![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I've become involved in an edit war in the article Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty surrounding these edits pushed by Ivantheterrible1234. NPguy and I believe they are clear violations of NPOV and OR. We have repeatedly expressed our willingness to work with Ivan if he has something constructive to add, but he has in return engaged in reversion, personal attacks, and threats of sock puppetry. I considered tagging the page for an RfC but based on Ivan's responses to my objections to his edits, I don't believe additional people weighing in against him will help. I would appreciate any help available. AzureFury ( talk) 02:21, 31 July 2008 (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.
Note: The user who started this thread has been blocked indefinitely for
meat puppetry, and disruption. These accusations should be viewed in light of that fact.
Jehochman
Talk
23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In the course of a dispute at the talk page on Michael Atiyah, User:Mathsci has repeatedly attacked me and other editors personally.
For example, he stated: "... a number of Indian extremists have tried to disrupt this page". The dispute in question has nothing to do with nationality; I have never indicated my nationality and neither, to my knowledge, have other editors involved in the dispute. In my opinion, this extraneous mention of my presumed ethnic origin is tantamount to a racial slur. (What adds notability to this dispute is that just prior to this, User:Mathsci felt the use of the phrase `Eurocentric history' by another user was very inappropriate.)
A second disruptive tactic that User:Mathsci has used is to repeatedly accuse me of being a sockpuppet for another editor User:Bharatveer. Although, there is no evidence for this, User:Mathsci has repeated this allegation here and here.
Nevertheless, I feel that the second transgression is minor compared to the first one. I am new to Wikipedia, but I hope that it is not considered `civil' to introduce and insult someone's ethnic origin especially when it is completely irrelevant to the topic. - Perusnarpk ( talk) 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Where is the "ethnic slur"?? "Indian extremist" isn't insulting a person's ethnicity; it is insulting their political position. Surely it is okay to say a white power group is Aryan extremists, and doing so does not mean I am picking on their race??? -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I have looked more thoroughly at the talk page of Michael Atiyah.
If Perusnarpk had distanced himself from these extremist sentiments, there might have been some point to this wikiquette posting. Otherwise he has completely misrepresented what happened. Any reasonable and experienced WP editor would I think have drawn the same conclusions that I drew from this interchange. However, here and elsewhere, Perusnarpk has gone out of his way to misrepresent those opposing him (notably most mathematical editors) and in particular the first two editors who had the courage to engage with him. It is disgraceful that even now he is allowed to continue his disruption across the wikipedia. Mathsci ( talk) 07:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that User:Gennarous has accused User:Cberlet of being a "Hoxharian propagandist" (it's at Talk:Fascism#Chip_Berlet.27s_intentional_holding_back_of_article_progress; it was quite a while back so I'm not inclined to go look for the original edit unless he denies saying it.) Unless I am seriously misunderstanding, that's a pretty nasty accusation (the reference is presumably to Enver Hoxha, former dictator of Communist Albania). As far as I can tell, it is not based on anything factual: I've read a lot of Berlet's writing and can't recall him ever having anything nice to say about Hoxha, so it appears to be a generic attack, like calling someone a Nazi propagandist or a Stalinist propagandist. Seems to me to be beyond the realm of civility. - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I see now that User:Cberlet has closed his account, and I don't know the circumstances of that, so I'm not sure how relevant this is. If (and I have no idea whether this is the case) this amounted to part of harassing someone out of Wikipedia, then I would think it would remain quite relevant.- Jmabel | Talk 31 July 2008 (UTC)
User: Your Radio Enemy has placed further messages on my talk page using harsh language. His nature appears unhealthy and obsessive. He has declared his intention to focus directly on me. His recent edits show that he is editing pages he has found in my own edit history. Libro0 ( talk) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not focusing my attention directly on him, I am seeing if he is doing any further damage to me. This passive aggressive abuse of the system is just more in his pattern of uncivil behavior. Your Radio Enemy ( talk) 18:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This user personally attacked me on my user talk page quoted: "I'll say again, I'm done with you, and I'll add a fuck you to boot." and "I will not see your response to me here, so "blast away" if it makes you feel better, you worthless editor. You have nothing to add to this encyclopedia in my opinion." Diff can be found here: [13] I think that the fact he is an administrator makes this all more of a bigger deal and people that cannot control their temper and lose control should not be in positions of power. -- Xander756 ( talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(OD)Your actions can't be isolated into individual edits, because your attitude and wikilawyering (yes, wikilawyering) have a compounding effect on anyone who tries to talk to you. The way you approach things leads editors to either a) lose their temper at you for eternally not getting the point, or b) ignoring you completely. We've all seen similar situations before. Some of us have even married into situations like that, unfortunately. Dayewalker ( talk) 03:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything that is actionable here. Xander756 has endorsed an editing practice that resulted in his rollback privileges being revoked, with good reason -- I won't go into that here. Keeper76, a well trusted administrator, attempted to assist you in re-obtaining rollback privileges, which you all but rejected. This is not the first time I've seen your name around Xander756, and this is only another case on top of another that all but certifies that you are not here to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, but to endorse behavior that is uncivil and generally awful. I can see why Keeper76 became upset at your actions Xander756, and I endorse his usage of the phrase "fuck off" in that instance, because quite frankly, there is few other terms available to describe your attitude on this project Xander. seicer | talk | contribs 05:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no personal attacks here. What I see (in the diff provided at the top of the report) is continued assumptions of bad faith by Xander756. Keeper76 took the time to go out of his way to try to help you Xander, and I can understand how he got so upset. I share the concerns of every single user who has commented here to date, and I strongly urge you to look at all of them again and modify your approach in the future. I too am of the opinion to dismiss this WQA as meritless.
Ncmvocalist (
talk) 11:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Point made successfully. :)
Ncmvocalist (
talk)
17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Xander756, I've been told to "fuck off" before on Wiki; in fact, in full view of several ArbCom members, and nothing happened to the person who said it to me, who is now an admin. It happens. I chalked it off, kept an eye on the person to see if it was typical of his behavior, and it hasn't been; perhaps it was just a bad day. By all accounts, you went quite the extra distance to provoke a generally helpful, kind and efficient administrator to post those comments to you; please examine your own behavior in the incident, or you will have a frustrating experience on Wikipedia. I don't condone uncivil behavior on Wikipedia, but this response from Keeper76, a good admin, is highly uncharacteristic, which raises my eyebrow about how far you went to provoke. Since you don't seem to be making many friends in a collaborative editing environment, you might considering dropping this for now, as I did when it happened to me. On the other hand, Keeper76, you should't have done that, and I'm sure you know it and I doubt it will happen again. Of bigger concern to me here is that some of the editors who frequent this page on Wikipedia, and who are elsewhere accusing a productive editor of any number of things, are completely discounting any validity to Xander756's issue here, undermining (again) the entire point of WQA: that is shocking. Dropping the F-bomb on another editor should always be addressed at WQA; I'm afraid that the editors frequenting this board have furthered rather inconsistent views of Wiki policies and guidelines and are undermining the purpose of this board, rendering this a useless step in dispute resolution, and giving the appearance of using this board to take sides in popularity contests. As much as I like Keeper and recognize this as an uncharacteristic reaction from an excellent admin to an extreme provocation, WQA is not a place for playing out popularity contests. Keeper, pls offer amends and tell Xander you won't do something like that again. Xander, pls examine your own behavior that led to this and then let it go; you've drawn a good deal attention to less than desirable aspects of your editing behavior, and continuing this is not in your best interest, even if Keeper's response was less than ideal. And the regular editors frequenting this board need to re-examine Wiki policies and guidelines and the ways that ArbCom might respond if this ends up in their lap, and begin to respond to issues raised on this board in ways that will further resolution of disputes rather than allowing issues to grow and fester, so that they don't end up at AN/I or before ArbCom. The people most in the wrong here are those condoning, under any circumstances, use of the F-bomb on Wiki: by doing that, you will only increase the chances that Xander will become a more difficult editor, and Keeper will end up in a protracted dispute. Please work to resolve disputes, not further them. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like an admin to look at my situation. There is evidence at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/GDD1000 and on talk pages that the user names I have listed are united in an attempt to harrass me and prevent me editing the article at Ulster Defence Regiment. The discussion page there shows that their involvement stretches back more than a few months and that they have strangled attempts by other editors to improve the page by similar harrassment, incivility, bullying and the use of propaganda against other editors. So far I have had an untrue allegation of sockpuppetry leveled against me. I have been called the, "Self confessed former Ulster Defence Regiment member GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest", accused of adding disruptive material to the article, deceiving other editors, making a mockery of this encycopedia, being dishonest, adding unsourced additions, biased POV additions and copyright violations, having several "brand new accounts," collusion, pretending to be a new user, avoiding scrutiny, lying, appalling, editing problematically and pretending to be someone else. The following statement was made by the DomerFenian user: "You are an editor with a long history of disruption, gross POV editing, edit warring and copyright violations, you should not be permitted to try and get a clean start under a new name, and deceive other editors by editing the same article pretending to be a brand new editor". The tags of my accusers are: Domer48 'fenian' and BigDunc Talk Everything I've read about new users, harrassment, good faith, the five pillars etc etc etc etc tells me that all of this is VERY wrong. Why should I, or anyone, be subjected to it? I do note that the user Domer has a history of being blocked for extended periods of time for similar abuse against other editors. All help appreciated. The Thunderer ( talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that I recently had an incident of gaming at the hands of these two users. Perhaps something can be done now. There is a clear recent history of disruptive behaviour. Traditional unionist ( talk) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Taken to WP:AN/3. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned User:Longchenpa will be violating WP:3RR while we dispute Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#WP:NPF_enforcement__relief. Can someone offer advice to prevent this. Zulu Papa 5 ( talk) 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
User:BehnamFarid engages me in an uncivil manner regarding an edit dispute to the article Khūzestān Province, removing sourced material and engaging in ad-hominem discussion. While his first challange did have some merit with regards to the applicability of the source, the second revert had no such reasoning included. I find his actions disruptive to my editing and detering to the quality of the Khuzestan province article and therefore request your assistance. MiS-Saath ( talk) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagreement over wp:talk, User:Blockinblox and User:Jeandré du Toit, diffs: [18] [19] [20]. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-03 t12:55z
Continued from archive page:
Thanks for your support Jaysweet. I have made those modifications as per your suggestion. I am not afraid of appearing bitter as long as the truth has been highlighted. I don't look favourably on the kind of flippant behaviour that Noclador demonstrated, regardless of whether it was directed at me or anyone else.
