through as much as I can of this and I believe this is a frivolous complaint, stemming from a content dispute. I'm marking this as referred elsewhere, since there's an ANI going anyway. I believe that there are alot of issues going on here that are way out of bounds for the WQA, and I was going to toss my opinion out there, but I realized that it's really not something I want to touch with a 10 foot pole. I will say though that this, for example, demonstrates the fact that this WQA complaint was not made in good faith, and appears to be inappropriate. -- Cheeser1 07:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou (and N) -- Yes, I see that you both are having difficulty discussing your content/source dispute. But in terms of user conduct, I don't think either of you have egregious conduct. (Well, you both sometimes resort to unkind etc. wording, but not so unusual around here.) Your biggest problem is that you tend to over-react to tone and process, rather than stick to the subject matter -- e.g., the source, WP policy and the like. You distract each other. In article Talk, stay on topic, and bring up you process/civility concerns on a different page (your Talk pages or another User page, for starters, else maybe MedCab?). Then, edit down your article Talking to keep it strictly on the subject, no ad hominem comments, no tit-for-tat accusations, etc. If you guys can't exercise enough self-discipline to disattend the "static" (or deal w/it via another page, as I've described), then how can you claim to be qualified and capable of editing such disputed pages? Thanks. HG | Talk 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
comment by thread opener: this has nothing to do with the ANI, however, the RSN might be a better location to pursue the content dispute - i see, issues of civility mean nothing in this place. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 07:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.188.24.125 has been insulting me nonstop despite my trying to calmly explain something to him and I'm just wondering why such a rude person is allowed here to begin with. I'm not the first person he's shown a bad attitude to. He's very egotistical, ill-mannered and obviously lacks the ability to show common courtesy to others. Wouldn't it be better for the site if he was permanently banned? Bokan 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan
Above editor has accused me of "whitewashing" antisemitism on the Dalit Voice page, where you can see the history. Also said I had been "whitewashing" on the Antisemitism page. I take strong exception to this accusation. I also believe this editor to be a sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar and have reported this. As instructed above, I went to his talk page to warn him. I was not as polite as I usually am (I spent hours discussing patiently with Hkelkar before he was blocked and turned into a prolific sockpuppeteer and also was polite to his alter ego User:Nahartasanhedrin, who was blocked as an alternate account without being formally linked to Hkelkar). I do not want to spend any more time on what is essentially feeding a troll. I need some advice on how to deal with this quickly without tacitly admitting to antisemitic beliefs that I emphatically do not have. Itsmejudith 21:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide diffs of edits that you consider to be uncivil or personal attacks? Thanks. All I'm seeing is a content dispute, and honestly, if you appear to be removing legitimate claims about anti-semitism, then you are whitewashing - that's what the term whitewashing means, and if that's what he thinks you're doing, then that's what he's going to say. Now, is that really what you're doing? I don't know - I'd assume that's not what you're doing. But it's not like he called you a "big dumb nazi jerk" - not that I can see. So please, provide us with some diffs. Thanks. -- Cheeser1 07:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly is the locus of the dispute, but these AfDs seem to have led to an extremely heated discussion and accompanying edit warring right on the AfD pages.
Also note the accompanying talk pages.
Someone with a strong stomach should wade in and try to sort things out. (As a side note, I'm not convinced that the whole AfD thing was necessary, since it seems more like a merge proposal, but whatever.) < eleland/ talk edits> 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
These seem to have calmed down some. It's not quite resolved, but the heat/light ratio seems to have settled down. (And resolution should come when the AfD's close. Marking as stuck for now. -- Bfigura ( talk) 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If anyone wants to try and break impass, feel free.
