This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User:JordanITP changed some material on a Talk page in the interest of correcting typos. I pointed out to him on his talk page that one should not edit other users' comments on talk pages, and he proceeded to put some profanity on my user page and blank my talk page as a result. I would appreciate someone educating him as to proper Wikiquette. MSJapan ( talk) 02:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
William Allen Simpson ( talk · contribs) called me "obstreperous" [1] and accused me of "silliness" [2].
He creates an atmosphere of "it's him against us" with edits like "Obviously, we deliberately decided by consensus" [3], "And who the heck is Debresser ( talk · contribs)? I don't see a lot of contributions here!" [4], "the folks at WT:CFD#CfD categories renamed" [5].
He repeatedly used "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" when undoing (amonst other things) edits I made [6], [7], [8] e.g.
Debresser ( talk) 14:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories policy requires:Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
Although I was no party to this discussion, I would like to point out that:
(out) WP is actually, for once, quite clear (there have been a lot of similar cases). If the person is Jewish only by inference, and neither by self-identification nor by verifiable fact, then the category is not applicable. If "perpetually" is invoked, we are all, by virtue of Eve, Jewish. Per WP:DEADLINE we have a lot of time to find out if she was Jewish, and then, and onnly then, should the category be added if corect. Collect ( talk) 11:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have provided a level 3 NPA warning to William Allen Simpson. While trying to deal with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues here in WQA, he took the opportunity to generate new attacks. Agreeably, his concerns (and personal misunderstandings) have given rise to possible WP:OWN issues, he must ensure that he remembers that we comment on edits and never editors on Wikipedia. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of a content dispute between User:Warren over content related to Top Gear (2002 TV series), however, after warning him to stop it with the abusive language (stemming from his response to the matter), he goes and inserts language I find abusive and possibly bordering on bullying into his argument. I wish to settle the content dispute, but I cannot under the circumstances right now.-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Revan_ltrl ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user has been here before, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive58#User:Revan_ltrl. Not a major case, but this recent edit - [20] - indicates an unwillingness to abide by WP:CIVIL despite past experience. It is an annoyance and waste of time for editors who work to help improve the encyclopedia to make note of these sorts of pointless talk page postings. Requesting that someone post another reminder to this user about following this path which hinders the serious efforts of others. Sswonk ( talk) 17:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ever heard of the phrase "Don't throw stones in a glasshouse", Sswonk? Revan ltrl ( talk) 21:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm the agent provocateur who laid the bait, like a weasel, and Sswonk took it, felt he couldn't quite let it go. Naturally. I wouldn't either, in spite of my high IQ, being a girlfriendless teenager. Your point with the reading recommendations is unfortunately invaild in this case, since my reference to totalitarianism firstly was meant as a joke, and secondly because totalitarianism doesn't necessarily equal Hitler or Nazism. I don't stand by it, but it's not only a joke, but a result of the systematic, insentient on-slaught you experience when disagreeing with the authority (editors). Hence my reference. But I believe appropriateness of such remarks is irrelevant in Godwin's Law, all abide? I'm not too knowledgeable about that, maybe I'll click on the link after all. Well, since this isn't that big of a deal, I don't really know how to respond to your short stories for answers (joke). I kind of knew that the comment would have some consequences, and I'll cool it with the weasel-like, no-use comments. Revan ltrl ( talk) 23:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Wikifan12345 has recently been making unconstructive edits on Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei:
This is after his comments about our mediator ended an informal mediation:
I should disclose that we have had a past issue here.
Thanks,
-- 69.217.67.104 ( talk) 01:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I really like how he only links diffs and not the actual section. I can't access the noticeboard file because it's probably pages in the archive but it was closed because the IP violated the mediation agreement and the whole complaint was a load anyways (which was described in the section). Why don't you link that. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit: " I did direct a profane message at you for a reason. Clearly it got your attention but failed to send the right signal. Maybe I should say fuck more often. :D". I really feel this is an inappropriate response.-- 69.217.67.104 ( talk) 06:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Regardless of the subject and the truthfullness of all claims here. Using bad language, especially in the direction of another editor, is always a Bad Idea. Debresser ( talk) 20:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand – Pakistan relations, I argued, quite sensibly, that details such as foreign visits quickly forgotten, which we for instance wouldn't bother mentioning in the biographies of those doing the visiting, or in articles on the foreign relations of the countries in question, ought not to receive mention at all. From which Richard Arthur Norton has three times mentioned what he calls the "Biruitorul Biography Rule" - claiming my position to be that only facts which are mentioned in biographies are worthy of inclusion, which is an absurd reading of what I actually believe. I would like this nonsense to stop: it violates WP:NPA ("Comment on content, not on the contributor"), and it completely misrepresents my position, which is grounded in WP:N, not the fictitious "rule" he's invented. - Biruitorul Talk 20:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Wassermann ( talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed suspected) has a long well-known history of problems. Yesterday, s/he posted a long diatribe ( twice), attacking both myself and Carlossuarez46 ( talk · contribs):
The just previous contributions were:
Debresser ( talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) has been a party to at least 6 incidents this year at WP:ANI, such as using legal threats to bypass consensus, and was recently blocked for incivility. Apparently, this experience led him to begin accusing others of incivility, often for the most trivial of reasons.
He has repeatedly filed complaints here, at WP:ANI, and elsewhere against me, other users, and administrators.
Most recently unfounded ad hominem personal attacks:
His edits frequently are missing the section name that is changed, making these harder to discern or locate later.
He has engaged in Wikipedia:Harassment — Hounding and Stalking — at WP:CfD (frequently on my nominations, where he was not a regular participant until recently), on pages I've recently edited, responding to talk conversations with other parties, and hunting down some rare years-old negative comments. Such as:
To avoid being accused of disdaining to join the thread opened in my name... I feel somebody is trying to take revenge on me. This is not an accusation, this is how I feel.
I sincerely appreciate the advice given above to try and avoid crossing paths with User:William Allen Simpson. I will take that advice to heart. Unfortunately, there are a few areas where our interests in Wikipedia intersect. I have tried to be as "to the point" as possible, at times supporting his nominations, at times disagreeing. User:William Allen Simpson has made disagreeing with him unpleasant (see e.g. this discussion or just now this insulting edit and edit-summary), but I think I have managed to stay cool. Any editor who thinks I have behaved uncivil, please let me know.
Anyway, to the point, I don't see any problem with my edits or the edit summaries. So apart from a lot of unfounded accusations I don't see anything here that warrants my - or anybody elses - attention. Any editor who feels differently, please feel free to tell me so. Debresser ( talk) 10:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
InaMaka ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in a longterm pattern of disruptive and incivil editing across several article, article talk and user talk pages, mostly involving the Perez Hilton/ Carrie Prejean Miss USA 2009 controversy. He responds neither to polite requests to be civil nor to warnings about his behaviour.