However, I do not know why this page has been archived as I do not consider it to be resolved - I have made several requests as per Ncmvocalist' comments and have not receieved his reply. I have made concessions and recieved none regarding the anti-User:Romaioi negative comments.
Romaioi ( talk) 07:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
UNINDENT
Reported on Administrators' noticeboard here. I have noticed that Romaioi did not alert Noclador to the report himself but another editor had to do so. I'm somewhat bemused by claims of a personal vendetta when Noclador has totally disengaged from this editor for weeks now. Justin talk 08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This editor, when asked in a civil way to explain an edit, is generally rude or insulting. Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here. I could go on. This user has been warned, blocked, warned again, etc etc. I have also seen many instances where this user remains calm and helpful but I think he should be warned overall for getting too heated and becoming rude. -- FilmFan69 ( talk) 18:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a follow up on a case of contested speedy deletion, which I deal with on the appropriate place -- see more here. This is also, I believe, a case of an editor who seems to be misusing his admin power by evading detail clarification of his speedy deletion nomination, and by letting the speedy deletion status on so that deletion was completed while I was showing interest in improving the posting and actively providing evidence why the posting was justified and notable.
As you could see on the talk page of the deleted IGO Search, I reacted on the 'speedy deletion' nomination mere minutes after it was posted today. I asked the admin, very politely, why this was done. Initially he cited 'blatant advertising', which I questioned, and he changed it to lack of 'notability', which I countered providing objective information about the non-commercial non-governmental nature and superb respectability of the publisher of the service described (mandate of the United Nations, 101 year history as an international research institute, etc.) I also said, citing Wikipedia help sources, that if notability was in question, speedy deletion was the last resort of an editor, and I asked him to reconsider. Afterwards he asked for sources, which I was ready to answer, were the article not already deleted in the meantime. It would have been enough if he changed it to possible deletion, giving me and other people more time to discuss deficiencies of the article properly. I wonder how is it possible that one single person, without other views, discussion, and without an editorial consensus, and especially without providing comments and time on how to improve a possibly deficient article, how can one such person cause deletion of someone's work. Moreover, when I complained to him about this very incident, still trying to be very polite and talking about his actions rather than himself as a person, he deleted both of my posts and posted an note on my talk page to which I could hardly, with my own words deleted, defend against.
Summary: I am all for intelligent discussions backed by clear and irrefutable evidence, and I am hereby protesting against single-person non-discussed deletions of the above user. I believe blatant deletion of other people posts is not a way of discussing issues described in them. I shall be very grateful for any consideration and recommendations as to how can I -- or other people affected by someone deleting their work without proving any wrongdoing -- proceed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjfulopp ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Repeated incivility and personal attacks towards all users who disagree with him [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31], [32]. Repeatedly politely warned by several users to no avail (latest: [33]). I've asked User:Moreschi to put him on civility parole, under WP:ARBMAC and he denied, in a rather colourful way [34]. Note here that Moreschi has imposed WP:ARBMAC on me for much less and this is why I considered him the first choice as a neutral admin.-- Avg 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
InternetHero appears genuinely to desire to improve the encyclopedia, but may need to be reminded of the social norms of collaborative editing. In particular, this user has accused me of racism. I requested that the comment be refactored; the request was received, but ignored ( current version after 17 hours and two edits by InternetHero to the offending page).
Clearly, actual instances of racism fall under WP:SPADE and WP:NPA, but the stated basis for this accusation is my contention that Telescope#History should focus on the historical technological aspects, reserving involved discussion of the theoretical underpinnings for History of optics and other articles in the same interwoven family. My contact with this user began when I answered a WP:3O about this dispute here. Reviewing the 3O history, I note that the request was initiated by InternetHero; subsequent canvassing of known editors led to opinions more to their liking. Rendering my considered opinion led immediately to an assumption of bad faith with respect to due diligence in reviewing the history and basis of the dispute.
I acknowledge that answering a third opinion request can be setting myself up for a certain amount of abuse, but I consider this behavior beyond the pale. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could communicate this to InternetHero. Alternatively, telling me to suck it up and go edit would also resolve this dispute. - Eldereft ( cont.) 13:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Enough editors have tried addressing these concerns that I'm not sure what WQA can possibly do here. An RFCC is currently being prepared. -- Mark Chovain 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Last night I stumbled on Masters of Horror after someone created an episode article for it using WP:COPYVIO material from IMDB. I redirected it to the episode list, only to discover one didn't exist. So, I spent a few hours creating an appropriate episode list, adding in the missing airdates and writers from a semi-list that had been in the main article. I then checked all of the other episode articles. All of them were simply plot summaries, some 800-900 words in length, and a few more copyvioed from IMDB. They all failed WP:EPISODE, WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and WP:MOSTV. As such, I redirected them all to the episode list. Artw began undoing some of these redirects today. When I left what I felt was a polite question on his talk page asking why, he left an uncivil response [35]. He has continued making personal attacks in the AfD for one episode, in his edit summary, and on my talk page. [36] [37] [38] [39]
I finally left him a warning for the last one on my talk page, [40] to which he responded with more incivility. [41]. Another editor has also left him a warning about the personal attacks [42] and his response shows no sign he intends to change. [43] I've never dealt with this editor before nor been in contact with him before today. He has barely even edited in the last year, so I see no reason he should be so extremely hostile towards me. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Taken to ANI, per below. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I could use some advice and help regarding User:AlexLevyOne. The account is just a couple of weeks old but already reflects several hundred edits of highly variable quality. While his intentions appear to be good, he frequently displays some pretty bad judgment, and despite the efforts of several concerned editors to engage him on his talk page, has responded simply by blanking their comments. Example here.
It is, for example, not a bad idea to scan articles looking for {fact} tags. But some assertions are more squirrelly than others and it is not always sound editing simply to remove the tagged fact in every instance. Likewise, several short paragraphs can often be collapsed into one, but not at the expense of legibility. This post to the user’s Talk page by User:Deor (blanked shortly thereafter) illustrates several of his problem edits: diff.
To sum up, AlexLevyOne makes some good edits, but many irresponsible ones as well. I think he needs to be reined in a bit – focused a bit better – but given his unwillingness even to acknowledge Talk page requests, I’m not sure how to go about it. As for his edits -- I’ve tried to repair some of them, but he is prolific and I can’t keep up with him. That’s another reason for this request. Comments, advice, extra eyes or hands are all welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 13:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, he's just charging along and I'm starting to feel stupid about larding up his Talk page with warnings that he's just ignoring. I think I'm going to go to WP:ANI. JohnInDC ( talk) 02:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This item can be safely archived - discussion moved to WP:ANI. JohnInDC ( talk) 13:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
User with long history of extreme incivility incidents [46] [47] , multiple civility and revert warring warnings [48] [49] and blocks [50], now openly instigates revert warring, making extremely incivil personal remarks seasoned with anti-Semitic rant about Jews in Czech language [51]"žid nemůže krásti -- on jen bere, co jeho jest. Peníze nežida jsou majetkem bez pána -- Žid má úplné právo si je přivlastnit" ("Jews don't steal, they take what belongs to them. Money of the non-Jew is a property without the owner - a Jew has a right to take it" and so on. I think open instigation of revert wars and openly anti-Semitic rants like this are not acceptable, and something must be done about it. M0RD00R ( talk) 07:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Krzyzowiec ( talk) 05:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I see little common ground for discussion with you for quite obvious reasons:
You've been advised to cut down propaganda accusations by neutral editor just weeks ago [60], and yet you've done it again here [61].
That said, even if I see little common ground for reasonable discussion with you, that does not mean that I'm not willing to discuss your edits with uninvolved editors. I always welcome outside opinion in cases like this. As you know your edits were discussed for example here and here. And also as you are aware, your arguments have been dismissed by uninvolved editors as "nonsense" [62] and "borderline for being deleted as unacceptably racist on a noticeboard" [63]. Lately yet again consensus has been reached that your edits fail WP:RS and other policies [64], but still you have reverted consensus version with edit summary "Revert vandalism" [65].
But the fact that when things does not go your way over the organization (National Rebirth of Poland) that you've openly associate yourself with [66], you resort to extreme incivility [67] or straight forward disruption [68] [69] [70] [71] this is nothing compared with this recent openly antisemitic edit [72]. Wiki is not the place where antisemitic canards will be tolerated. M0RD00R ( talk) 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
He may have been impolite lately, possibly biting another, as you can see here ( [73]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I agree to close this, but not before warning rspeer that another action will be higher in the dispute resoultion process. I say this not to be mean, but to control his behavior. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 22:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In the context of a dispute about possible vandalism from User:Maurice27, he has been showing a lack of civility with his own user talk page:
See in History of talk page from this user, from August 12th at 11:00 AM to 11:06AM.
Thanks. -- Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 11:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am quite thick skinned but BehnamFarid ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to have recent history [74] and I do not wish to inflame the situation more by delaing with him myself. Specificall I alert you to his personal attacks here and on another editor's talk page here. -- triwbe ( talk) 15:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Anonymous_Dissident repeatedly makes indirect personal attacks:
I was hoping that someone could help cool down a situation where a long-time user appears to be taking everything that I am trying to explain to him with great hostility. After posting in proxy for the indef. blocked User:Ryoung122. I left him a message on his talk page indicating that indefinitely blocked users do not get a say on Wikipedia and that proxy posting could have consequences. He responded not on his talk page, but on the talk page of the article in question telling me to be a little bit less of an asshole. I warned him not to be uncivil and gave him an opportunity to remove his comments himself, at which point I would have entirely forgotten about the incident. His response, again on the talk page of the article, was to accuse me of threatening him and to tell me to "back off, and cease being an asshole. I don't know who the hell you think you are, but grow up." I find this response entirely inappropriate given the tone of my comments on his talk page (note that I even prematurely apologized in my first comment, in case I was mistaken with his proxy posting), but I feel as if anything I could say directly to him at this point would only escalate the situation.