I've received a few messages on my talk page from Fabartus ( talk · contribs) in response to a content issue that seem far more aggressive and uncivil than necessary. I've requested that he stop posting on my talk page and discuss content on the article's talk page. Any other suggestions? Thanks, Chaz Beckett 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Chazbeckett, I tend to agree that Fabartus ( talk · contribs) made some remarks that are, at best, not constructive. I added a request to his talk page that he be a little more careful about that. Once thing to remember is that even though you are not required to note edits on the talk page and explain them, it can sometimes help. WP:BOLD is a useful guideline, especially with non-controversial edits... but can hinder constructive editing when people disagree. While I am not taking a position on the edit itself, may I suggest that you ask for outside opinions? Perhaps a good place to start would be Portal:American_football where you can ask for help or take a look at how other articles have been written. Then again, maybe after a little time both of you will be able to work together.I hope this helps, and feel free to comment back if you think the situation still is unresolved. Epthorn 11:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be a good way to avoid problems. WP:MEDCAB is another non-binding method of resolving a dispute, but it too requires cooperation from all parties which I suspect would not necessarily be forthcoming. I'm going to call this dispute "stuck" for the time being. Epthorn 17:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Matter unresolved User Fabartus ( talk · contribs) believes he was in the right and rebuffed suggestions otherwise on his userpage User_talk:Fabartus; I believe he asserts that Chaz was uncivil by reverting Fabartus's edits. You can also see Fabartus' reply on my talk page User_talk:Epthorn. I have informed him of this dispute page if he wishes to make his thoughts known directly. If this continues to be an issue I am afraid something else along the WP:Dispute may have to be explored, although perhaps the two users (or one who chooses to be WP:COOL) should simply lay off the offending site for a bit of time and invite third party intervention in terms of content WP:RFC if the dispute continues. Epthorn 14:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
When User:Butseriouslyfolks slapped an AfD on an article that was less than two hours old, StevenBlack ( talk · contribs) went into a full-court press, removing and moving the AfD template multiple times, calling it "heavy-handed" and "bullying", and generally violating WP:CIVIL at every turn. Can someone with a little more distance from the subject step in and help this from getting out of hand? (I know nothing about the subject, but I do know this editor from the Fox community, and don't particularly want to be at odds with him.) Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan 05:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The comments that ButSeriouslyFolks brings to light (those on his user page) are very inappropriate. StevenBlack appears to be overreacting to what was a poor, but I believe good faith (now that the back-history of this article was given), AfD of the article in question. Nobody makes formal apologies, nobody besmirches work, etc. It was a misunderstanding, and BSF should be more careful in the future, but Steven began dropping uncivil comments all over the place and removed the AfD template (which is not allowed, without exception), which I believe was disruptive. He could have civilly and calmly made his case at the AfD. -- Cheeser1 07:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Alan Liefting's actions seem like a blatant disregard of Wikipedia:Revert#When to revert, and don't seem appropriate. -- Emesee 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on this [3] diff you provided, it seems an explanation has been provided, although it should have been in the edit summary. I'll leave a nice note on his talk page saying as much (since I'm willing to AGF that it was an innocent mistake). Since this is already at CfD, I don't think more needs to be done at the moment. Best, -- Bfigura ( talk) 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Following the publication of advice from the Cornish Language Commission to the Cornish Language Partnership at http://www.magakernow.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=38616 on 13 October 2007, here has been some seriously unwikipedian activity at Talk:Cornish language. Any peace-making available would be much welcomed. Some blocks on unregistered users may be needed and at least one registered rhetorical user needs some firm advice. Until persistent vandalistic behaviour is reduced it will not be possible for the article to be properly updated to an encyclopaedic standard. Vernon White . . . Talk 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Still unregistered users can edit the articles. If they blocked by the administrator that's the way surely protected from unregistered users from editing.-- Jeshermoza 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Editor DeRahier, whose expertise is in putting funny marks on foreign words, is saying that a link to the Golden Stiletto doesn't belong and constitutes spam. The Golden Stiletto is a resource for anyone wishing to learn about drag. It belongs in this encyclopedia as an external link, at least. Here is the headline of the blog. * The Golden Stiletto Suisse Kelly and Elle Beret report on everything d.r.a.g. -- performance reviews, product, illusion, tips, interviews, resources, culture, sexualite, cock soup for the drag soul. The Golden Stiletto is dedicated to building and raising the art and execution of drag. The blog does not sell anything nor is it involved in any profit making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainoahemolele ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — Kainoahemolele ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Basically, he keeps rewriting the "consensus introduction" that everybody agrees with, and inserting his own introduction (thus deleting valuable info in the process). Our requests for him to stop have been ignored and he just keeps doing it. I've already issued a warning on his talk page, but he seems to have ignored it, and continued his behavior. - Theaveng 20:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have currently had to revert edits on his/her talk page 2 times because he/she seems to be blanking the page in an attempt to hide warnings received. He/she blanked his her talk page again. VivioFa teFan ( Talk, Sandbox) 12:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that I really didn't know what I was supposed to do. VivioFa teFan ( Talk, Sandbox) 12:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Although I have not been able to keep my temper under control at all times, this editor has been quite rude to myself and at least two other editors in a debate about the fate of Enemy (military), see here: [4], [5]. I have advised them to assume good faith, apologised for any out-of-line comments I may have made and tried to assist them in improving the article. My comment on the editor's conduct ( [6]) was met with a personal attack - [7].