Around the beginning of last month, when I first enountered him, he left several extremely incivil notes on my talk page, summarized with equally incivil edit summaries ( [21] [22] [23]). I haven’t been the only target of these talk page rants: [24]
When I attempted to discuss with him on various talk pages, he refused. Here’s a typical edit [25] with the summary “No. Its staying right here.” He has accused other editors of sockpuppetry [26] and repeatedly threatened to engage in edit warring [27], generally over the inclusion of statements by Perez Hilton about Carrie Prejean. He responds to polite requests not to edit other users’ comments with “don’t tell me what to do” [28]. Just today, in the midst of a discussion about certain content (which had been removed by consensus), he simply recreated the section. When asked to be civil and please discuss his (re)additions on the talk page, his response was “Let me help you out. You are NOT my boss and I don't think you are. I suggest you stop acting so strident and get a strong grip.”
Most troublingly (and disruptively), InaMaka insists on commenting on other editors rather than on content, here accusing me of using Wikipedia to spread hatred. See also: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]
It must be said that he has improved slightly. He will, at least, now engage in discussion on talk pages. However, his posts centre on the theme of “Hilton’s bigoted, misogynist, psychotic hate speech." Anyway, there’s far too much to post all the diffs here. Can someone please have a look at InaMaka’s contribs and try to impress on him the need to edit civilly? Exploding Boy ( talk) 00:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to obtain an outside view about whether the following exchange represents acceptable conduct from User:Pedro in a discussion he invited me to on his talk page.
This looks to me like a personal insult, and a refusal to apologise: calling it an "opinion" is hardly intended to soften the blow. Is this the level of civility I should expect from an admin, or am I just oversensitive? Groomtech ( talk) 06:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: Pedro's talk page indicates that he will be traveling until June 4th. I suggest holding off all discussion on this subject until he returns. Better yet, I would prefer to pull this WQA until he returns.--- I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This new user began by creating the article M3 Rock Festival. The article was soon nominated for deletion as an advertisement and a non-notable subject. After some issues with removal of the AFD template [34] , MikeyCMS began contesting very civilly, starting with a message on his talk page [35]. That escalated into messages on the deletion entry by his apparent IP address, 72.81.194.107 [36], then into uncivil comments on User:DanielRigal's talk page [37] [38] and finally into blatant vandalism [39], along with a personal attack at ClueBot [40]. MikeyCMS has indirectly admitted that he created the article to "promote the festival", and seems to be going after anyone involved with the deletion of it. just a little insignificant 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask for someone's assistance in dealing with User:Mathsci who has used threatening and belligerent language since I began attempting to edit the article Europe. Initially refusing to dialogue on the talkpage, the user repeatedly reverted my edits without discussion, with the result that I was blocked for 3RR. I am, as has repeatedly pointed out by User:Mathsci , a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, so unfamiliar with many of it's conventions. However, I understand the topic, and I do not understand why I would get blocked for posting numerous sources that support my position. The European article as it currently stands is at worst in error, and at best only providing one side of a contested understanding. I would like to rectify this. I find the agression and threats quite disturbing, and were it not for the fact that I care about the correct facts being presented on Wikipedia, would have left ages ago. I realise this may well not be the place to voice my concerns, but I honestly do not know where else to put it, or what to do. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Regards-- TheThankful ( talk) 21:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This was his last post to me: This is just your own personal synthesis. If you cannot distinguish between the cradle of civilization and Western culture, I don't think there's anybody here that can help you. You seem extremely confused. Until you find some way to come to terms with classical antiquity and how it is represented on wikipedia, you are probably best off not trying to edit here. At the moment you just seem to be trolling on this page. Please go somewhere else.
TheThankful ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just come off a 72 hour block for edit warring and then block evasion. He resumed exactly the same POV-pushing on Europe that got him blocked. I warned him not to continue since all editors had been against his edits and wrote that if he persisted in trying to restore his rejected change to the lede, he could be blocked. He reported me here and simultaneously on WP:ANI without informing me. I have reported him afterwards on WP:ANI where is probably the correct venue for this to be discussed. Mathsci ( talk) 22:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hope that this post is in the right place.
An AfD is currently in progress for Noemi Letizia. I posted my opinion ("vote") on the subject. I returned to the page later and posted additional info labelled as "comments", which could be taken as supporting the opposite opinion on the AfD. However, I wished my vote to remain the same, for the reasons I'd originally given (I still thought that they were stronger than the "opposition"), and I did not edit or change my original post.
I then see that my vote had been struck out with a "del" tag, contrary to my opinion and desires. I haven't checked to see who did that. I see that many other votes have also been struck out. I haven't checked to see who did that.
It appears that someone may be changing / striking out the AfD votes of others. I'd like administrators to look into this matter. I'd like all the votes to be restored to whatever desired by their own voters. If someone did act inappropriately here, I think that it would appropriate for administrators to take some sort of action.
If this post is not in the right place, could you please move as appropriate. Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Can something be done about insults like this [41]? I've had it with this guy. His useful contributions are virtually zero, and all he does is troll around drop insults like the one above. He's been repeatedly blocked for incivility and placed on civility parole in the past. -- Athenean ( talk) 05:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"His useful contributions are virtually zero, and all he does is troll around" Honestly that's a personal attack.The only thing I tried to explain to you was that we all need to find a common language.You can not destroy the work of other because of your interest.-- Taulant23 ( talk) 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I thought I'd start here instead of WP:AN/I for once.
An Anon IP doesn't like some text I took from the Library of Congress website about the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. I've tried to work with her/him, but the matter has now turned surreal with that person (1) claiming the text means what it doesn't (okay, to me at least), (2) the person getting angry (& I too -- but I'm controlling my anger, & willing to admit I'm wrong); & (3) now she/he "will be seeking remedy as I have every right to do". Anyone interested in pouring oil on these troubled waters & calming things down? (I probably won't be back online for another 4-5 hours today, so whatever happens will happen without my knowledge or input.) -- llywrch ( talk) 23:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to receive clarification on whether or not it is civil for an editor to take action to delete a contested section in an Article after the issue has been posted on the noticeboard, but before consensus has been reached.
On February 22, 2009 User:Tony Sidaway deleted a section of the U.S. Marshals (film) which dealt with inacurracies in the film. His reason was that it was a "trivia" section.
I reverted his deletion, and started a discussion of the issue on the article's Talk page. There were no responses to my post. On May 31, User:Cton85 deleted the section, without discussing his deletion on the Talk page or even explaining his deletion in his edit summary.
Today I reverted his deletion and posted in the Fiction Noticeboard to get consensus on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard#U.S._Marshals_.28film.29
User:Collectonian was the first editor to respond. She referenced main policy titles as why the section should be deleted, but did not show where in those larger policies she found verbage that proved Inaccuracies sections should be deleted. I asked her to point me to such verbage, with no response from her. Immediately after she posted her opinion, before any other editors had responded, she deleted the section from the article.
I reverted her deletion, and asked her not to delete it until others had weighed in on the issue, as I don't think her opinion alone qualifies as consensus. She immediately deleted the section again.
My question is: Is it civil for an editor to take action to delete a contested section of an article while that section is still being discussed on a Noticeboard?