Canada Jack has been an excellent contributor over the past few years, as far as I can tell, so I am uncertain as to why he is reacting this way. I do not feel that, at this point, any use of administrative tools is appropriate, given his standing, so I was hoping that someone here could explain the situation better than I could, or at least in a way that he would take less offense. Usually the standard procedure would be to remove the incivility, but I am afraid to do it myself and escalate the problem but in this case I moved it out of the article talk page and into the user talk page. Cheers,
CP
20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikidea is currently using edit summaries to accuse me of trolling, stalking (despite the fact that I first edited that page on 24 February 2008) and for not being smart. On article's discussion page he also accused me of being a troll and expressing wish that I would go away [82].
He was warned to watch on his manners by User:84user [83], me [84], and User:Yannismarou [85], [86]. -- Vision Thing -- 23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
His latest comment: I wrote it you moron. -- Vision Thing -- 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up on the user User:Haroldandkumar12, he has been making repeated personal and civil attacks such as this and here and reverting whenever they're removed. He's starting to become a nuisance. Rehevkor ✉ 17:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This emotional editor usually doesn't edit pages, but instead posts uncivil comments at talk pages. I think we have to draw a line and give him a final warning or a block, since he's been warned before. [87]
He has also vandalised pages before: [88]
Here's examples of him being extremely uncivil often towards other users: [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]
The last four were from today. 62.163.232.175 ( talk) 19:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If you look at my history you will notice that User:Dfgarcia is constantly leaving me messages regarding his "profession" as an ESL teacher, and offering to "teach" me things. I have tried to ignore him and lately I admit that out of frustration I have lashed out at him. He constantly provokes me, and as you can see I have NEVER left a message for him that was not in response to a message that he left for me, usually without reason. Please ask this "editor" to cease with his childish games and snobbish attitude towards me and to immediately terminate his annoying habbit of posting messages on my talk page. I have nothing more to say to him, he is not leaving constructive advise for me for any other reason but to be cleverly demeaning towards me and to insult my character, much in the way an unpopular schoolboy would try to "tattle" on his classmates. Further dialouge with him is nothing more than a pointless waste of my time. Thanks. Wjmummert ( KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, he is attacking you. I will leave a note on his talk page promptly. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Done
Bettering the Wiki (
talk)
22:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... you don't get it either: [97]. dfg ( talk) 07:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing to substantiate your claims on that page,DF. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
*Sigh* This is only getting worse...I have no choice but to reccommend you to the mediation cabal. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Erm, what action? I did not do anything relating to this cases outside of here, or your user talk pages. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: Case re-opened.
Hello. I've noticed a bad side of Ward3001. In response to this warning, I told him that it may be best to tone it down a bit here. (Note: It submitted three times because I continually tweaked it after clicking save, but before the page reloaded.) Then, Okiefromokla said the same thing. He then dismissed our comments and left a nasty message at my talk page. I then explained and apologized for the misunderstanding and again, he dismissed it. I was wondering what I should do. Thanks! Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason I didn't want to write a note is that he would revert it, so what would be the use? I also reverted the template addition. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
For about a year I have occasionally contributed to the Traditional marriage movement article, as has Agnaramasi. It is probably fair to say we have "butted heads" on several content issues related to the article, but except in one respect the article content seems to be "good enough" for both of us. That one unresolved issue is regarding the inclusion of some sort of image that "makes sense" for the article. I found one that seems pretty good, though obviously not perfect. Agnaramasi has deleted it each time I have added it. The edit summary for the most recent revert included, "please do not add this rediculous image again." I do not think my edit was ridiculous! Moreover, I feel the wording of this edit summary ridicules my contribution, which is being made in good faith. With this note on Agnaramasi's talk page I attempted, in a civil way, to bring this ridicule to Agnaramasi's attention. The response from Agnaramasi does not appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for effective collaboration.
The underlying content issue can be discussed at Talk:Traditional_marriage_movement#Picture_needed, should anyone wish to express an opinion on that. This "Wikiquette alerts" forum was the only place I could find to ask for peer review of the meta-issue of civility, particularly in the (essentially unalterable) edit summaries. ( sdsds - talk) 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Libro0 thinks I am heading up some big sockpuppet ring to drive him crazy or something. He is trying to hide his talk page. He has made two sockpuppet cases against me at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy (2nd) claiming everyone who is against him is a sockpuppet and claims crazy evidence. He has acted in an uncivl way all because he wasn't getting his way in baseball card articles. He needs to be removed. Baseball Card Guy ( talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I archived the talk page because it has become very long. Everything in there still remains viewable. Libro0 ( talk) 18:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Constantly adding "sockpuppets" to my page, despite having no evidence to say they are mine. have requested that s/he stop as the "sockpuppets" are not mine (one is my IP address, another is my old work IP, so should be removed as my old work may be used by another editor, and another is from my old PC in my old home - the only one that is mine is my current IP address) and he simply stated that I was a "liar". He has repeatedly reverted my (correct edits). TBH, I think a warning should suffice in the first instance, but if he continues a ban may be neccesary. Thanks. Step13thirteen ( talk) 16:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have finally reached the limit of my politeness with the above-noted editor. One day, while monitoring "recent changes" I saw a rather heated response in the Talk Page of Silent Hill. I stopped by to help to resolve the issue. Very early on, I was attacked by this user, and referred on their discussion page as a "pervert". I have since been accused of being a sockpuppet (although not officially, even though I have asked them to), been told that I'm a liar and a freak. Sadly, they have referred to others in involved in the same mediation efforts as "stalkers" and "psychos". I have tried to assist the editor, and politely help them to actually understand policy and even the concept of AGF. One day, I even gave them an official "welcome" using the cookie-based template to show that I was honestly friendly.
Not long ago, the editor again referred to me as a sockpuppet, and a liarm and I placed a comment on their dicussion page that VERY firmly (as I should have before) advised them of how disturbing their comments were.
They then blanked there page, and called me a "pervert" in the edit SUMMARY.
That was indeed the last straw. I am now in permanent record a pervert - that's libel, and is not acceptable conduct on ANY internet site, let alone on Wikipedia.
This may have to be escalated, as they already have shown a propensity to not respect admins, and I see little chance that they will change.
I am done trying to defend this editor and their right to edit when I am abused and attacked, and called a "pervert". This editor needs to be stopped.
Sorry to disturb, but I will truly appreciate whoever's assistance. BMW (drive) 23:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Ckatz is a "consensus monkey" - he contributes virtually nothing to the talk page, then he re-writes the article saying it's the consensus - leave the re-writes to those actually actively discussing things, I say. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please do read, as Ckatz said, "the utterly unreasonable sockpuppet claim and 'checkuser' request directed at Ashill, Serendipodous," and Ckatz. You will find my language there to be soft-peddling. Of course the three users would think that the accusation itself was unreasonable, but I did give good reasons for my suspicions.
- Having learned a bit more about the community and how to examine user activities I now realise that it would be a pretty amazing amount of planning and "acting" required for these three to be sockpuppets. Live & learn, I say.
This user has been engaging in mass reversion of maintainence tags including:
I believe that unsourced POV is unencylopedic and unhelpful, and his edits are disruptive and detremential to the project Fasach Nua ( talk) 08:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like someone to take a look at the incivility I am having to endure from this user. I commenced posting at 16:19 on 29th July. By 17:59 this report had been submitted accusing me of abusive sockpuppetry, which was never the case. You can also see the use of propaganda POV editing, conflict of interest, disruptive editing, copyright violations, edit warring, and "a mockery of Wikipedia". The abuse continued under the guise of the complaint calling me "a self confessed UDR man" which I presume was intended to indicate I was not a fit person to edit the article at Ulster Defence Regiment, accusing me of having several brand new accounts, and deceiving other editors. Because of the perceived harrassment I reported the matter on this page here and as you can see admonishments were handed out by Admins. As you can see I attempted to redress the issue by inviting the user to participate here and here. My attempts at friendliness were rebuffed by incivil comments as the user removed my entries from his talk page, on several of them accusing me of policy violations. On my own talk page I was again accused of violating policy here. I have resolved myself not to become involved with this user again where possible because he seems to have the ability to make me lose my cool. I do note however he has a long track record of incivility to a number of users and (I believe) had a ban for the very same thing quite recently. I do not feel this type of behaviour has any place in Wikipedia and respectfully ask for an interested admin to look into it. The Thunderer ( talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Various users on the Anglophilia article have been on the receiving end of some rather uncivil behaviour from the above-mentioned user.
These provide some examples of the kind of aggressive discussion that we think breaches Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL policies. - Francis Tyers · 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've been working on Berlin for a couple of days now. It had a lot of dead links and a lot of the references weren't formatted consistently. I repaired the links, formatted and added a couple of references and changed some of the pictures to better versions of the same subjects. About 60 edits in all so quite a lot of work. Then I got this message on my talk page [107] and this editor reverted all 60 edits in one go [108] including back to all the broken links. I reverted the edit [109]. Please can someone help, I will try and reason with the person as well regarding sources though I feel a 60-edit revert needs to be reported somewhere. thanks very much Tom ( talk) 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum ( talk · contribs) has made comments on User_talk:Tony1#Further_observations, [110] (now reverted by another user) and User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Date_linking that I consider rude, insulting and to be personal attacks, simply because I questioned another user for going through pages and systematically removing links from dates.