As well as this conduct on talk pages, the editor has also:
In an edit summary, GreenJoe made the allegation that I am a meatpuppet. I take this claim seriously and have repeatedly asked GreenJoe to either withdraw the comment or present his evidence at WP:SSP. Thus far, all requests have gone unaddressed. The exchange can be found under the subject "Edit summary" at Concordia University talk page, GreenJoe's talk page, and my own talk page. Victoriagirl 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably not a meatpuppet. Definitely a stalker with an agenda. Dominic J. Solntseff 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC) — Dominic J. Solntseff ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
A typical non-answer answer by this dishonest and disingenous editor, who works so very hard to push an agenda on Wikipedia while trying to Wiki-fiddle her way into an admin spot. Dominic J. Solntseff 23:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It's "counsel", Victoriagirl, not "council". For someone who does so much wikifiddling, you should be more careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.167.209 ( talk) 23:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Shabiha has insulted me over content disputes on multiple articles for almost two months, despite repeated warnings. This has gone on across the Deobandi, Barelwi, and Mawlid talk pages and also the talk pages of multiple users, and usually consists of calling me a Wahhabi, which I already explained to him/her is a derogatory term, in addition to other things. This has also been through multiple IP addresses signing comments as Shabiha during discussions on talk pages. This is what I dug up of personal attacks from just about two minutes of searching:
And from my previous warnings to this person:
I thought my second warning in particular got the point across, but apparently not. I found this while going to the talk page of a Wiki buddy:
I tried my best to warn this person to keep discussions civil and about the subject matter, and not myself. I really, really tried. They obviously don't take this very seriously, and I resorted to WP:ANI, and they directed me to here, as I wasn't aware of this noticeboard at the time. Any help would be much appreciated, because the person almost seems to disregard any comments I make as "wahabi propaganda" making discussion of articles very difficult. MezzoMezzo 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I am forced to re-state my original post here, as Leranedo does not thread his responses although he has been pointed to WP:TALK several times:
Original post—please leave intact |
---|
Leranedo (
talk ·
contribs)'s talk page is a collection of
WP:FAC participants imploring him to remain civil, explain his commentary on FAC pages, justify his NPOV claims, explain his copyedits, follow the instructions regarding Supporting and Opposing, and follow talk page conventions. (
Tvoz,
Karanacs,
Awadewit,
Arcayne,
Malleus,
SandyGeorgia; samples only, there are more.) Several editors have reached out and tried to reason with him (myself included, he has exhausted my patience,
Tony1 (
talk ·
contribs) reached out and
Epbr123 (
talk ·
contribs) gave him a Reviewer's award); several have issued warnings (myself included, worded as politely as possible).
[13]
[14]
[15] His talk page is hard to read because he unthreads posts, chops up posts, and starts new headings.
FAC is not like an article or talk page where edits are buried in history; comments at FAC remain on permanent record in {{ articlehistory}}. He doesn't appear to be heeding anyone's commentary, no matter how helpfully phrased and in spite of numerous editors having approached him.
His first posts as a newly registered user were to FAC statistics pages. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC) |
OK. So what do I do? Everything was replied to on the talk page already and I thought it finished already? Leranedo 06:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Replying again... Leranedo 07:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Leranedo ( talk · contribs)'s talk page is a collection of WP:FAC participants imploring him to remain civil, explain his commentary on FAC pages, justify his NPOV claims, explain his copyedits, follow the instructions regarding Supporting and Opposing, and follow talk page conventions. ( Tvoz, Karanacs, Awadewit, Arcayne, Malleus, SandyGeorgia; samples only, there are more.) Several editors have reached out and tried to reason with him (myself included, he has exhausted my patience, Tony1 ( talk · contribs) reached out and Epbr123 ( talk · contribs) gave him a Reviewer's award); several have issued warnings (myself included, worded as politely as possible). [16] [17] [18] His talk page is hard to read because he unthreads posts, chops up posts, and starts new headings. (SG)
Well, these were all replied to already, unless I missed a person's comment. I never check my watchlist so any comment or changes directed towards me would not have been received.
What more do you want from me? Are you trying to exhausted my patience? This is like a rerun of life. I'm not interested in that. My interest is stated explicitly on the user page. Leranedo 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, my talk page is perfectly fine. Starting new headings helps me reply as they become smaller. How is that a problem? Plus I had already addressed that and received no responds, but I didn't need for everything was peaceful. Leranedo 06:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
FAC is not like an article or talk page where edits are buried in history; comments at FAC remain on permanent record in {{ articlehistory}}. (SG)
Then anyone can see my honest comments. I have nothing to hide. Leranedo 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
He doesn't appear to be heeding anyone's commentary, no matter how helpfully phrased and in spite of numerous editors having approached him. (SG)
Did I not say "I will try to moderate my sharp and incisive remarks" or something along those lines. And many similar replies. Check the talk page, though not all replies are there, so look around. Leranedo 06:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
.
His first posts as a newly registered user were to FAC statistics pages. (SG)
Oh yes, I remember that so very faintly. I thought it had to do with a infobox that was blocking the statistics so that I could not see. I moved it so it was above the data so the viewer may see both, but apparently, you, if I recall correctly, moved it back to block the view giving some kind of excuse, that we should leave it to be blocked until the infobox was formatted correctly. It appeared, though I do not know, that you work at wikipedia if you were stalking the "FAC statistics page" for no reason I could see. I was there because I wanted know but I couldn't because someone placed it in a way to prevent knowing. Leranedo 07:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Part I: I had edited extensively many articles varying in their respective topics, always anonymously for I saw no reason to create an account. I explored
Part II: So then,
Part III: Now,
Note: I'm finishing my replies. This is too much trouble. Leranedo 07:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
so other readers will have a hard deciphering who wrote what. This can no longer be tossed off as inexperience; you have stated on your talk page that you have read several times and understood WP:TALK. These same sorts of editing techniques are making FACs unnecessarily hard to navigate and communication with you on talk pages time consuming. Each time one returns to a page, you've moved, removed, re-labeled, or altered comments without striking, and you don't thread your responses. I have re-posted my original post to the top of this page in a cap; please do not alter it; that means anything up to and including my sig. I have explained to you several times on your talk page that you should never move delete or alter other person's edits, just to make sure that we are clear. I cannot verify that any of the text outside of the cap is what I typed, because of the way you edit. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: I'm finishing my replies. This is too much trouble. Leranedo 07:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Leranedo, multiple people have asked you to follow the FAC format for giving your opinion on articles, either Support or Oppose. [21] [22] [23] [24] but you continue to use your own version, [25] rather than the guideline. As you've replied to most of these comments, it appears that you understand the problem but are deliberately violating the guidelines, with no explanation as to why. Karanacs 13:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not the first time user:Sarvagnya has done this to my Talk:India posts.