Thanks for your help. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey. In the past week or so, I have noticed an ongoing battle between Erikupoeg ( talk · contribs) and Rubikonchik ( talk · contribs). They're both involved in editing a number of articles, but the one I got involved in through WP:3O was Sofia Rotaru. What I've witnessed so far is that Erikupoeg made a number of edits - fairly decent ones, in my opinion - and Rubikonchik has attempted to wholly revert the edits without any particular explanation. Looking at the editors' contributions reveals a lot of reversion battles on several articles. There's a lot of personal attacks and civility issues going on, so I figured that I'd bring it up here so someone else can take a look at these two editors' actions and perhaps help to resolve some of the tension. I'll inform both editors about this so they can weigh in. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Second, when you say:
Here's a list of diffs, with page names and stuff.
The list just goes on and on. In looking up all of these diffs, actually, it seems that both of them are so far past WP:3RR that it's not even funny. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
These users have been involved in what appears to essentially be a flamewar on each others talk pages. This resulted in Daedalus taking it to AN/I claiming that Jayhawk of Justice has been making personal attacks and "stalking" him. I occasionally browse AN/I and this caught my attention so I began looking into it. It appears that this same thing had happened previously resulting in Jayhawk getting blocked. Apparently his block expired and he returned yesterday and the flamewar immediately continued. This probably didn't need to be brought here considering it's already at AN/I, but I felt it should be brought up here as well considering the personal attacks that have been flying back and forth between these users. Anonymous Talk Contribs 02:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
In response to a nomination for deletion by Ironholds of an article Oxana879 created ( AfD discussion), Oxana879 left a clear personal attack on Ironhold's talk page. Both myself and Euryalus found this behavior to be unacceptable, so we both made polite (in my case, a bit stern, using the standard template) note of such at Oxana879's talk page.
In response, Oxana879 directed personal attacks at both myself and Euryalus. This makes three clear attacks, two at uninvolved editors attempting to clarify Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. Vicenarian ( T · C) 14:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I made this edit: [60] reverting an addition that is against the consensus built for the lede in this article. This IP responded with this attack: [61]. Not sure anybody should have to put up with this type of heated attack. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
A while ago I placed {{ npov}}/{{ weasel}}/{{ undue}} tags on Malvern Water because I felt the article had issues of neutrality, gave undue prominence to certain facts, and so on. I tried to explain myself on the talk page, but I've been met with an incredibly amount of bad faith from the editors there who seem to have taken my taggings on a personal level, and who's response has essentially been one of defamations, mockings, belittlings, threats of administrator intervention, and so on. Now, I've lost all interest in editing that article (since I have better use of my time than to be insulted at some ungodly rate), and while I'm not using any sleep over what some guy/woman over the internet thinks of me, this is IMO, intolerable behaviour on Wikipedia. I'm not out for blood here, although I admit I wouldn't mind seeing some of them being served with a 24 hour warning ban/block/whatever you wanna call it. I'm more concerned about the next guy/gal who'll have to work with the Worcestershire Project, and who, like me, will end up being turned off of editing a page because of incivility issues. The other editors on that page haven't been much better, but people seems to be unable to drop the issue. Some quotes:
All this in a period of less than 24 hours. All I did was tag with NPOV/Weasel tag, another editor removed them because he thought the matter was settled, I objected (revert) and explained why, he reverted because he thought the tags were inaccurate, so I then tagged with the more accurate {{ undue}} instead. Then I was met with this onslaught of insults. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
As one of the accused parties, let me just take a step back and review this situation once and for all before it is closed, and we all get back to work (although my enthusiasm for the WP has been somewhat dampened by the future expectation of the new editing methods that I was unaware of , and of the toleration of filthy language.)
As some people consider it helpful to quote messages out of context, we can all play this game and maybe this will help fill some of the gaps:
I will happily agree to abide by the rules, however, I'm afraid I must disagree with Beeblebrox in part. Although this is about a civility issue, one must take into account how and why the issue arose and why Headbomb's complaint on this page is purely preemptive. Headbomb did simply tag it and ignore it, and he did only engage in conversation when (politely) asked. His ensuing actions were merely frivolous comments that have little to do with the article's text, and nothing to do with analogy. Like GyroMagician, I shall try to find out how Wikipedia policy makers think it can be possible for an editor to make 200 objective taggings in one day, and how making inappropriate analogies can be of help to serious authors who clearly have a nascent article well in control.
A chronological review of the various statements and actions will prove without any doubt whatsoever that Headbomb, in spite of our offers of an olive branch, is the one who is unable to let the matter rest and that his complaint here is purely preemptive, because he was warned first.
I have enjoyed working with others over the past four years to create serious contributions to the Wiki and to put less serious articles right, but if this are the new methods of editing that are to be expected in the future, unless Headbomb also expresses a committment to improve his editing methods, I shall probably lose my enthusiasm for being a creative writer, and and become a very critical editor of editors instead.
I will conclude with an administrator's advice on this very page:
User:BillCJ disagrees about some changes I made to Eurocopter AS332 and Heavy Transport Helicopter. He avoids discussion, instead falling back to personal attacks in several edit summaries ( [62], [63], [64]). My request to stop his personal attacks are reverted.
Please tell Bill that he should stop personal attacking me and enter the discussion. -- 91.55.206.73 ( talk) 18:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Third-party comment: This is not worth the space/ time being used to discuss it. Said IP user likewise exhibited uncivil behavior with this edit, but has since acknowledged it. I think the parties should just shake hands and go their separate ways. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
BillCJ's reaction to this alert: He insulted me again. I think something more than just a shake of hands is in order. -- 91.55.206.73 ( talk) 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I retain my opinion that a truce is in order. <-- Please read. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
3rd party comment As a reasonably experienced editor on Wikipedia I have seen too many occasions where IP editors have made a series of seemingly innocuous edits without edit summaries that eventually add up to a very subtle form of vandalism. Often these edits individually seem fair enough but in total they are not. Unexplained edits by IPs are usually indistinguishable from such vandalism and I too will revert them unless it is very apparent that the edit is genuine and/or serves a useful purpose. All this would have been avoided if the IP editor here registered an account and used edit summaries. He/she also seems to be rather thin skinned, calling apparent vandalism by its name is not an insult - if you expect others to assume good faith, you should assume it yourself. This shows an extreme lack of good faith and very uncivil behaviour and frankly from that point the IP has lost all credibility with me, whatever apparent contrition he/she has made since. If you wish to make edits that are not instantly reverted by editors concerned with maintaining the validity of Wikipedia then supply edit summaries and register an account. - Nick Thorne talk 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There has been ample opportunity for BillCJ to comment on the issue. Since the facts are clear, I call for some kind of sanction. -- 91.55.196.144 ( talk) 07:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
3rd party comment Bill's conduct looks OK to me. Some of his edits could have had politer edit summaries, but none are particularly bad, and the IP's behavior is much worse. If you want to be taken seriously, please register an account and use polite edit summaries - this is particularly the case as your IP appears to be dynamic. Nick-D ( talk) 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Stop trying to force an editor to get an account, as it's permissible according to the rules. Everyone already knows that:
Further attempts at Wikipoodling the IP editor to try and force them to get an account will not be tolerated. All individual edits must be judged in conjunction with their edit summaries. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I enjoy spending the odd hour reverting vandals, and I agree with Nick Thorne that an IP Editor, no edit summaries, repeatedly adding or deleting blank spaces would get viewed as as vandalism because there would apparently be no reason to do it, and a named editor kept reversing it. IP vandals do some weird shit - there is one who adds some immensely rude statement in the middle of a para, then immediately deletes it himself. I think he must get off on it. And it's not so much your cussing at the template in that edit summary that's the problem, as the attitude you display to the other user. You have apparently only been editing for two days (although as you have a dynamic IP address, who knows how long you've been here) - why is this white space business so important to you. You pulled the same stunt on Opel Diplomat but the other guy didn't come back and revert you the last time. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 16:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I fixed three instances in two articles where a broken template changed the way the article is displayed. User:BillCJ reverted my changes. We reverted each other for some time.