User:Malleus Fatuorum has made no effort to state his case for removing date links (I'm always open to listening to people's point of view or suggestions of a new policy!) and has instead simply posted insults on the talk pages. Please could someone have a look at this? Thanks, JRawle ( Talk) 09:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This user seems intent on making unevidenced accusations that I am a sockpuppet and a troll [ [111]] . I've directed him to WP:RFCU but to no avail. His accusations run counter to the guideline WP:BITE and his comments are in the lowest levels of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution hierarchy of disagreement. He has made massive changes to my userspace, which while allowed under WP:userspace, is generally considered impolite. -- ENAIC ( talk) 07:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE TO GO WITH THIS. There is some very suspicious (and racist) behavior by one (perhaps socketpuppetry) or two editors advocating terrorism of the July 2005 Bombings on this page. The admin has blocked content change. Please help. I am new to wiki and dont know how to fight them Do not let the terrorists win-- MissOrgum1996 ( talk) 10:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
A recent dispute on Template talk:Sexual orientation has been getting a bit nasty, recently. In particular, when responding to this comment from Alynna Kasmira, another user named Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield said "you are just like a child with a semi-automatic pistol" and made a further allusion to (I think) what they called Alynna's "poor education." Benjiboi said that he found Nigel's comment offensive, to which Nigel replied that "offense is part of learning" and that he has an absolute right to offend. See Benjiboi's next reply and Nigel's following retort. When I reminded Nigel of his obligation to maintain civil dialogue, I was told to "suck the lemon" (I'm not sure if I should be offended or not?).
I would love to see a return to calm conversation, but doubt I can achieve that acting alone, at this point. A little help? – Luna Santin ( talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Errr... Is this him? Is this about him? I only add these items because I started searching for the credentials of a Dr ... even I can call myself a Doctor on the Internet. However, when one asserts a level of knowledge on a subject, and decides they are "right" because they are a Doctor, one must determine veracity. There cannot be a large number of people with this EXACT name who are doctors. BMW (drive) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
HarryAlffa has been acting uncivilly in Talk:Solar System for some time, but his behaviour has been tolerated by other users because he has to date skirted the boundary of outright personal attacks. But his most recent post has crossed the line, and I think he needs to be disciplined. Serendi pod ous 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The "drunk" comment didn't bother me. In fact I didn't even notice it. What bothered me was this comment:
if you really are a scientist, it has to be concluded that you are not a very good one.
C'mon, you're a computer technician at an observatory aren't you! Confess all!
Serendi pod ous 07:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to plead ignorance of wikipedia community activities, having not taken part in any.
I think it was Ashill who mentioned sockpuppets at one point, and having scanned the article I thought the three users fitted. Please do read "the utterly unreasonable sockpuppet claim and 'checkuser' request directed at Ashill, Serendipodous," and Ckatz. You will find my language there to be soft-peddling. Of course the three users would think that the accusation itself was unreasonable, but I did give good reasons for my suspicions.
Having learned a bit more about the community and how to examine user activities I now realise that it would be a pretty amazing amount of planning and "acting" required for these three to be sockpuppets. Live & learn, I say. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
HarryAlffa's Incivility
Serendipodous said I had "been acting uncivilly in Talk:Solar System for some time ... skirted the boundary of outright personal attacks". I will show this cannot be unsubstantiated.
All of these neutral comments were made by me in the process of discussion. You won't want to read them all, but scan them for "emotional" content.
From the 10th of August my patience starts to wear thin.
I think I've shown that I haven't been uncivil, so far!
The next comment shows some annoyance, but it gives a reason.
My next comments show I don't suffer fools gladly. It's my only character flaw. :). But you couldn't describe it as uncivil.
You still couldn't describe anything I've said as uncivil, nor have I come close to a personal attack. Later I will show that it was Sorendipodus who was uncivil.
Then at 20:55, 14 August 2008, came my expression of amazement at the stupidity of Ashill's comments on my suggested re-write. From his claim to be an ISM Scientist and my analysis of this and many of his other comments I concluded that his analytical skills would make him a poor scientist of any sort, I then took a wild guess that he was a computer technician - nothing wrong with that, I was one for many years. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorendipodus's Incivility
I wouldn't actually describe Sorendipodus's comments as uncivil, but you can see the unprovoked, irrational emotion they show.
You will notice that all of the above were on 31 July, compare them to my neutral comments on the same day.
He then made two neutral comments on other editors, then his next comment to me issues a challenge, and the claims to a "first version" are not true.
He made some silly edits to my prose replacement for a bullet list, then later "remembers" that edit was his original! Add this to the unintelligent aspect of his other comments, then in much the same way as I dismiss President George W Gump as an idiot, from that point forward I considered Sorendipodus incapable of useful cogitation. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Borderline insult by creating User:HarryAlffa/May_contain_nuts
On this Wikiquette alert Ashill said of this, "the title seemed to me like it may be calling the page's editors 'nuts' " - I hadn't thought of that before, but neither had Ashill, otherwise he would have said something of the like before. The page I created was all about how boring the ingredients list for a sandwich was, apart from the famous phrase. It in no way could be thought to be saying that editors were nuts, being nuts would at least be interesting, not boring. Is Ashill being a little dishonest here, or is he just showing a lack of cognitive ability? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
accusations of dishonesty in edit summaries
My comments in chronological order;
Myself and Serendipodous were actively editing this paragraph, as was Ashil, then he removed it.
So two active editors, then Ashill and Ckatz remove it. Can that be said to be concensus for removal? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 22:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I was the 3rd party in a previous alert, and he repeatedly attacked me ,as you can see here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
As no-one responded in quite some time, I am tagging as "stale".
Bettering the Wiki (
talk)
15:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I am reopening, as dfg just was rude on my talk page(2nd item under "Mediation Cabal template"). I have warned him. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I forgot, for part of an edit summary on my talk page dfg posted, "pbbbbt". Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user "acrchives" or deletes anything they don't like. If you check the Barack Obama article and the Family of Barack Obama article you'll see that they have archived discussion that hadn't been ended. This user is not an administrator, but acts like one. You'll also notice that they have archived many other things they don't like, and several users have asked wikidemo to stop deleting things on wikidemos talk page. This user is disruping discussion and has been warned not to. They need to be blocked. This is also very POV ... look at the explanations given for archiving, mostly because wikidemo decides the conversation is pointless, not because other editors think so. ChingyThingy ( talk) 12:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
User Matt Lewis made a suggestion on Talk:Republic of Ireland [114]. After a long and largely fruitles debate I decided to post a detailed response, numbered as his suggestion had been [115]. To try to keep my post intact I added a comment, <!-- Please do not split this post. Reply below -->, between each numbered point. Matt's response was a vitriolic outburst, accusing me of arrogance and what-not - not for what I said, but for the comment line [116]. I replied, annoyed but not abusive, suggesting ways that he could respond without disrupting my post [117]. His answer was to break up my post, exactly as I had asked him not to [118] [119] [120]. A friendly post to his talk page, suggesting a way around this [121] was met with this response [122]. Of course, I am now up to three reverts so I have run out of options. I have been told that I "can't dicate how people reply to my post", which is undoubtedly true, but it's a matter of wikiquette. Am I making a big deal out of nothing? Scolaire ( talk) 11:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've had an idea - my list of replies are now unreadable IMO - it is too difficult to compare them to Soclaire's comments which they answer (and I know Wikipedians who will struggle with doing this too, so its helpful to no-one IMO).
Can I duplicate Soclaire's original comments one by one above my own replies? This would at least make things readable. I wish I thought of this at first. It seems totally reasonable to me, but I'm asking here first just to be safe. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 13:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do the italic thing - I wish I'd thought of it before I started reverting. To be honest I have no idea how many reverts I made (I didn't even think about 3RR is this dispute - it totally escaped me as a factor in the case). I just knew things wouldn't work if everyone just replied in a list. Obviously, duplicating his comments was the way to go. Cheers.-- Matt Lewis ( talk) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't spot where he said it, but I must have missed it in my annoyance. If I managed to keep calm it would have probably occurred to me. I was in a bit of an 'edit rush' trying to get a temptingly neat page that Soclaire could go for - but we were both too determined of course.
I think the poll is going quite well considering what some of these particular ones can get like (I generally know the issue when it crosses the UK but am just a little bit out of my usual 'territory' with ROI - although it all relates). We should have a better Irish Etymologyy section out of it if nothing else. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I deliberately did not re-post to here, to see what way it would go, and what happened? He responded to the warning by making more personal attacks on me. [125] In particular: "But did you read what he wrote? It was clearly directed to me", "but he ignored it, because he has written a composed attack on my proposal that he doesn't want to appear unchallenged" and "The sad thing about this is that 10 to 1 we'll be here again now as it is hard enough for us to deal with each other as it is, and I'm getting to know what he's like." Note I have had no input at all since filing the original request. If Matt Lewis responds to the threat of being blocked by making further unwarranted personal attacks, then he should be blocked. Scolaire ( talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (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.
It started when I reverted another (anonymous)editor's message on a talk page becasue in my opinion he/she was treating the talk page as a forum and being rather uncivil [126]. Bharatveer then posted a message on the same tak page calling the attention of admins to my act [127] claiming that I was doing it beacuse it didnt "match my POV". When I pointed out that Wikipedia guildlines allow me to delete personal attacks and material that was not relevant to the topic [128] and [129], he simply repeated the "POV" accusations [130] and [131]. I asked him to take it to the ANI if he felt that I had violated the rules but he refused and kept repeating the same thing over again [132] and told me to "stop giving instructions".
Since we were discussing a personal issue on an article talk page I decided to stop posting messages on the article talk page [133] and posted it on his talk page [134]. In short there has been a lot of communication with Bharaveer talking of taking the matter to admins [135] but not doing so and repeating POV accusations and telling me "not to give instructions" [136] or how I "FEEL"(caps deliberate) [137].
But what really brought me here was his series of edits , deleting my messages on his talk page(in contradiction of what he was telling me to do), calling me a POV pusher [138], [139], [140] ,and my edits as vandalistic [141], [142], [143] or rants [144] or harrasment [145]. When I asked mim to explain how my responses to his messages become vandalism he has not responded.
So there are two issues which I wish to discuss here: 1) Was I wrong in deleting talkp page content if it broke Wikipedia rules? 2) Is User:Bharatveer]] justified in calling me a "vandal" , POV pusher and harraser when his own actions constitute POV pushing and harrasment(I believe that Bharatveer has been punished for POV pushing before too). If not then Bharatveer should apologise to me for calling me names. -- Deepak D'Souza ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The above user left this comment--what are the measures against this sort of hateful language?-- Asdfg 12345 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I've become involved in an edit war in the article Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty surrounding these edits pushed by Ivantheterrible1234. NPguy and I believe they are clear violations of NPOV and OR. We have repeatedly expressed our willingness to work with Ivan if he has something constructive to add, but he has in return engaged in reversion, personal attacks, and threats of sock puppetry. I considered tagging the page for an RfC but based on Ivan's responses to my objections to his edits, I don't believe additional people weighing in against him will help. I would appreciate any help available. AzureFury ( talk) 02:21, 31 July 2008 (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.