If user:Sarvagnya has some genuine complaint against me, he should pursue it in the relevant Wikipedia forums, but I am tired of his deleting talk page content. His general rudeness is one thing, but this is beyond the pale. Please advise! Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I am requesting user:Amarrg to open a Wikiquette Alert against me. I just felt, given what user:Bfigura gave me to understand in another context (about not increasing the volunteers' work), that this was not the best place for it, but if you think it is, please go ahead. However, please examine both the past and the aftermath of each of those incidents. As I say in my post, referred to above as "elsewhere,"
“ | user:Nikkul was banned for sock-puppeteering soon after I made my first remark. user:Szhaider is still banned (although in fairness to him, he came around to see that I meant well, and when I later came to his defense, he awarded me a barnstar), user:Embargo was banned for a couple of months within minutes of that exchange, user:Bharatveer had an arbitration case opened soon after that incident; I don't know what happened, but he too has disappeared. As for user:Bakasuprman, user:Sarvagnya, and user:Gnanapiti, they were all three, but especially the latter two, playing the game of what I called "knee-jerk" reverts without any explanations whatsoever. | ” |
My point is not to attack the characters of these people, but to make the point that my words were (inappropriate to be sure) responses to their behavior, not vice-versa. That nevertheless doesn't absolve me of responsibility for those words, and for them I apologize unreservedly to my interlocutors. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The changes were made of my own volition, not consequent to a response from Nikkul or anyone else. Here is the relevant section of the talk page. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul, you should be ashamed of yourself. After all you've been through on the India page, you go back to the goofy stuff. Why?Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PS. Nikkul, I apologize for my choice of words. I didn't mean to be demeaning. You are someone who is clearly interested in improving the image content on India-related pages, and everyone can see that you have talent and drive, so why not use them more productively? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In User Categories for Deletion, The discussuion of removing the category Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer was rather personal when User:WaltCip responded to my comment to "go ahead and delete the category but have you read previous debated archives dealing with this". I noted his first comment was a rather personal slight but I did not attack anyone personally. His next comment clearly equated my actions as similar to anti-semetism which is very offisive and highly personal as the subject at hand (surviving cancer like I did) has zero to do with religion. I ask that the volunteers review this discourse and rener any appropriate decision. Respectfully, Mikebar 07:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That's right. I've also agreed both of you guys. Well, For me we better ignore those minor concerns like saying "Do what you want" without directly hit your feelings but with in your senses. It's understandable that all of us have the rights of what to say or what to do but with the attitude without hurting anyone feelings or with no personal intention to hurt feelings. So we better ignore somewhat personal intention and it is just like a comment to accept and to response.-- Hannahmarqueza 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I used to be one of these annoying people and have recently decided to stop being a detriment to such a useful tool as this website. My personal opinion is that someone needs to step up and get rid of the guy or ban him indefinitly. I believe this because your not going to get anywhere with this type of problem unless people that have authority step up to do something about it. THanks
Weston 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Please could I have some assistance on the above article which I believe to be a vanity biography created by the user Ranger2006 - who appears to be Celia Green. Please see my comments in the discussion, but put simply, this article has been referenced to in a newspaper advertisement to suggest that this person is notable and requesting money for her. 86.160.229.161 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I ran across some comments that SpigotMap let on Talk:Bong. While I respect that SpigotMap wants to increase the quality of the article and the article desperately needs attention, SpigotMap is following a course of action on the talk page that is in direct violation of WP:CIVIL. I left a message on his talk page informing him of this, informing them that as a member of this community they must abide by the community guidelines including WP:CIVIL, and that failure to follow those guidelines can result in blocking. The response they left on my page was not in the spirit of cooperating or Wikipedia, basically coming down to "if others are not civil to me, I will not be civil to them." I do not wish to block this editor but I get the idea that they do understand the community guidelines, they do understand the ramifications, and they just do not care. Can someone please give this editor (or me, if I'm in the wrong here) some neutral feedback so they can understand how important the community process is? Triddle 15:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have put warning on his page that he should not post NON-neutral viewpoints. - He just keeps erasing the warnings. - In addition, he keeps trying to add "most successful console" WITHOUT any citations. - .... even though he's been asked by the other editors to stop doing that & stop adding non-neutral viewpoints. - Thus his additions have gone from merely "non-neutral" to annoying & repetitive. - i.e. Vandalism.