During the edit war, BillCJ personally attacked me thrice: By calling my changes vandalism and by calling myself dumb. As a reaction, I asked him to stop the personal attacks on his usertalk. He simply reverted my request.
Since a normal discussion seemed to be impossible, I opened this alert on WP:WQA. BillCJ was informed a few minutes later ( reformatted by User:Cobaltbluetony).
BillCJ's reaction to this alert: He insulted me again. He hasn't taken part in the discussion yet.
During the discussion:
Some questions:
Since the policy seems to be clear on the issue, and since there is no indication that BillCJ would act differently in the future, I call for a sanction against his behavior. Since the only sanction around here seems to be a block, I suggest a very short block. -- 91.55.196.144 ( talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The link above i posted could helps. The point shold be that no one editor can forbit another to edit and not even trying to discuss the material reverted. It is recomended, but who really cares? When i made BAe Hawk edit [71] i gave some materials, lather moved (by me) in the discussion page [72] and there is still awaiting for discussion, that obviously, nobody was interested to hold, surely not BillCJ that 'don't cares'. But who is to speak: Reverted poorly written and partly uncited addions by Stefanomencarelli - too focused on minor details? If someone contribues to wikipedia, it is not expected to be censored by other editors with these reasons. Even if the material could be always questioned, it's unuseful for the project throw away everything w.o. discussions at all and never trying to start one as peer to peer review. I am not in the position to make editing in the Ns0 because the judge BillCJ has stated so? No room for a discussion, a compromise, nothing? In this case Wikipedia's policies are easily eluded HIMO.-- Stefanomencarelli ( talk) 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Found here:
91.55.253.79 ( talk) 09:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)I've been following the "complaint" against me, and was considering replying there. However, User:Stefanomencarelli has commented as a so-called "third-party". This user was banned for 1 year for the exact things I reverted him for, and I won't participate in his vendatta against me, or be reading up on the discussion anymore. I still can't read his bad English either, which is why his "contributions" are continually removed from articles by other editors besides myself, among other problems. As for why I'm staying out of the discussions altogether: less stress! With the exception of two users, the other editors don't see a problem. Oh, I'm still laughing at the IP's comment about having "fixed" the broken template! All he did was hide the problem on 2 pages - the template is still broken - he fixed nothing. And for the record, I like the line spaces on the edit screen because I have bad eyesight, and the spaces help to break up the long templates, especially after several hours at the computer. I don't see how the extra linebreak in the article itself affects anyone, other than looking a bit funny. I'll go in favor of eyesight, plus the articles won't need to be adjusted when the specs template is finally fixed. - BillCJ (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, i have just three things more to say:
This wikinette page wuold explain that, in fact and in spite of some basic rules, there are editors authorized to censor others, no matter if their contribution worths or not. The fact that BillCJ is able to come here and simply explain how he not want to talk/discuss/re-elaborate instead to 'delete on the spot', and nobody sees a problem with, it's really impressive.-- Stefanomencarelli ( talk) 10:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Dave asked me to express my opinion here. It looks to me like BillCJ could have been a little more tactful in his edit summaries, but it also looks to me like the IP address is way overreacting, which tends to look like trolling behavior. If everyone would, for the time being, restrict their activities to discussing the content issues in the talk pages, that could go a long way toward resolving this.
And you wonder why I'm happy not to be an admin. 0:)
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots 12:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment from an administrative perspective: My perception of the purpose of blocks is not to punish, but to prevent disruption. In this case, BillCJ would have to be persisting in disruptive behavior -- which he's not; he's dropped it and is avoiding interaction with his accuser. The disruption, IMO, is coming from the IP editor continually beating a dead horse. Therefore, I recommend ending this discussion unless and until BillCJ "offends" again. Thereafter, if any further noise on this issue comes up from this IP editor, it should be rollbacked. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, this user, angry at me for having reported him for a 3RR violation, has embarked on campaign to refer to me exclusively as "the reverter" [74] [75]. I warned him to stop [76], and this [77] was his response (not untypical, by the way). Can something be done about this? He needs to be warned in the strongest possible terms to cease this kind of behavior, or else be blocked for it. -- Athenean ( talk) 18:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if you cannot avoid one another for the long-term, then walk away, even if it means from the computer entirely, until you both settle down. The exchange demonstrated by the last two diffs in Athenean's first posting are the epitome of childishness on both sides. (no, I am not name calling, I am saying the edits made were childish, just as there are edits I have made I am sure that could be called "stupid"). Daring someone to do something, followed by that person doing it again shows neither of you are calm enough right now to edit, so I say take a 1-day wikibreak, or at least long enough to cease the inappropriate behavior. Nothing here is a blatant personal attack, but continued incivility is disruptive, and refusing to halt disruptive behavior is blockable. Athenean, try to avoid Balkanian's word and especially try to make a point of not reverting his edits if you can help it. If he makes a truely troublesome edit someone else will certainly fix it. Balkanian's word, stop referring to Athenean as "the reverter" since 1) it is incivil especially since he has told you to stop (even if he hasn't before now, this thread certainly is telling you he doesn't appreciate it) and 2) it is designed to be disparaging and baiting. I also suggest that if someone reverts your edit, whether it is Athenean or someone else, instead of reverting them, try discussing the edit on the talk page. If you proceeded in this manner in the first place you would never have been blocked for a 3RR violation.