Note: The user who started this thread has been blocked indefinitely for
meat puppetry, and disruption. These accusations should be viewed in light of that fact.
Jehochman
Talk
23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
In the course of a dispute at the talk page on Michael Atiyah, User:Mathsci has repeatedly attacked me and other editors personally.
For example, he stated: "... a number of Indian extremists have tried to disrupt this page". The dispute in question has nothing to do with nationality; I have never indicated my nationality and neither, to my knowledge, have other editors involved in the dispute. In my opinion, this extraneous mention of my presumed ethnic origin is tantamount to a racial slur. (What adds notability to this dispute is that just prior to this, User:Mathsci felt the use of the phrase `Eurocentric history' by another user was very inappropriate.)
A second disruptive tactic that User:Mathsci has used is to repeatedly accuse me of being a sockpuppet for another editor User:Bharatveer. Although, there is no evidence for this, User:Mathsci has repeated this allegation here and here.
Nevertheless, I feel that the second transgression is minor compared to the first one. I am new to Wikipedia, but I hope that it is not considered `civil' to introduce and insult someone's ethnic origin especially when it is completely irrelevant to the topic. - Perusnarpk ( talk) 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Where is the "ethnic slur"?? "Indian extremist" isn't insulting a person's ethnicity; it is insulting their political position. Surely it is okay to say a white power group is Aryan extremists, and doing so does not mean I am picking on their race??? -- Jaysweet ( talk) 15:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I have looked more thoroughly at the talk page of Michael Atiyah.
If Perusnarpk had distanced himself from these extremist sentiments, there might have been some point to this wikiquette posting. Otherwise he has completely misrepresented what happened. Any reasonable and experienced WP editor would I think have drawn the same conclusions that I drew from this interchange. However, here and elsewhere, Perusnarpk has gone out of his way to misrepresent those opposing him (notably most mathematical editors) and in particular the first two editors who had the courage to engage with him. It is disgraceful that even now he is allowed to continue his disruption across the wikipedia. Mathsci ( talk) 07:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that User:Gennarous has accused User:Cberlet of being a "Hoxharian propagandist" (it's at Talk:Fascism#Chip_Berlet.27s_intentional_holding_back_of_article_progress; it was quite a while back so I'm not inclined to go look for the original edit unless he denies saying it.) Unless I am seriously misunderstanding, that's a pretty nasty accusation (the reference is presumably to Enver Hoxha, former dictator of Communist Albania). As far as I can tell, it is not based on anything factual: I've read a lot of Berlet's writing and can't recall him ever having anything nice to say about Hoxha, so it appears to be a generic attack, like calling someone a Nazi propagandist or a Stalinist propagandist. Seems to me to be beyond the realm of civility. - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I see now that User:Cberlet has closed his account, and I don't know the circumstances of that, so I'm not sure how relevant this is. If (and I have no idea whether this is the case) this amounted to part of harassing someone out of Wikipedia, then I would think it would remain quite relevant.- Jmabel | Talk 31 July 2008 (UTC)
User: Your Radio Enemy has placed further messages on my talk page using harsh language. His nature appears unhealthy and obsessive. He has declared his intention to focus directly on me. His recent edits show that he is editing pages he has found in my own edit history. Libro0 ( talk) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not focusing my attention directly on him, I am seeing if he is doing any further damage to me. This passive aggressive abuse of the system is just more in his pattern of uncivil behavior. Your Radio Enemy ( talk) 18:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This user personally attacked me on my user talk page quoted: "I'll say again, I'm done with you, and I'll add a fuck you to boot." and "I will not see your response to me here, so "blast away" if it makes you feel better, you worthless editor. You have nothing to add to this encyclopedia in my opinion." Diff can be found here: [13] I think that the fact he is an administrator makes this all more of a bigger deal and people that cannot control their temper and lose control should not be in positions of power. -- Xander756 ( talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(OD)Your actions can't be isolated into individual edits, because your attitude and wikilawyering (yes, wikilawyering) have a compounding effect on anyone who tries to talk to you. The way you approach things leads editors to either a) lose their temper at you for eternally not getting the point, or b) ignoring you completely. We've all seen similar situations before. Some of us have even married into situations like that, unfortunately. Dayewalker ( talk) 03:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything that is actionable here. Xander756 has endorsed an editing practice that resulted in his rollback privileges being revoked, with good reason -- I won't go into that here. Keeper76, a well trusted administrator, attempted to assist you in re-obtaining rollback privileges, which you all but rejected. This is not the first time I've seen your name around Xander756, and this is only another case on top of another that all but certifies that you are not here to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, but to endorse behavior that is uncivil and generally awful. I can see why Keeper76 became upset at your actions Xander756, and I endorse his usage of the phrase "fuck off" in that instance, because quite frankly, there is few other terms available to describe your attitude on this project Xander. seicer | talk | contribs 05:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no personal attacks here. What I see (in the diff provided at the top of the report) is continued assumptions of bad faith by Xander756. Keeper76 took the time to go out of his way to try to help you Xander, and I can understand how he got so upset. I share the concerns of every single user who has commented here to date, and I strongly urge you to look at all of them again and modify your approach in the future. I too am of the opinion to dismiss this WQA as meritless.
Ncmvocalist (
talk) 11:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Point made successfully. :)
Ncmvocalist (
talk)
17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Xander756, I've been told to "fuck off" before on Wiki; in fact, in full view of several ArbCom members, and nothing happened to the person who said it to me, who is now an admin. It happens. I chalked it off, kept an eye on the person to see if it was typical of his behavior, and it hasn't been; perhaps it was just a bad day. By all accounts, you went quite the extra distance to provoke a generally helpful, kind and efficient administrator to post those comments to you; please examine your own behavior in the incident, or you will have a frustrating experience on Wikipedia. I don't condone uncivil behavior on Wikipedia, but this response from Keeper76, a good admin, is highly uncharacteristic, which raises my eyebrow about how far you went to provoke. Since you don't seem to be making many friends in a collaborative editing environment, you might considering dropping this for now, as I did when it happened to me. On the other hand, Keeper76, you should't have done that, and I'm sure you know it and I doubt it will happen again. Of bigger concern to me here is that some of the editors who frequent this page on Wikipedia, and who are elsewhere accusing a productive editor of any number of things, are completely discounting any validity to Xander756's issue here, undermining (again) the entire point of WQA: that is shocking. Dropping the F-bomb on another editor should always be addressed at WQA; I'm afraid that the editors frequenting this board have furthered rather inconsistent views of Wiki policies and guidelines and are undermining the purpose of this board, rendering this a useless step in dispute resolution, and giving the appearance of using this board to take sides in popularity contests. As much as I like Keeper and recognize this as an uncharacteristic reaction from an excellent admin to an extreme provocation, WQA is not a place for playing out popularity contests. Keeper, pls offer amends and tell Xander you won't do something like that again. Xander, pls examine your own behavior that led to this and then let it go; you've drawn a good deal attention to less than desirable aspects of your editing behavior, and continuing this is not in your best interest, even if Keeper's response was less than ideal. And the regular editors frequenting this board need to re-examine Wiki policies and guidelines and the ways that ArbCom might respond if this ends up in their lap, and begin to respond to issues raised on this board in ways that will further resolution of disputes rather than allowing issues to grow and fester, so that they don't end up at AN/I or before ArbCom. The people most in the wrong here are those condoning, under any circumstances, use of the F-bomb on Wiki: by doing that, you will only increase the chances that Xander will become a more difficult editor, and Keeper will end up in a protracted dispute. Please work to resolve disputes, not further them. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like an admin to look at my situation. There is evidence at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/GDD1000 and on talk pages that the user names I have listed are united in an attempt to harrass me and prevent me editing the article at Ulster Defence Regiment. The discussion page there shows that their involvement stretches back more than a few months and that they have strangled attempts by other editors to improve the page by similar harrassment, incivility, bullying and the use of propaganda against other editors. So far I have had an untrue allegation of sockpuppetry leveled against me. I have been called the, "Self confessed former Ulster Defence Regiment member GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest", accused of adding disruptive material to the article, deceiving other editors, making a mockery of this encycopedia, being dishonest, adding unsourced additions, biased POV additions and copyright violations, having several "brand new accounts," collusion, pretending to be a new user, avoiding scrutiny, lying, appalling, editing problematically and pretending to be someone else. The following statement was made by the DomerFenian user: "You are an editor with a long history of disruption, gross POV editing, edit warring and copyright violations, you should not be permitted to try and get a clean start under a new name, and deceive other editors by editing the same article pretending to be a brand new editor". The tags of my accusers are: Domer48 'fenian' and BigDunc Talk Everything I've read about new users, harrassment, good faith, the five pillars etc etc etc etc tells me that all of this is VERY wrong. Why should I, or anyone, be subjected to it? I do note that the user Domer has a history of being blocked for extended periods of time for similar abuse against other editors. All help appreciated. The Thunderer ( talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that I recently had an incident of gaming at the hands of these two users. Perhaps something can be done now. There is a clear recent history of disruptive behaviour. Traditional unionist ( talk) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Taken to WP:AN/3. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned User:Longchenpa will be violating WP:3RR while we dispute Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#WP:NPF_enforcement__relief. Can someone offer advice to prevent this. Zulu Papa 5 ( talk) 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
User:BehnamFarid engages me in an uncivil manner regarding an edit dispute to the article Khūzestān Province, removing sourced material and engaging in ad-hominem discussion. While his first challange did have some merit with regards to the applicability of the source, the second revert had no such reasoning included. I find his actions disruptive to my editing and detering to the quality of the Khuzestan province article and therefore request your assistance. MiS-Saath ( talk) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagreement over wp:talk, User:Blockinblox and User:Jeandré du Toit, diffs: [18] [19] [20]. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-03 t12:55z
Continued from archive page:
Thanks for your support Jaysweet. I have made those modifications as per your suggestion. I am not afraid of appearing bitter as long as the truth has been highlighted. I don't look favourably on the kind of flippant behaviour that Noclador demonstrated, regardless of whether it was directed at me or anyone else.