I've had enough of his refusing to listen. - Theaveng 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
He's back. This time he revealed my personal info (real name) on the Talk page. Also it appears he may be using a sockpuppet (Ciao90) but there's no way for me to know for sure. - Theaveng 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Skipping boring background... i'm making a huge effort to work with said user but the interaction has gone so wrong that i'm posting here.
A little while back he asked i find the "book of hebron" ( "Sefer Hebron" request - I added here, 17 Sep.). At first he accepted the source ( and even reverted it back in (1) (2)), but later he started objecting to information from the source being put into the introduction in what seemed to be a response to my rejection of jewsagainstzionism.com ( about us), a website introduced by a POV partner, User:PalestineRemembered. later he cited bigoted explanations on how racist and criminal the people of Hebron are (7000 people) to justify his rejection and insisted either we accept both or reject both.
Despite him asking me to find out (and translate) material from the source ( see here), he refuses to state acceptance of the source as valid on it's own - as is evident in this subsection.
sample diff: attempt at reconciliation - response.
-- Jaakobou Chalk Talk 23:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
As a note, this dispute also seems to be occurring on ANI here. -- Bfigura ( talk) 20:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've looked through as much as I can of this and I believe this is a frivolous complaint, stemming from a content dispute. I'm marking this as referred elsewhere, since there's an ANI going anyway. I believe that there are alot of issues going on here that are way out of bounds for the WQA, and I was going to toss my opinion out there, but I realized that it's really not something I want to touch with a 10 foot pole. I will say though that this, for example, demonstrates the fact that this WQA complaint was not made in good faith, and appears to be inappropriate. -- Cheeser1 07:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou (and N) -- Yes, I see that you both are having difficulty discussing your content/source dispute. But in terms of user conduct, I don't think either of you have egregious conduct. (Well, you both sometimes resort to unkind etc. wording, but not so unusual around here.) Your biggest problem is that you tend to over-react to tone and process, rather than stick to the subject matter -- e.g., the source, WP policy and the like. You distract each other. In article Talk, stay on topic, and bring up you process/civility concerns on a different page (your Talk pages or another User page, for starters, else maybe MedCab?). Then, edit down your article Talking to keep it strictly on the subject, no ad hominem comments, no tit-for-tat accusations, etc. If you guys can't exercise enough self-discipline to disattend the "static" (or deal w/it via another page, as I've described), then how can you claim to be qualified and capable of editing such disputed pages? Thanks. HG | Talk 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
comment by thread opener: this has nothing to do with the ANI, however, the RSN might be a better location to pursue the content dispute - i see, issues of civility mean nothing in this place. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 07:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.188.24.125 has been insulting me nonstop despite my trying to calmly explain something to him and I'm just wondering why such a rude person is allowed here to begin with. I'm not the first person he's shown a bad attitude to. He's very egotistical, ill-mannered and obviously lacks the ability to show common courtesy to others. Wouldn't it be better for the site if he was permanently banned? Bokan 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan
Above editor has accused me of "whitewashing" antisemitism on the Dalit Voice page, where you can see the history. Also said I had been "whitewashing" on the Antisemitism page. I take strong exception to this accusation. I also believe this editor to be a sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar and have reported this. As instructed above, I went to his talk page to warn him. I was not as polite as I usually am (I spent hours discussing patiently with Hkelkar before he was blocked and turned into a prolific sockpuppeteer and also was polite to his alter ego User:Nahartasanhedrin, who was blocked as an alternate account without being formally linked to Hkelkar). I do not want to spend any more time on what is essentially feeding a troll. I need some advice on how to deal with this quickly without tacitly admitting to antisemitic beliefs that I emphatically do not have. Itsmejudith 21:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide diffs of edits that you consider to be uncivil or personal attacks? Thanks. All I'm seeing is a content dispute, and honestly, if you appear to be removing legitimate claims about anti-semitism, then you are whitewashing - that's what the term whitewashing means, and if that's what he thinks you're doing, then that's what he's going to say. Now, is that really what you're doing? I don't know - I'd assume that's not what you're doing. But it's not like he called you a "big dumb nazi jerk" - not that I can see. So please, provide us with some diffs. Thanks. -- Cheeser1 07:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what exactly is the locus of the dispute, but these AfDs seem to have led to an extremely heated discussion and accompanying edit warring right on the AfD pages.
Also note the accompanying talk pages.
Someone with a strong stomach should wade in and try to sort things out. (As a side note, I'm not convinced that the whole AfD thing was necessary, since it seems more like a merge proposal, but whatever.) < eleland/ talk edits> 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
These seem to have calmed down some. It's not quite resolved, but the heat/light ratio seems to have settled down. (And resolution should come when the AfD's close. Marking as stuck for now. -- Bfigura ( talk) 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If anyone wants to try and break impass, feel free.