The
Seeker 4
Talk 19:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Greglocock promised me some of his 'special attention' after for disagreeing with his edits (he insisted on using an unaccessable, potentially unreliable wartime primary source). Recently he addressed all other editors (often) disagreeing with his POV as 'fanbois'. When the the reference he 'requested' was given to him, he addressed these as 'fanboi exaggeration' and threatened to 'clean up the mess' which I would 'not enjoy'. User:Greglocock was already warned to refrain from incivility. Kurfürst ( talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
From the diffs I have seen the "fanboi" namecalling is a little much, but not severe enough to be called a serious personal attack. Saying that he is going to single you out for "special attention", though, that is very uncivil, certainly seems to me to be a threat, and a threat to edit war with you. User:Mmyers1976|Mmyers1976]] ( talk) 12:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
User IbnAmioun has written: "You should look at the consequences of obsessive stalking a character." [78]. I find this to be an impolite/uncivil communication, because it can be interpreted as a threat. Ulner ( talk) 11:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
IbnAmioun making uncivil comment in edit commentary: [ [79]]. Ulner ( talk) 23:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please have a look at the interactions between myself and User:Roux at User talk:Roux? We've been conversing, and I think that we're not understanding each other 100%. The conversation has devolved into a conversation about who was rude when, and I would very much appreciate the perspective of a third party. To anyone agreeing to have a look, I thank you for your time. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this has anything to do with DougsTech. This is the third time in a few months that I've had an interaction something like this, and I'd like to learn from it. There is a certain personality type around here that I seem to be very bad at interacting with, despite my efforts. Since Roux has seemed willing to discuss, by continuing to reply, I thought I might learn something from this by asking for a third opinion. Roux has been offering to report me, but he hasn't done it, so I did it myself. If he's not willing to pursue dispute resolution, then maybe he shouldn't have threatened me with it. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The conversation didn't seem to be doing much, but Roux had some kind of openness to keep talking about it (until just now), so I got the impression he was trying to get something across to me. Excuse me for wanting to learn from my experiences. I'm clearly "doing it wrong". Goodbye. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not being dishonest. What possible motive would I have for that? Why does he keep giving me things to reply to? Why not actually end the conversation, by ending without throwing in little barbed attacks? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If you reply, then it's clear that you do not consider the discussion over. Learn control. It should be easy for you. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
See section above. This is out of hand. I gave him a final warning, he seems uninterested in desisting from the attacks, so it would seem that he needs to be blocked until he agrees to stop making personal attacks. // roux 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I’m concerned about the civility of the actions of User:Jezhotwells relating to Eurovision Song Contest articles. WikiProject Eurovision had two similar articles nominated for Good Article status that would have become the ninth and tenth such Good Articles for the project. They had been awaiting reviews for more than a month, and an hour or so before Jezhotwells decided to take them on, an ip adds a comment stating that the reviewer should check the reliability of two of the sources [80]. When the review started, Jezhotwells decided to quickfail and claimed that the sites are blogs and therefore unreliable [81]. I came online right after he failed the first and sent him a message asking for clarification of why he would fail and pleaded for him to discuss this before he take anymore action. [82]. In what I feel to be a gross violation of assume good faith, he quick-failed the other article. From then on, a discussion began where I was lectured on what blogs and reliable sources are and a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard was started. Though there was an overall lack of participation in the discussion, two outside editors responded. One told me that Jezhotwell’s actions were uncivil and I should try a reassessment with another editor, [83] and another told me that the only problem he sees with the sources is that they may be overused and that I should diversify them before GA status is granted. [84]. The uncivil behavior continued when Jezhotwells informed me that he will reassess all of the other GAs of the project to make sure that the sources are reliable [85]. This action is highly POV as there is still no consensus that the sources are unreliable and it is highly unlikely that the many GA reviewers who reviewed the other Eurovision articles just made a mistake about the sources. I was just going to let this whole thing go and submit the two recent articles for reassessment, but the incivility continued this morning when he decided to tag several Eurovision articles with unreliable reference tags [86] [87] and then opened a reassessment on an article and decided to delist as a GA within minutes of starting the reassessment using his personal belief that the sites are blogs [88].
I ask administrators and other editors to look into this matter and determine if the actions of Jezhotwells were civil and determine if he assumed good faith. Most troubling to me is that after waiting so long for these articles to be reviewed, he failed them without even inquiring about the reliability of the sources, without asking for a second opinion, and without waiting for any response from the editor as is routine. I don’t see why they could not have been put on hold while a discussion of the reliability took place. He had a preexisting view on the subject and is carrying on with his edits as if he is right even though there is no consensus on the matter. I find it difficult and frustrating to edit and improve Eurovision pages knowing that he will be there to make a scene about the sources, or request a reassessment and motion to delist based on his personal beliefs once again. What use is having these two recent articles reassessed as he mentioned [89] if he will just personally reassess them later and fail them once again? What’s to stop him? He is going around telling me on a dozen or so articles that I have the burden of proof (which i do) yet there is a rough consensus that the sources are in fact reliable (also see here for a project-wide discussion on the reliability of Eurovision sources. His editing is disruptive and must stop. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 16:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User:JordanITP changed some material on a Talk page in the interest of correcting typos. I pointed out to him on his talk page that one should not edit other users' comments on talk pages, and he proceeded to put some profanity on my user page and blank my talk page as a result. I would appreciate someone educating him as to proper Wikiquette. MSJapan ( talk) 02:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
William Allen Simpson ( talk · contribs) called me "obstreperous" [1] and accused me of "silliness" [2].
He creates an atmosphere of "it's him against us" with edits like "Obviously, we deliberately decided by consensus" [3], "And who the heck is Debresser ( talk · contribs)? I don't see a lot of contributions here!" [4], "the folks at WT:CFD#CfD categories renamed" [5].
He repeatedly used "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" when undoing (amonst other things) edits I made [6], [7], [8] e.g.
Debresser ( talk) 14:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories policy requires:Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
Although I was no party to this discussion, I would like to point out that:
(out) WP is actually, for once, quite clear (there have been a lot of similar cases). If the person is Jewish only by inference, and neither by self-identification nor by verifiable fact, then the category is not applicable. If "perpetually" is invoked, we are all, by virtue of Eve, Jewish. Per WP:DEADLINE we have a lot of time to find out if she was Jewish, and then, and onnly then, should the category be added if corect. Collect ( talk) 11:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have provided a level 3 NPA warning to William Allen Simpson. While trying to deal with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA issues here in WQA, he took the opportunity to generate new attacks. Agreeably, his concerns (and personal misunderstandings) have given rise to possible WP:OWN issues, he must ensure that he remembers that we comment on edits and never editors on Wikipedia. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of a content dispute between User:Warren over content related to Top Gear (2002 TV series), however, after warning him to stop it with the abusive language (stemming from his response to the matter), he goes and inserts language I find abusive and possibly bordering on bullying into his argument. I wish to settle the content dispute, but I cannot under the circumstances right now.-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Revan_ltrl ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user has been here before, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive58#User:Revan_ltrl. Not a major case, but this recent edit - [20] - indicates an unwillingness to abide by WP:CIVIL despite past experience. It is an annoyance and waste of time for editors who work to help improve the encyclopedia to make note of these sorts of pointless talk page postings. Requesting that someone post another reminder to this user about following this path which hinders the serious efforts of others. Sswonk ( talk) 17:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ever heard of the phrase "Don't throw stones in a glasshouse", Sswonk? Revan ltrl ( talk) 21:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm the agent provocateur who laid the bait, like a weasel, and Sswonk took it, felt he couldn't quite let it go. Naturally. I wouldn't either, in spite of my high IQ, being a girlfriendless teenager. Your point with the reading recommendations is unfortunately invaild in this case, since my reference to totalitarianism firstly was meant as a joke, and secondly because totalitarianism doesn't necessarily equal Hitler or Nazism. I don't stand by it, but it's not only a joke, but a result of the systematic, insentient on-slaught you experience when disagreeing with the authority (editors). Hence my reference. But I believe appropriateness of such remarks is irrelevant in Godwin's Law, all abide? I'm not too knowledgeable about that, maybe I'll click on the link after all. Well, since this isn't that big of a deal, I don't really know how to respond to your short stories for answers (joke). I kind of knew that the comment would have some consequences, and I'll cool it with the weasel-like, no-use comments. Revan ltrl ( talk) 23:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Wikifan12345 has recently been making unconstructive edits on Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei:
This is after his comments about our mediator ended an informal mediation:
I should disclose that we have had a past issue here.