However, I do not know why this page has been archived as I do not consider it to be resolved - I have made several requests as per Ncmvocalist' comments and have not receieved his reply. I have made concessions and recieved none regarding the anti-User:Romaioi negative comments.
Romaioi ( talk) 07:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
UNINDENT
Reported on Administrators' noticeboard here. I have noticed that Romaioi did not alert Noclador to the report himself but another editor had to do so. I'm somewhat bemused by claims of a personal vendetta when Noclador has totally disengaged from this editor for weeks now. Justin talk 08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This editor, when asked in a civil way to explain an edit, is generally rude or insulting. Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here. I could go on. This user has been warned, blocked, warned again, etc etc. I have also seen many instances where this user remains calm and helpful but I think he should be warned overall for getting too heated and becoming rude. -- FilmFan69 ( talk) 18:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a follow up on a case of contested speedy deletion, which I deal with on the appropriate place -- see more here. This is also, I believe, a case of an editor who seems to be misusing his admin power by evading detail clarification of his speedy deletion nomination, and by letting the speedy deletion status on so that deletion was completed while I was showing interest in improving the posting and actively providing evidence why the posting was justified and notable.
As you could see on the talk page of the deleted IGO Search, I reacted on the 'speedy deletion' nomination mere minutes after it was posted today. I asked the admin, very politely, why this was done. Initially he cited 'blatant advertising', which I questioned, and he changed it to lack of 'notability', which I countered providing objective information about the non-commercial non-governmental nature and superb respectability of the publisher of the service described (mandate of the United Nations, 101 year history as an international research institute, etc.) I also said, citing Wikipedia help sources, that if notability was in question, speedy deletion was the last resort of an editor, and I asked him to reconsider. Afterwards he asked for sources, which I was ready to answer, were the article not already deleted in the meantime. It would have been enough if he changed it to possible deletion, giving me and other people more time to discuss deficiencies of the article properly. I wonder how is it possible that one single person, without other views, discussion, and without an editorial consensus, and especially without providing comments and time on how to improve a possibly deficient article, how can one such person cause deletion of someone's work. Moreover, when I complained to him about this very incident, still trying to be very polite and talking about his actions rather than himself as a person, he deleted both of my posts and posted an note on my talk page to which I could hardly, with my own words deleted, defend against.
Summary: I am all for intelligent discussions backed by clear and irrefutable evidence, and I am hereby protesting against single-person non-discussed deletions of the above user. I believe blatant deletion of other people posts is not a way of discussing issues described in them. I shall be very grateful for any consideration and recommendations as to how can I -- or other people affected by someone deleting their work without proving any wrongdoing -- proceed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjfulopp ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Repeated incivility and personal attacks towards all users who disagree with him [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31], [32]. Repeatedly politely warned by several users to no avail (latest: [33]). I've asked User:Moreschi to put him on civility parole, under WP:ARBMAC and he denied, in a rather colourful way [34]. Note here that Moreschi has imposed WP:ARBMAC on me for much less and this is why I considered him the first choice as a neutral admin.-- Avg 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
InternetHero appears genuinely to desire to improve the encyclopedia, but may need to be reminded of the social norms of collaborative editing. In particular, this user has accused me of racism. I requested that the comment be refactored; the request was received, but ignored ( current version after 17 hours and two edits by InternetHero to the offending page).
Clearly, actual instances of racism fall under WP:SPADE and WP:NPA, but the stated basis for this accusation is my contention that Telescope#History should focus on the historical technological aspects, reserving involved discussion of the theoretical underpinnings for History of optics and other articles in the same interwoven family. My contact with this user began when I answered a WP:3O about this dispute here. Reviewing the 3O history, I note that the request was initiated by InternetHero; subsequent canvassing of known editors led to opinions more to their liking. Rendering my considered opinion led immediately to an assumption of bad faith with respect to due diligence in reviewing the history and basis of the dispute.
I acknowledge that answering a third opinion request can be setting myself up for a certain amount of abuse, but I consider this behavior beyond the pale. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could communicate this to InternetHero. Alternatively, telling me to suck it up and go edit would also resolve this dispute. - Eldereft ( cont.) 13:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Enough editors have tried addressing these concerns that I'm not sure what WQA can possibly do here. An RFCC is currently being prepared. -- Mark Chovain 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Last night I stumbled on Masters of Horror after someone created an episode article for it using WP:COPYVIO material from IMDB. I redirected it to the episode list, only to discover one didn't exist. So, I spent a few hours creating an appropriate episode list, adding in the missing airdates and writers from a semi-list that had been in the main article. I then checked all of the other episode articles. All of them were simply plot summaries, some 800-900 words in length, and a few more copyvioed from IMDB. They all failed WP:EPISODE, WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and WP:MOSTV. As such, I redirected them all to the episode list. Artw began undoing some of these redirects today. When I left what I felt was a polite question on his talk page asking why, he left an uncivil response [35]. He has continued making personal attacks in the AfD for one episode, in his edit summary, and on my talk page. [36] [37] [38] [39]
I finally left him a warning for the last one on my talk page, [40] to which he responded with more incivility. [41]. Another editor has also left him a warning about the personal attacks [42] and his response shows no sign he intends to change. [43] I've never dealt with this editor before nor been in contact with him before today. He has barely even edited in the last year, so I see no reason he should be so extremely hostile towards me. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Taken to ANI, per below. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I could use some advice and help regarding User:AlexLevyOne. The account is just a couple of weeks old but already reflects several hundred edits of highly variable quality. While his intentions appear to be good, he frequently displays some pretty bad judgment, and despite the efforts of several concerned editors to engage him on his talk page, has responded simply by blanking their comments. Example here.
It is, for example, not a bad idea to scan articles looking for {fact} tags. But some assertions are more squirrelly than others and it is not always sound editing simply to remove the tagged fact in every instance. Likewise, several short paragraphs can often be collapsed into one, but not at the expense of legibility. This post to the user’s Talk page by User:Deor (blanked shortly thereafter) illustrates several of his problem edits: diff.
To sum up, AlexLevyOne makes some good edits, but many irresponsible ones as well. I think he needs to be reined in a bit – focused a bit better – but given his unwillingness even to acknowledge Talk page requests, I’m not sure how to go about it. As for his edits -- I’ve tried to repair some of them, but he is prolific and I can’t keep up with him. That’s another reason for this request. Comments, advice, extra eyes or hands are all welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 13:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, he's just charging along and I'm starting to feel stupid about larding up his Talk page with warnings that he's just ignoring. I think I'm going to go to WP:ANI. JohnInDC ( talk) 02:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
This item can be safely archived - discussion moved to WP:ANI. JohnInDC ( talk) 13:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
User with long history of extreme incivility incidents [46] [47] , multiple civility and revert warring warnings [48] [49] and blocks [50], now openly instigates revert warring, making extremely incivil personal remarks seasoned with anti-Semitic rant about Jews in Czech language [51]"žid nemůže krásti -- on jen bere, co jeho jest. Peníze nežida jsou majetkem bez pána -- Žid má úplné právo si je přivlastnit" ("Jews don't steal, they take what belongs to them. Money of the non-Jew is a property without the owner - a Jew has a right to take it" and so on. I think open instigation of revert wars and openly anti-Semitic rants like this are not acceptable, and something must be done about it. M0RD00R ( talk) 07:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Krzyzowiec ( talk) 05:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I see little common ground for discussion with you for quite obvious reasons:
You've been advised to cut down propaganda accusations by neutral editor just weeks ago [60], and yet you've done it again here [61].
That said, even if I see little common ground for reasonable discussion with you, that does not mean that I'm not willing to discuss your edits with uninvolved editors. I always welcome outside opinion in cases like this. As you know your edits were discussed for example here and here. And also as you are aware, your arguments have been dismissed by uninvolved editors as "nonsense" [62] and "borderline for being deleted as unacceptably racist on a noticeboard" [63]. Lately yet again consensus has been reached that your edits fail WP:RS and other policies [64], but still you have reverted consensus version with edit summary "Revert vandalism" [65].
But the fact that when things does not go your way over the organization (National Rebirth of Poland) that you've openly associate yourself with [66], you resort to extreme incivility [67] or straight forward disruption [68] [69] [70] [71] this is nothing compared with this recent openly antisemitic edit [72]. Wiki is not the place where antisemitic canards will be tolerated. M0RD00R ( talk) 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
He may have been impolite lately, possibly biting another, as you can see here ( [73]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I agree to close this, but not before warning rspeer that another action will be higher in the dispute resoultion process. I say this not to be mean, but to control his behavior. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 22:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In the context of a dispute about possible vandalism from User:Maurice27, he has been showing a lack of civility with his own user talk page:
See in History of talk page from this user, from August 12th at 11:00 AM to 11:06AM.
Thanks. -- Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 11:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I am quite thick skinned but BehnamFarid ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to have recent history [74] and I do not wish to inflame the situation more by delaing with him myself. Specificall I alert you to his personal attacks here and on another editor's talk page here. -- triwbe ( talk) 15:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
User:Anonymous_Dissident repeatedly makes indirect personal attacks:
I was hoping that someone could help cool down a situation where a long-time user appears to be taking everything that I am trying to explain to him with great hostility. After posting in proxy for the indef. blocked User:Ryoung122. I left him a message on his talk page indicating that indefinitely blocked users do not get a say on Wikipedia and that proxy posting could have consequences. He responded not on his talk page, but on the talk page of the article in question telling me to be a little bit less of an asshole. I warned him not to be uncivil and gave him an opportunity to remove his comments himself, at which point I would have entirely forgotten about the incident. His response, again on the talk page of the article, was to accuse me of threatening him and to tell me to "back off, and cease being an asshole. I don't know who the hell you think you are, but grow up." I find this response entirely inappropriate given the tone of my comments on his talk page (note that I even prematurely apologized in my first comment, in case I was mistaken with his proxy posting), but I feel as if anything I could say directly to him at this point would only escalate the situation.