I've received a few messages on my talk page from Fabartus ( talk · contribs) in response to a content issue that seem far more aggressive and uncivil than necessary. I've requested that he stop posting on my talk page and discuss content on the article's talk page. Any other suggestions? Thanks, Chaz Beckett 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Chazbeckett, I tend to agree that Fabartus ( talk · contribs) made some remarks that are, at best, not constructive. I added a request to his talk page that he be a little more careful about that. Once thing to remember is that even though you are not required to note edits on the talk page and explain them, it can sometimes help. WP:BOLD is a useful guideline, especially with non-controversial edits... but can hinder constructive editing when people disagree. While I am not taking a position on the edit itself, may I suggest that you ask for outside opinions? Perhaps a good place to start would be Portal:American_football where you can ask for help or take a look at how other articles have been written. Then again, maybe after a little time both of you will be able to work together.I hope this helps, and feel free to comment back if you think the situation still is unresolved. Epthorn 11:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be a good way to avoid problems. WP:MEDCAB is another non-binding method of resolving a dispute, but it too requires cooperation from all parties which I suspect would not necessarily be forthcoming. I'm going to call this dispute "stuck" for the time being. Epthorn 17:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Matter unresolved User Fabartus ( talk · contribs) believes he was in the right and rebuffed suggestions otherwise on his userpage User_talk:Fabartus; I believe he asserts that Chaz was uncivil by reverting Fabartus's edits. You can also see Fabartus' reply on my talk page User_talk:Epthorn. I have informed him of this dispute page if he wishes to make his thoughts known directly. If this continues to be an issue I am afraid something else along the WP:Dispute may have to be explored, although perhaps the two users (or one who chooses to be WP:COOL) should simply lay off the offending site for a bit of time and invite third party intervention in terms of content WP:RFC if the dispute continues. Epthorn 14:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
When User:Butseriouslyfolks slapped an AfD on an article that was less than two hours old, StevenBlack ( talk · contribs) went into a full-court press, removing and moving the AfD template multiple times, calling it "heavy-handed" and "bullying", and generally violating WP:CIVIL at every turn. Can someone with a little more distance from the subject step in and help this from getting out of hand? (I know nothing about the subject, but I do know this editor from the Fox community, and don't particularly want to be at odds with him.) Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan 05:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The comments that ButSeriouslyFolks brings to light (those on his user page) are very inappropriate. StevenBlack appears to be overreacting to what was a poor, but I believe good faith (now that the back-history of this article was given), AfD of the article in question. Nobody makes formal apologies, nobody besmirches work, etc. It was a misunderstanding, and BSF should be more careful in the future, but Steven began dropping uncivil comments all over the place and removed the AfD template (which is not allowed, without exception), which I believe was disruptive. He could have civilly and calmly made his case at the AfD. -- Cheeser1 07:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Alan Liefting's actions seem like a blatant disregard of Wikipedia:Revert#When to revert, and don't seem appropriate. -- Emesee 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Based on this [3] diff you provided, it seems an explanation has been provided, although it should have been in the edit summary. I'll leave a nice note on his talk page saying as much (since I'm willing to AGF that it was an innocent mistake). Since this is already at CfD, I don't think more needs to be done at the moment. Best, -- Bfigura ( talk) 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Following the publication of advice from the Cornish Language Commission to the Cornish Language Partnership at http://www.magakernow.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=38616 on 13 October 2007, here has been some seriously unwikipedian activity at Talk:Cornish language. Any peace-making available would be much welcomed. Some blocks on unregistered users may be needed and at least one registered rhetorical user needs some firm advice. Until persistent vandalistic behaviour is reduced it will not be possible for the article to be properly updated to an encyclopaedic standard. Vernon White . . . Talk 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Still unregistered users can edit the articles. If they blocked by the administrator that's the way surely protected from unregistered users from editing.-- Jeshermoza 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Editor DeRahier, whose expertise is in putting funny marks on foreign words, is saying that a link to the Golden Stiletto doesn't belong and constitutes spam. The Golden Stiletto is a resource for anyone wishing to learn about drag. It belongs in this encyclopedia as an external link, at least. Here is the headline of the blog. * The Golden Stiletto Suisse Kelly and Elle Beret report on everything d.r.a.g. -- performance reviews, product, illusion, tips, interviews, resources, culture, sexualite, cock soup for the drag soul. The Golden Stiletto is dedicated to building and raising the art and execution of drag. The blog does not sell anything nor is it involved in any profit making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainoahemolele ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — Kainoahemolele ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Basically, he keeps rewriting the "consensus introduction" that everybody agrees with, and inserting his own introduction (thus deleting valuable info in the process). Our requests for him to stop have been ignored and he just keeps doing it. I've already issued a warning on his talk page, but he seems to have ignored it, and continued his behavior. - Theaveng 20:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have currently had to revert edits on his/her talk page 2 times because he/she seems to be blanking the page in an attempt to hide warnings received. He/she blanked his her talk page again. VivioFa teFan ( Talk, Sandbox) 12:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that I really didn't know what I was supposed to do. VivioFa teFan ( Talk, Sandbox) 12:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Although I have not been able to keep my temper under control at all times, this editor has been quite rude to myself and at least two other editors in a debate about the fate of Enemy (military), see here: [4], [5]. I have advised them to assume good faith, apologised for any out-of-line comments I may have made and tried to assist them in improving the article. My comment on the editor's conduct ( [6]) was met with a personal attack - [7].