Thanks,
-- 69.217.67.104 ( talk) 01:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I really like how he only links diffs and not the actual section. I can't access the noticeboard file because it's probably pages in the archive but it was closed because the IP violated the mediation agreement and the whole complaint was a load anyways (which was described in the section). Why don't you link that. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit: " I did direct a profane message at you for a reason. Clearly it got your attention but failed to send the right signal. Maybe I should say fuck more often. :D". I really feel this is an inappropriate response.-- 69.217.67.104 ( talk) 06:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment Regardless of the subject and the truthfullness of all claims here. Using bad language, especially in the direction of another editor, is always a Bad Idea. Debresser ( talk) 20:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand – Pakistan relations, I argued, quite sensibly, that details such as foreign visits quickly forgotten, which we for instance wouldn't bother mentioning in the biographies of those doing the visiting, or in articles on the foreign relations of the countries in question, ought not to receive mention at all. From which Richard Arthur Norton has three times mentioned what he calls the "Biruitorul Biography Rule" - claiming my position to be that only facts which are mentioned in biographies are worthy of inclusion, which is an absurd reading of what I actually believe. I would like this nonsense to stop: it violates WP:NPA ("Comment on content, not on the contributor"), and it completely misrepresents my position, which is grounded in WP:N, not the fictitious "rule" he's invented. - Biruitorul Talk 20:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Wassermann ( talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed suspected) has a long well-known history of problems. Yesterday, s/he posted a long diatribe ( twice), attacking both myself and Carlossuarez46 ( talk · contribs):
The just previous contributions were:
Debresser ( talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) has been a party to at least 6 incidents this year at WP:ANI, such as using legal threats to bypass consensus, and was recently blocked for incivility. Apparently, this experience led him to begin accusing others of incivility, often for the most trivial of reasons.
He has repeatedly filed complaints here, at WP:ANI, and elsewhere against me, other users, and administrators.
Most recently unfounded ad hominem personal attacks:
His edits frequently are missing the section name that is changed, making these harder to discern or locate later.
He has engaged in Wikipedia:Harassment — Hounding and Stalking — at WP:CfD (frequently on my nominations, where he was not a regular participant until recently), on pages I've recently edited, responding to talk conversations with other parties, and hunting down some rare years-old negative comments. Such as:
To avoid being accused of disdaining to join the thread opened in my name... I feel somebody is trying to take revenge on me. This is not an accusation, this is how I feel.
I sincerely appreciate the advice given above to try and avoid crossing paths with User:William Allen Simpson. I will take that advice to heart. Unfortunately, there are a few areas where our interests in Wikipedia intersect. I have tried to be as "to the point" as possible, at times supporting his nominations, at times disagreeing. User:William Allen Simpson has made disagreeing with him unpleasant (see e.g. this discussion or just now this insulting edit and edit-summary), but I think I have managed to stay cool. Any editor who thinks I have behaved uncivil, please let me know.
Anyway, to the point, I don't see any problem with my edits or the edit summaries. So apart from a lot of unfounded accusations I don't see anything here that warrants my - or anybody elses - attention. Any editor who feels differently, please feel free to tell me so. Debresser ( talk) 10:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
InaMaka ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in a longterm pattern of disruptive and incivil editing across several article, article talk and user talk pages, mostly involving the Perez Hilton/ Carrie Prejean Miss USA 2009 controversy. He responds neither to polite requests to be civil nor to warnings about his behaviour.
Around the beginning of last month, when I first enountered him, he left several extremely incivil notes on my talk page, summarized with equally incivil edit summaries ( [21] [22] [23]). I haven’t been the only target of these talk page rants: [24]
When I attempted to discuss with him on various talk pages, he refused. Here’s a typical edit [25] with the summary “No. Its staying right here.” He has accused other editors of sockpuppetry [26] and repeatedly threatened to engage in edit warring [27], generally over the inclusion of statements by Perez Hilton about Carrie Prejean. He responds to polite requests not to edit other users’ comments with “don’t tell me what to do” [28]. Just today, in the midst of a discussion about certain content (which had been removed by consensus), he simply recreated the section. When asked to be civil and please discuss his (re)additions on the talk page, his response was “Let me help you out. You are NOT my boss and I don't think you are. I suggest you stop acting so strident and get a strong grip.”
Most troublingly (and disruptively), InaMaka insists on commenting on other editors rather than on content, here accusing me of using Wikipedia to spread hatred. See also: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]
It must be said that he has improved slightly. He will, at least, now engage in discussion on talk pages. However, his posts centre on the theme of “Hilton’s bigoted, misogynist, psychotic hate speech." Anyway, there’s far too much to post all the diffs here. Can someone please have a look at InaMaka’s contribs and try to impress on him the need to edit civilly? Exploding Boy ( talk) 00:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to obtain an outside view about whether the following exchange represents acceptable conduct from User:Pedro in a discussion he invited me to on his talk page.
This looks to me like a personal insult, and a refusal to apologise: calling it an "opinion" is hardly intended to soften the blow. Is this the level of civility I should expect from an admin, or am I just oversensitive? Groomtech ( talk) 06:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: Pedro's talk page indicates that he will be traveling until June 4th. I suggest holding off all discussion on this subject until he returns. Better yet, I would prefer to pull this WQA until he returns.--- I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This new user began by creating the article M3 Rock Festival. The article was soon nominated for deletion as an advertisement and a non-notable subject. After some issues with removal of the AFD template [34] , MikeyCMS began contesting very civilly, starting with a message on his talk page [35]. That escalated into messages on the deletion entry by his apparent IP address, 72.81.194.107 [36], then into uncivil comments on User:DanielRigal's talk page [37] [38] and finally into blatant vandalism [39], along with a personal attack at ClueBot [40]. MikeyCMS has indirectly admitted that he created the article to "promote the festival", and seems to be going after anyone involved with the deletion of it. just a little insignificant 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to ask for someone's assistance in dealing with User:Mathsci who has used threatening and belligerent language since I began attempting to edit the article Europe. Initially refusing to dialogue on the talkpage, the user repeatedly reverted my edits without discussion, with the result that I was blocked for 3RR. I am, as has repeatedly pointed out by User:Mathsci , a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, so unfamiliar with many of it's conventions. However, I understand the topic, and I do not understand why I would get blocked for posting numerous sources that support my position. The European article as it currently stands is at worst in error, and at best only providing one side of a contested understanding. I would like to rectify this. I find the agression and threats quite disturbing, and were it not for the fact that I care about the correct facts being presented on Wikipedia, would have left ages ago. I realise this may well not be the place to voice my concerns, but I honestly do not know where else to put it, or what to do. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Regards-- TheThankful ( talk) 21:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This was his last post to me: This is just your own personal synthesis. If you cannot distinguish between the cradle of civilization and Western culture, I don't think there's anybody here that can help you. You seem extremely confused. Until you find some way to come to terms with classical antiquity and how it is represented on wikipedia, you are probably best off not trying to edit here. At the moment you just seem to be trolling on this page. Please go somewhere else.