Canada Jack has been an excellent contributor over the past few years, as far as I can tell, so I am uncertain as to why he is reacting this way. I do not feel that, at this point, any use of administrative tools is appropriate, given his standing, so I was hoping that someone here could explain the situation better than I could, or at least in a way that he would take less offense. Usually the standard procedure would be to remove the incivility, but I am afraid to do it myself and escalate the problem but in this case I moved it out of the article talk page and into the user talk page. Cheers,
CP
20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikidea is currently using edit summaries to accuse me of trolling, stalking (despite the fact that I first edited that page on 24 February 2008) and for not being smart. On article's discussion page he also accused me of being a troll and expressing wish that I would go away [82].
He was warned to watch on his manners by User:84user [83], me [84], and User:Yannismarou [85], [86]. -- Vision Thing -- 23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
His latest comment: I wrote it you moron. -- Vision Thing -- 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up on the user User:Haroldandkumar12, he has been making repeated personal and civil attacks such as this and here and reverting whenever they're removed. He's starting to become a nuisance. Rehevkor ✉ 17:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This emotional editor usually doesn't edit pages, but instead posts uncivil comments at talk pages. I think we have to draw a line and give him a final warning or a block, since he's been warned before. [87]
He has also vandalised pages before: [88]
Here's examples of him being extremely uncivil often towards other users: [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96]
The last four were from today. 62.163.232.175 ( talk) 19:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
If you look at my history you will notice that User:Dfgarcia is constantly leaving me messages regarding his "profession" as an ESL teacher, and offering to "teach" me things. I have tried to ignore him and lately I admit that out of frustration I have lashed out at him. He constantly provokes me, and as you can see I have NEVER left a message for him that was not in response to a message that he left for me, usually without reason. Please ask this "editor" to cease with his childish games and snobbish attitude towards me and to immediately terminate his annoying habbit of posting messages on my talk page. I have nothing more to say to him, he is not leaving constructive advise for me for any other reason but to be cleverly demeaning towards me and to insult my character, much in the way an unpopular schoolboy would try to "tattle" on his classmates. Further dialouge with him is nothing more than a pointless waste of my time. Thanks. Wjmummert ( KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, he is attacking you. I will leave a note on his talk page promptly. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Done
Bettering the Wiki (
talk)
22:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... you don't get it either: [97]. dfg ( talk) 07:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing to substantiate your claims on that page,DF. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
*Sigh* This is only getting worse...I have no choice but to reccommend you to the mediation cabal. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Erm, what action? I did not do anything relating to this cases outside of here, or your user talk pages. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 12:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: Case re-opened.
Hello. I've noticed a bad side of Ward3001. In response to this warning, I told him that it may be best to tone it down a bit here. (Note: It submitted three times because I continually tweaked it after clicking save, but before the page reloaded.) Then, Okiefromokla said the same thing. He then dismissed our comments and left a nasty message at my talk page. I then explained and apologized for the misunderstanding and again, he dismissed it. I was wondering what I should do. Thanks! Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason I didn't want to write a note is that he would revert it, so what would be the use? I also reverted the template addition. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
For about a year I have occasionally contributed to the Traditional marriage movement article, as has Agnaramasi. It is probably fair to say we have "butted heads" on several content issues related to the article, but except in one respect the article content seems to be "good enough" for both of us. That one unresolved issue is regarding the inclusion of some sort of image that "makes sense" for the article. I found one that seems pretty good, though obviously not perfect. Agnaramasi has deleted it each time I have added it. The edit summary for the most recent revert included, "please do not add this rediculous image again." I do not think my edit was ridiculous! Moreover, I feel the wording of this edit summary ridicules my contribution, which is being made in good faith. With this note on Agnaramasi's talk page I attempted, in a civil way, to bring this ridicule to Agnaramasi's attention. The response from Agnaramasi does not appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for effective collaboration.
The underlying content issue can be discussed at Talk:Traditional_marriage_movement#Picture_needed, should anyone wish to express an opinion on that. This "Wikiquette alerts" forum was the only place I could find to ask for peer review of the meta-issue of civility, particularly in the (essentially unalterable) edit summaries. ( sdsds - talk) 06:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Libro0 thinks I am heading up some big sockpuppet ring to drive him crazy or something. He is trying to hide his talk page. He has made two sockpuppet cases against me at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy (2nd) claiming everyone who is against him is a sockpuppet and claims crazy evidence. He has acted in an uncivl way all because he wasn't getting his way in baseball card articles. He needs to be removed. Baseball Card Guy ( talk) 18:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I archived the talk page because it has become very long. Everything in there still remains viewable. Libro0 ( talk) 18:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Constantly adding "sockpuppets" to my page, despite having no evidence to say they are mine. have requested that s/he stop as the "sockpuppets" are not mine (one is my IP address, another is my old work IP, so should be removed as my old work may be used by another editor, and another is from my old PC in my old home - the only one that is mine is my current IP address) and he simply stated that I was a "liar". He has repeatedly reverted my (correct edits). TBH, I think a warning should suffice in the first instance, but if he continues a ban may be neccesary. Thanks. Step13thirteen ( talk) 16:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have finally reached the limit of my politeness with the above-noted editor. One day, while monitoring "recent changes" I saw a rather heated response in the Talk Page of Silent Hill. I stopped by to help to resolve the issue. Very early on, I was attacked by this user, and referred on their discussion page as a "pervert". I have since been accused of being a sockpuppet (although not officially, even though I have asked them to), been told that I'm a liar and a freak. Sadly, they have referred to others in involved in the same mediation efforts as "stalkers" and "psychos". I have tried to assist the editor, and politely help them to actually understand policy and even the concept of AGF. One day, I even gave them an official "welcome" using the cookie-based template to show that I was honestly friendly.
Not long ago, the editor again referred to me as a sockpuppet, and a liarm and I placed a comment on their dicussion page that VERY firmly (as I should have before) advised them of how disturbing their comments were.
They then blanked there page, and called me a "pervert" in the edit SUMMARY.
That was indeed the last straw. I am now in permanent record a pervert - that's libel, and is not acceptable conduct on ANY internet site, let alone on Wikipedia.
This may have to be escalated, as they already have shown a propensity to not respect admins, and I see little chance that they will change.
I am done trying to defend this editor and their right to edit when I am abused and attacked, and called a "pervert". This editor needs to be stopped.
Sorry to disturb, but I will truly appreciate whoever's assistance. BMW (drive) 23:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Ckatz is a "consensus monkey" - he contributes virtually nothing to the talk page, then he re-writes the article saying it's the consensus - leave the re-writes to those actually actively discussing things, I say. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 22:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please do read, as Ckatz said, "the utterly unreasonable sockpuppet claim and 'checkuser' request directed at Ashill, Serendipodous," and Ckatz. You will find my language there to be soft-peddling. Of course the three users would think that the accusation itself was unreasonable, but I did give good reasons for my suspicions.
- Having learned a bit more about the community and how to examine user activities I now realise that it would be a pretty amazing amount of planning and "acting" required for these three to be sockpuppets. Live & learn, I say.
This user has been engaging in mass reversion of maintainence tags including:
I believe that unsourced POV is unencylopedic and unhelpful, and his edits are disruptive and detremential to the project Fasach Nua ( talk) 08:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like someone to take a look at the incivility I am having to endure from this user. I commenced posting at 16:19 on 29th July. By 17:59 this report had been submitted accusing me of abusive sockpuppetry, which was never the case. You can also see the use of propaganda POV editing, conflict of interest, disruptive editing, copyright violations, edit warring, and "a mockery of Wikipedia". The abuse continued under the guise of the complaint calling me "a self confessed UDR man" which I presume was intended to indicate I was not a fit person to edit the article at Ulster Defence Regiment, accusing me of having several brand new accounts, and deceiving other editors. Because of the perceived harrassment I reported the matter on this page here and as you can see admonishments were handed out by Admins. As you can see I attempted to redress the issue by inviting the user to participate here and here. My attempts at friendliness were rebuffed by incivil comments as the user removed my entries from his talk page, on several of them accusing me of policy violations. On my own talk page I was again accused of violating policy here. I have resolved myself not to become involved with this user again where possible because he seems to have the ability to make me lose my cool. I do note however he has a long track record of incivility to a number of users and (I believe) had a ban for the very same thing quite recently. I do not feel this type of behaviour has any place in Wikipedia and respectfully ask for an interested admin to look into it. The Thunderer ( talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Various users on the Anglophilia article have been on the receiving end of some rather uncivil behaviour from the above-mentioned user.
These provide some examples of the kind of aggressive discussion that we think breaches Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL policies. - Francis Tyers · 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I've been working on Berlin for a couple of days now. It had a lot of dead links and a lot of the references weren't formatted consistently. I repaired the links, formatted and added a couple of references and changed some of the pictures to better versions of the same subjects. About 60 edits in all so quite a lot of work. Then I got this message on my talk page [107] and this editor reverted all 60 edits in one go [108] including back to all the broken links. I reverted the edit [109]. Please can someone help, I will try and reason with the person as well regarding sources though I feel a 60-edit revert needs to be reported somewhere. thanks very much Tom ( talk) 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum ( talk · contribs) has made comments on User_talk:Tony1#Further_observations, [110] (now reverted by another user) and User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Date_linking that I consider rude, insulting and to be personal attacks, simply because I questioned another user for going through pages and systematically removing links from dates.