As well as this conduct on talk pages, the editor has also:
In an edit summary, GreenJoe made the allegation that I am a meatpuppet. I take this claim seriously and have repeatedly asked GreenJoe to either withdraw the comment or present his evidence at WP:SSP. Thus far, all requests have gone unaddressed. The exchange can be found under the subject "Edit summary" at Concordia University talk page, GreenJoe's talk page, and my own talk page. Victoriagirl 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably not a meatpuppet. Definitely a stalker with an agenda. Dominic J. Solntseff 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC) — Dominic J. Solntseff ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
A typical non-answer answer by this dishonest and disingenous editor, who works so very hard to push an agenda on Wikipedia while trying to Wiki-fiddle her way into an admin spot. Dominic J. Solntseff 23:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It's "counsel", Victoriagirl, not "council". For someone who does so much wikifiddling, you should be more careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.167.209 ( talk) 23:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Shabiha has insulted me over content disputes on multiple articles for almost two months, despite repeated warnings. This has gone on across the Deobandi, Barelwi, and Mawlid talk pages and also the talk pages of multiple users, and usually consists of calling me a Wahhabi, which I already explained to him/her is a derogatory term, in addition to other things. This has also been through multiple IP addresses signing comments as Shabiha during discussions on talk pages. This is what I dug up of personal attacks from just about two minutes of searching:
And from my previous warnings to this person:
I thought my second warning in particular got the point across, but apparently not. I found this while going to the talk page of a Wiki buddy:
I tried my best to warn this person to keep discussions civil and about the subject matter, and not myself. I really, really tried. They obviously don't take this very seriously, and I resorted to WP:ANI, and they directed me to here, as I wasn't aware of this noticeboard at the time. Any help would be much appreciated, because the person almost seems to disregard any comments I make as "wahabi propaganda" making discussion of articles very difficult. MezzoMezzo 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I am forced to re-state my original post here, as Leranedo does not thread his responses although he has been pointed to WP:TALK several times:
Original post—please leave intact |
---|
Leranedo (
talk ·
contribs)'s talk page is a collection of
WP:FAC participants imploring him to remain civil, explain his commentary on FAC pages, justify his NPOV claims, explain his copyedits, follow the instructions regarding Supporting and Opposing, and follow talk page conventions. (
Tvoz,
Karanacs,
Awadewit,
Arcayne,
Malleus,
SandyGeorgia; samples only, there are more.) Several editors have reached out and tried to reason with him (myself included, he has exhausted my patience,
Tony1 (
talk ·
contribs) reached out and
Epbr123 (
talk ·
contribs) gave him a Reviewer's award); several have issued warnings (myself included, worded as politely as possible).
[13]
[14]
[15] His talk page is hard to read because he unthreads posts, chops up posts, and starts new headings.
FAC is not like an article or talk page where edits are buried in history; comments at FAC remain on permanent record in {{ articlehistory}}. He doesn't appear to be heeding anyone's commentary, no matter how helpfully phrased and in spite of numerous editors having approached him.
His first posts as a newly registered user were to FAC statistics pages. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC) |
OK. So what do I do? Everything was replied to on the talk page already and I thought it finished already? Leranedo 06:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Replying again... Leranedo 07:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Leranedo ( talk · contribs)'s talk page is a collection of WP:FAC participants imploring him to remain civil, explain his commentary on FAC pages, justify his NPOV claims, explain his copyedits, follow the instructions regarding Supporting and Opposing, and follow talk page conventions. ( Tvoz, Karanacs, Awadewit, Arcayne, Malleus, SandyGeorgia; samples only, there are more.) Several editors have reached out and tried to reason with him (myself included, he has exhausted my patience, Tony1 ( talk · contribs) reached out and Epbr123 ( talk · contribs) gave him a Reviewer's award); several have issued warnings (myself included, worded as politely as possible). [16] [17] [18] His talk page is hard to read because he unthreads posts, chops up posts, and starts new headings. (SG)
Well, these were all replied to already, unless I missed a person's comment. I never check my watchlist so any comment or changes directed towards me would not have been received.
What more do you want from me? Are you trying to exhausted my patience? This is like a rerun of life. I'm not interested in that. My interest is stated explicitly on the user page. Leranedo 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
And by the way, my talk page is perfectly fine. Starting new headings helps me reply as they become smaller. How is that a problem? Plus I had already addressed that and received no responds, but I didn't need for everything was peaceful. Leranedo 06:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
FAC is not like an article or talk page where edits are buried in history; comments at FAC remain on permanent record in {{ articlehistory}}. (SG)
Then anyone can see my honest comments. I have nothing to hide. Leranedo 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
He doesn't appear to be heeding anyone's commentary, no matter how helpfully phrased and in spite of numerous editors having approached him. (SG)
Did I not say "I will try to moderate my sharp and incisive remarks" or something along those lines. And many similar replies. Check the talk page, though not all replies are there, so look around. Leranedo 06:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
.