TheThankful ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just come off a 72 hour block for edit warring and then block evasion. He resumed exactly the same POV-pushing on Europe that got him blocked. I warned him not to continue since all editors had been against his edits and wrote that if he persisted in trying to restore his rejected change to the lede, he could be blocked. He reported me here and simultaneously on WP:ANI without informing me. I have reported him afterwards on WP:ANI where is probably the correct venue for this to be discussed. Mathsci ( talk) 22:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hope that this post is in the right place.
An AfD is currently in progress for Noemi Letizia. I posted my opinion ("vote") on the subject. I returned to the page later and posted additional info labelled as "comments", which could be taken as supporting the opposite opinion on the AfD. However, I wished my vote to remain the same, for the reasons I'd originally given (I still thought that they were stronger than the "opposition"), and I did not edit or change my original post.
I then see that my vote had been struck out with a "del" tag, contrary to my opinion and desires. I haven't checked to see who did that. I see that many other votes have also been struck out. I haven't checked to see who did that.
It appears that someone may be changing / striking out the AfD votes of others. I'd like administrators to look into this matter. I'd like all the votes to be restored to whatever desired by their own voters. If someone did act inappropriately here, I think that it would appropriate for administrators to take some sort of action.
If this post is not in the right place, could you please move as appropriate. Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 ( talk) 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Can something be done about insults like this [41]? I've had it with this guy. His useful contributions are virtually zero, and all he does is troll around drop insults like the one above. He's been repeatedly blocked for incivility and placed on civility parole in the past. -- Athenean ( talk) 05:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"His useful contributions are virtually zero, and all he does is troll around" Honestly that's a personal attack.The only thing I tried to explain to you was that we all need to find a common language.You can not destroy the work of other because of your interest.-- Taulant23 ( talk) 20:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I thought I'd start here instead of WP:AN/I for once.
An Anon IP doesn't like some text I took from the Library of Congress website about the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. I've tried to work with her/him, but the matter has now turned surreal with that person (1) claiming the text means what it doesn't (okay, to me at least), (2) the person getting angry (& I too -- but I'm controlling my anger, & willing to admit I'm wrong); & (3) now she/he "will be seeking remedy as I have every right to do". Anyone interested in pouring oil on these troubled waters & calming things down? (I probably won't be back online for another 4-5 hours today, so whatever happens will happen without my knowledge or input.) -- llywrch ( talk) 23:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to receive clarification on whether or not it is civil for an editor to take action to delete a contested section in an Article after the issue has been posted on the noticeboard, but before consensus has been reached.
On February 22, 2009 User:Tony Sidaway deleted a section of the U.S. Marshals (film) which dealt with inacurracies in the film. His reason was that it was a "trivia" section.
I reverted his deletion, and started a discussion of the issue on the article's Talk page. There were no responses to my post. On May 31, User:Cton85 deleted the section, without discussing his deletion on the Talk page or even explaining his deletion in his edit summary.
Today I reverted his deletion and posted in the Fiction Noticeboard to get consensus on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard#U.S._Marshals_.28film.29
User:Collectonian was the first editor to respond. She referenced main policy titles as why the section should be deleted, but did not show where in those larger policies she found verbage that proved Inaccuracies sections should be deleted. I asked her to point me to such verbage, with no response from her. Immediately after she posted her opinion, before any other editors had responded, she deleted the section from the article.
I reverted her deletion, and asked her not to delete it until others had weighed in on the issue, as I don't think her opinion alone qualifies as consensus. She immediately deleted the section again.
My question is: Is it civil for an editor to take action to delete a contested section of an article while that section is still being discussed on a Noticeboard?
Thanks for your help. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey. In the past week or so, I have noticed an ongoing battle between Erikupoeg ( talk · contribs) and Rubikonchik ( talk · contribs). They're both involved in editing a number of articles, but the one I got involved in through WP:3O was Sofia Rotaru. What I've witnessed so far is that Erikupoeg made a number of edits - fairly decent ones, in my opinion - and Rubikonchik has attempted to wholly revert the edits without any particular explanation. Looking at the editors' contributions reveals a lot of reversion battles on several articles. There's a lot of personal attacks and civility issues going on, so I figured that I'd bring it up here so someone else can take a look at these two editors' actions and perhaps help to resolve some of the tension. I'll inform both editors about this so they can weigh in. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Second, when you say:
Here's a list of diffs, with page names and stuff.
The list just goes on and on. In looking up all of these diffs, actually, it seems that both of them are so far past WP:3RR that it's not even funny. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
These users have been involved in what appears to essentially be a flamewar on each others talk pages. This resulted in Daedalus taking it to AN/I claiming that Jayhawk of Justice has been making personal attacks and "stalking" him. I occasionally browse AN/I and this caught my attention so I began looking into it. It appears that this same thing had happened previously resulting in Jayhawk getting blocked. Apparently his block expired and he returned yesterday and the flamewar immediately continued. This probably didn't need to be brought here considering it's already at AN/I, but I felt it should be brought up here as well considering the personal attacks that have been flying back and forth between these users. Anonymous Talk Contribs 02:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
In response to a nomination for deletion by Ironholds of an article Oxana879 created ( AfD discussion), Oxana879 left a clear personal attack on Ironhold's talk page. Both myself and Euryalus found this behavior to be unacceptable, so we both made polite (in my case, a bit stern, using the standard template) note of such at Oxana879's talk page.