User:Malleus Fatuorum has made no effort to state his case for removing date links (I'm always open to listening to people's point of view or suggestions of a new policy!) and has instead simply posted insults on the talk pages. Please could someone have a look at this? Thanks, JRawle ( Talk) 09:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This user seems intent on making unevidenced accusations that I am a sockpuppet and a troll [ [111]] . I've directed him to WP:RFCU but to no avail. His accusations run counter to the guideline WP:BITE and his comments are in the lowest levels of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution hierarchy of disagreement. He has made massive changes to my userspace, which while allowed under WP:userspace, is generally considered impolite. -- ENAIC ( talk) 07:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
PLEASE READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE TO GO WITH THIS. There is some very suspicious (and racist) behavior by one (perhaps socketpuppetry) or two editors advocating terrorism of the July 2005 Bombings on this page. The admin has blocked content change. Please help. I am new to wiki and dont know how to fight them Do not let the terrorists win-- MissOrgum1996 ( talk) 10:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
A recent dispute on Template talk:Sexual orientation has been getting a bit nasty, recently. In particular, when responding to this comment from Alynna Kasmira, another user named Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield said "you are just like a child with a semi-automatic pistol" and made a further allusion to (I think) what they called Alynna's "poor education." Benjiboi said that he found Nigel's comment offensive, to which Nigel replied that "offense is part of learning" and that he has an absolute right to offend. See Benjiboi's next reply and Nigel's following retort. When I reminded Nigel of his obligation to maintain civil dialogue, I was told to "suck the lemon" (I'm not sure if I should be offended or not?).
I would love to see a return to calm conversation, but doubt I can achieve that acting alone, at this point. A little help? – Luna Santin ( talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Errr... Is this him? Is this about him? I only add these items because I started searching for the credentials of a Dr ... even I can call myself a Doctor on the Internet. However, when one asserts a level of knowledge on a subject, and decides they are "right" because they are a Doctor, one must determine veracity. There cannot be a large number of people with this EXACT name who are doctors. BMW (drive) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
HarryAlffa has been acting uncivilly in Talk:Solar System for some time, but his behaviour has been tolerated by other users because he has to date skirted the boundary of outright personal attacks. But his most recent post has crossed the line, and I think he needs to be disciplined. Serendi pod ous 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The "drunk" comment didn't bother me. In fact I didn't even notice it. What bothered me was this comment:
if you really are a scientist, it has to be concluded that you are not a very good one.
C'mon, you're a computer technician at an observatory aren't you! Confess all!
Serendi pod ous 07:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have to plead ignorance of wikipedia community activities, having not taken part in any.
I think it was Ashill who mentioned sockpuppets at one point, and having scanned the article I thought the three users fitted. Please do read "the utterly unreasonable sockpuppet claim and 'checkuser' request directed at Ashill, Serendipodous," and Ckatz. You will find my language there to be soft-peddling. Of course the three users would think that the accusation itself was unreasonable, but I did give good reasons for my suspicions.
Having learned a bit more about the community and how to examine user activities I now realise that it would be a pretty amazing amount of planning and "acting" required for these three to be sockpuppets. Live & learn, I say. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
HarryAlffa's Incivility
Serendipodous said I had "been acting uncivilly in Talk:Solar System for some time ... skirted the boundary of outright personal attacks". I will show this cannot be unsubstantiated.
All of these neutral comments were made by me in the process of discussion. You won't want to read them all, but scan them for "emotional" content.
From the 10th of August my patience starts to wear thin.
I think I've shown that I haven't been uncivil, so far!
The next comment shows some annoyance, but it gives a reason.
My next comments show I don't suffer fools gladly. It's my only character flaw. :). But you couldn't describe it as uncivil.
You still couldn't describe anything I've said as uncivil, nor have I come close to a personal attack. Later I will show that it was Sorendipodus who was uncivil.
Then at 20:55, 14 August 2008, came my expression of amazement at the stupidity of Ashill's comments on my suggested re-write. From his claim to be an ISM Scientist and my analysis of this and many of his other comments I concluded that his analytical skills would make him a poor scientist of any sort, I then took a wild guess that he was a computer technician - nothing wrong with that, I was one for many years. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 20:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorendipodus's Incivility
I wouldn't actually describe Sorendipodus's comments as uncivil, but you can see the unprovoked, irrational emotion they show.
You will notice that all of the above were on 31 July, compare them to my neutral comments on the same day.
He then made two neutral comments on other editors, then his next comment to me issues a challenge, and the claims to a "first version" are not true.
He made some silly edits to my prose replacement for a bullet list, then later "remembers" that edit was his original! Add this to the unintelligent aspect of his other comments, then in much the same way as I dismiss President George W Gump as an idiot, from that point forward I considered Sorendipodus incapable of useful cogitation. - HarryAlffa ( talk) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Borderline insult by creating User:HarryAlffa/May_contain_nuts
On this Wikiquette alert Ashill said of this, "the title seemed to me like it may be calling the page's editors 'nuts' " - I hadn't thought of that before, but neither had Ashill, otherwise he would have said something of the like before. The page I created was all about how boring the ingredients list for a sandwich was, apart from the famous phrase. It in no way could be thought to be saying that editors were nuts, being nuts would at least be interesting, not boring. Is Ashill being a little dishonest here, or is he just showing a lack of cognitive ability? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
accusations of dishonesty in edit summaries
My comments in chronological order;
Myself and Serendipodous were actively editing this paragraph, as was Ashil, then he removed it.
So two active editors, then Ashill and Ckatz remove it. Can that be said to be concensus for removal? - HarryAlffa ( talk) 22:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I was the 3rd party in a previous alert, and he repeatedly attacked me ,as you can see here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
As no-one responded in quite some time, I am tagging as "stale".
Bettering the Wiki (
talk)
15:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I am reopening, as dfg just was rude on my talk page(2nd item under "Mediation Cabal template"). I have warned him. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I forgot, for part of an edit summary on my talk page dfg posted, "pbbbbt". Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 19:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user "acrchives" or deletes anything they don't like. If you check the Barack Obama article and the Family of Barack Obama article you'll see that they have archived discussion that hadn't been ended. This user is not an administrator, but acts like one. You'll also notice that they have archived many other things they don't like, and several users have asked wikidemo to stop deleting things on wikidemos talk page. This user is disruping discussion and has been warned not to. They need to be blocked. This is also very POV ... look at the explanations given for archiving, mostly because wikidemo decides the conversation is pointless, not because other editors think so. ChingyThingy ( talk) 12:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
User Matt Lewis made a suggestion on Talk:Republic of Ireland [114]. After a long and largely fruitles debate I decided to post a detailed response, numbered as his suggestion had been [115]. To try to keep my post intact I added a comment, <!-- Please do not split this post. Reply below -->, between each numbered point. Matt's response was a vitriolic outburst, accusing me of arrogance and what-not - not for what I said, but for the comment line [116]. I replied, annoyed but not abusive, suggesting ways that he could respond without disrupting my post [117]. His answer was to break up my post, exactly as I had asked him not to [118] [119] [120]. A friendly post to his talk page, suggesting a way around this [121] was met with this response [122]. Of course, I am now up to three reverts so I have run out of options. I have been told that I "can't dicate how people reply to my post", which is undoubtedly true, but it's a matter of wikiquette. Am I making a big deal out of nothing? Scolaire ( talk) 11:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I've had an idea - my list of replies are now unreadable IMO - it is too difficult to compare them to Soclaire's comments which they answer (and I know Wikipedians who will struggle with doing this too, so its helpful to no-one IMO).
Can I duplicate Soclaire's original comments one by one above my own replies? This would at least make things readable. I wish I thought of this at first. It seems totally reasonable to me, but I'm asking here first just to be safe. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 13:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do the italic thing - I wish I'd thought of it before I started reverting. To be honest I have no idea how many reverts I made (I didn't even think about 3RR is this dispute - it totally escaped me as a factor in the case). I just knew things wouldn't work if everyone just replied in a list. Obviously, duplicating his comments was the way to go. Cheers.-- Matt Lewis ( talk) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't spot where he said it, but I must have missed it in my annoyance. If I managed to keep calm it would have probably occurred to me. I was in a bit of an 'edit rush' trying to get a temptingly neat page that Soclaire could go for - but we were both too determined of course.
I think the poll is going quite well considering what some of these particular ones can get like (I generally know the issue when it crosses the UK but am just a little bit out of my usual 'territory' with ROI - although it all relates). We should have a better Irish Etymologyy section out of it if nothing else. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I deliberately did not re-post to here, to see what way it would go, and what happened? He responded to the warning by making more personal attacks on me. [125] In particular: "But did you read what he wrote? It was clearly directed to me", "but he ignored it, because he has written a composed attack on my proposal that he doesn't want to appear unchallenged" and "The sad thing about this is that 10 to 1 we'll be here again now as it is hard enough for us to deal with each other as it is, and I'm getting to know what he's like." Note I have had no input at all since filing the original request. If Matt Lewis responds to the threat of being blocked by making further unwarranted personal attacks, then he should be blocked. Scolaire ( talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (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.
It started when I reverted another (anonymous)editor's message on a talk page becasue in my opinion he/she was treating the talk page as a forum and being rather uncivil [126]. Bharatveer then posted a message on the same tak page calling the attention of admins to my act [127] claiming that I was doing it beacuse it didnt "match my POV". When I pointed out that Wikipedia guildlines allow me to delete personal attacks and material that was not relevant to the topic [128] and [129], he simply repeated the "POV" accusations [130] and [131]. I asked him to take it to the ANI if he felt that I had violated the rules but he refused and kept repeating the same thing over again [132] and told me to "stop giving instructions".
Since we were discussing a personal issue on an article talk page I decided to stop posting messages on the article talk page [133] and posted it on his talk page [134]. In short there has been a lot of communication with Bharaveer talking of taking the matter to admins [135] but not doing so and repeating POV accusations and telling me "not to give instructions" [136] or how I "FEEL"(caps deliberate) [137].
But what really brought me here was his series of edits , deleting my messages on his talk page(in contradiction of what he was telling me to do), calling me a POV pusher [138], [139], [140] ,and my edits as vandalistic [141], [142], [143] or rants [144] or harrasment [145]. When I asked mim to explain how my responses to his messages become vandalism he has not responded.
So there are two issues which I wish to discuss here: 1) Was I wrong in deleting talkp page content if it broke Wikipedia rules? 2) Is User:Bharatveer]] justified in calling me a "vandal" , POV pusher and harraser when his own actions constitute POV pushing and harrasment(I believe that Bharatveer has been punished for POV pushing before too). If not then Bharatveer should apologise to me for calling me names. -- Deepak D'Souza ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The above user left this comment--what are the measures against this sort of hateful language?-- Asdfg 12345 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)