His first posts as a newly registered user were to FAC statistics pages. (SG)
Oh yes, I remember that so very faintly. I thought it had to do with a infobox that was blocking the statistics so that I could not see. I moved it so it was above the data so the viewer may see both, but apparently, you, if I recall correctly, moved it back to block the view giving some kind of excuse, that we should leave it to be blocked until the infobox was formatted correctly. It appeared, though I do not know, that you work at wikipedia if you were stalking the "FAC statistics page" for no reason I could see. I was there because I wanted know but I couldn't because someone placed it in a way to prevent knowing. Leranedo 07:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Part I: I had edited extensively many articles varying in their respective topics, always anonymously for I saw no reason to create an account. I explored
Part II: So then,
Part III: Now,
Note: I'm finishing my replies. This is too much trouble. Leranedo 07:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
so other readers will have a hard deciphering who wrote what. This can no longer be tossed off as inexperience; you have stated on your talk page that you have read several times and understood WP:TALK. These same sorts of editing techniques are making FACs unnecessarily hard to navigate and communication with you on talk pages time consuming. Each time one returns to a page, you've moved, removed, re-labeled, or altered comments without striking, and you don't thread your responses. I have re-posted my original post to the top of this page in a cap; please do not alter it; that means anything up to and including my sig. I have explained to you several times on your talk page that you should never move delete or alter other person's edits, just to make sure that we are clear. I cannot verify that any of the text outside of the cap is what I typed, because of the way you edit. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: I'm finishing my replies. This is too much trouble. Leranedo 07:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Leranedo, multiple people have asked you to follow the FAC format for giving your opinion on articles, either Support or Oppose. [21] [22] [23] [24] but you continue to use your own version, [25] rather than the guideline. As you've replied to most of these comments, it appears that you understand the problem but are deliberately violating the guidelines, with no explanation as to why. Karanacs 13:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not the first time user:Sarvagnya has done this to my Talk:India posts.
If user:Sarvagnya has some genuine complaint against me, he should pursue it in the relevant Wikipedia forums, but I am tired of his deleting talk page content. His general rudeness is one thing, but this is beyond the pale. Please advise! Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I am requesting user:Amarrg to open a Wikiquette Alert against me. I just felt, given what user:Bfigura gave me to understand in another context (about not increasing the volunteers' work), that this was not the best place for it, but if you think it is, please go ahead. However, please examine both the past and the aftermath of each of those incidents. As I say in my post, referred to above as "elsewhere,"
“ | user:Nikkul was banned for sock-puppeteering soon after I made my first remark. user:Szhaider is still banned (although in fairness to him, he came around to see that I meant well, and when I later came to his defense, he awarded me a barnstar), user:Embargo was banned for a couple of months within minutes of that exchange, user:Bharatveer had an arbitration case opened soon after that incident; I don't know what happened, but he too has disappeared. As for user:Bakasuprman, user:Sarvagnya, and user:Gnanapiti, they were all three, but especially the latter two, playing the game of what I called "knee-jerk" reverts without any explanations whatsoever. | ” |
My point is not to attack the characters of these people, but to make the point that my words were (inappropriate to be sure) responses to their behavior, not vice-versa. That nevertheless doesn't absolve me of responsibility for those words, and for them I apologize unreservedly to my interlocutors. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The changes were made of my own volition, not consequent to a response from Nikkul or anyone else. Here is the relevant section of the talk page. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul, you should be ashamed of yourself. After all you've been through on the India page, you go back to the goofy stuff. Why?Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PS. Nikkul, I apologize for my choice of words. I didn't mean to be demeaning. You are someone who is clearly interested in improving the image content on India-related pages, and everyone can see that you have talent and drive, so why not use them more productively? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In User Categories for Deletion, The discussuion of removing the category Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer was rather personal when User:WaltCip responded to my comment to "go ahead and delete the category but have you read previous debated archives dealing with this". I noted his first comment was a rather personal slight but I did not attack anyone personally. His next comment clearly equated my actions as similar to anti-semetism which is very offisive and highly personal as the subject at hand (surviving cancer like I did) has zero to do with religion. I ask that the volunteers review this discourse and rener any appropriate decision. Respectfully, Mikebar 07:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That's right. I've also agreed both of you guys. Well, For me we better ignore those minor concerns like saying "Do what you want" without directly hit your feelings but with in your senses. It's understandable that all of us have the rights of what to say or what to do but with the attitude without hurting anyone feelings or with no personal intention to hurt feelings. So we better ignore somewhat personal intention and it is just like a comment to accept and to response.-- Hannahmarqueza 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I used to be one of these annoying people and have recently decided to stop being a detriment to such a useful tool as this website. My personal opinion is that someone needs to step up and get rid of the guy or ban him indefinitly. I believe this because your not going to get anywhere with this type of problem unless people that have authority step up to do something about it. THanks
Weston 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)