In response, Oxana879 directed personal attacks at both myself and Euryalus. This makes three clear attacks, two at uninvolved editors attempting to clarify Wikipedia behavioral guidelines. Vicenarian ( T · C) 14:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I made this edit: [60] reverting an addition that is against the consensus built for the lede in this article. This IP responded with this attack: [61]. Not sure anybody should have to put up with this type of heated attack. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 23:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
A while ago I placed {{ npov}}/{{ weasel}}/{{ undue}} tags on Malvern Water because I felt the article had issues of neutrality, gave undue prominence to certain facts, and so on. I tried to explain myself on the talk page, but I've been met with an incredibly amount of bad faith from the editors there who seem to have taken my taggings on a personal level, and who's response has essentially been one of defamations, mockings, belittlings, threats of administrator intervention, and so on. Now, I've lost all interest in editing that article (since I have better use of my time than to be insulted at some ungodly rate), and while I'm not using any sleep over what some guy/woman over the internet thinks of me, this is IMO, intolerable behaviour on Wikipedia. I'm not out for blood here, although I admit I wouldn't mind seeing some of them being served with a 24 hour warning ban/block/whatever you wanna call it. I'm more concerned about the next guy/gal who'll have to work with the Worcestershire Project, and who, like me, will end up being turned off of editing a page because of incivility issues. The other editors on that page haven't been much better, but people seems to be unable to drop the issue. Some quotes:
All this in a period of less than 24 hours. All I did was tag with NPOV/Weasel tag, another editor removed them because he thought the matter was settled, I objected (revert) and explained why, he reverted because he thought the tags were inaccurate, so I then tagged with the more accurate {{ undue}} instead. Then I was met with this onslaught of insults. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
As one of the accused parties, let me just take a step back and review this situation once and for all before it is closed, and we all get back to work (although my enthusiasm for the WP has been somewhat dampened by the future expectation of the new editing methods that I was unaware of , and of the toleration of filthy language.)
As some people consider it helpful to quote messages out of context, we can all play this game and maybe this will help fill some of the gaps:
I will happily agree to abide by the rules, however, I'm afraid I must disagree with Beeblebrox in part. Although this is about a civility issue, one must take into account how and why the issue arose and why Headbomb's complaint on this page is purely preemptive. Headbomb did simply tag it and ignore it, and he did only engage in conversation when (politely) asked. His ensuing actions were merely frivolous comments that have little to do with the article's text, and nothing to do with analogy. Like GyroMagician, I shall try to find out how Wikipedia policy makers think it can be possible for an editor to make 200 objective taggings in one day, and how making inappropriate analogies can be of help to serious authors who clearly have a nascent article well in control.
A chronological review of the various statements and actions will prove without any doubt whatsoever that Headbomb, in spite of our offers of an olive branch, is the one who is unable to let the matter rest and that his complaint here is purely preemptive, because he was warned first.
I have enjoyed working with others over the past four years to create serious contributions to the Wiki and to put less serious articles right, but if this are the new methods of editing that are to be expected in the future, unless Headbomb also expresses a committment to improve his editing methods, I shall probably lose my enthusiasm for being a creative writer, and and become a very critical editor of editors instead.
I will conclude with an administrator's advice on this very page:
User:BillCJ disagrees about some changes I made to Eurocopter AS332 and Heavy Transport Helicopter. He avoids discussion, instead falling back to personal attacks in several edit summaries ( [62], [63], [64]). My request to stop his personal attacks are reverted.
Please tell Bill that he should stop personal attacking me and enter the discussion. -- 91.55.206.73 ( talk) 18:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Third-party comment: This is not worth the space/ time being used to discuss it. Said IP user likewise exhibited uncivil behavior with this edit, but has since acknowledged it. I think the parties should just shake hands and go their separate ways. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
BillCJ's reaction to this alert: He insulted me again. I think something more than just a shake of hands is in order. -- 91.55.206.73 ( talk) 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I retain my opinion that a truce is in order. <-- Please read. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
3rd party comment As a reasonably experienced editor on Wikipedia I have seen too many occasions where IP editors have made a series of seemingly innocuous edits without edit summaries that eventually add up to a very subtle form of vandalism. Often these edits individually seem fair enough but in total they are not. Unexplained edits by IPs are usually indistinguishable from such vandalism and I too will revert them unless it is very apparent that the edit is genuine and/or serves a useful purpose. All this would have been avoided if the IP editor here registered an account and used edit summaries. He/she also seems to be rather thin skinned, calling apparent vandalism by its name is not an insult - if you expect others to assume good faith, you should assume it yourself. This shows an extreme lack of good faith and very uncivil behaviour and frankly from that point the IP has lost all credibility with me, whatever apparent contrition he/she has made since. If you wish to make edits that are not instantly reverted by editors concerned with maintaining the validity of Wikipedia then supply edit summaries and register an account. - Nick Thorne talk 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There has been ample opportunity for BillCJ to comment on the issue. Since the facts are clear, I call for some kind of sanction. -- 91.55.196.144 ( talk) 07:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
3rd party comment Bill's conduct looks OK to me. Some of his edits could have had politer edit summaries, but none are particularly bad, and the IP's behavior is much worse. If you want to be taken seriously, please register an account and use polite edit summaries - this is particularly the case as your IP appears to be dynamic. Nick-D ( talk) 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Stop trying to force an editor to get an account, as it's permissible according to the rules. Everyone already knows that:
Further attempts at Wikipoodling the IP editor to try and force them to get an account will not be tolerated. All individual edits must be judged in conjunction with their edit summaries. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I enjoy spending the odd hour reverting vandals, and I agree with Nick Thorne that an IP Editor, no edit summaries, repeatedly adding or deleting blank spaces would get viewed as as vandalism because there would apparently be no reason to do it, and a named editor kept reversing it. IP vandals do some weird shit - there is one who adds some immensely rude statement in the middle of a para, then immediately deletes it himself. I think he must get off on it. And it's not so much your cussing at the template in that edit summary that's the problem, as the attitude you display to the other user. You have apparently only been editing for two days (although as you have a dynamic IP address, who knows how long you've been here) - why is this white space business so important to you. You pulled the same stunt on Opel Diplomat but the other guy didn't come back and revert you the last time. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 16:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I fixed three instances in two articles where a broken template changed the way the article is displayed. User:BillCJ reverted my changes. We reverted each other for some time.
During the edit war, BillCJ personally attacked me thrice: By calling my changes vandalism and by calling myself dumb. As a reaction, I asked him to stop the personal attacks on his usertalk. He simply reverted my request.
Since a normal discussion seemed to be impossible, I opened this alert on WP:WQA. BillCJ was informed a few minutes later ( reformatted by User:Cobaltbluetony).
BillCJ's reaction to this alert: He insulted me again. He hasn't taken part in the discussion yet.
During the discussion:
Some questions:
Since the policy seems to be clear on the issue, and since there is no indication that BillCJ would act differently in the future, I call for a sanction against his behavior. Since the only sanction around here seems to be a block, I suggest a very short block. -- 91.55.196.144 ( talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The link above i posted could helps. The point shold be that no one editor can forbit another to edit and not even trying to discuss the material reverted. It is recomended, but who really cares? When i made BAe Hawk edit [71] i gave some materials, lather moved (by me) in the discussion page [72] and there is still awaiting for discussion, that obviously, nobody was interested to hold, surely not BillCJ that 'don't cares'. But who is to speak: Reverted poorly written and partly uncited addions by Stefanomencarelli - too focused on minor details? If someone contribues to wikipedia, it is not expected to be censored by other editors with these reasons. Even if the material could be always questioned, it's unuseful for the project throw away everything w.o. discussions at all and never trying to start one as peer to peer review. I am not in the position to make editing in the Ns0 because the judge BillCJ has stated so? No room for a discussion, a compromise, nothing? In this case Wikipedia's policies are easily eluded HIMO.-- Stefanomencarelli ( talk) 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Found here:
91.55.253.79 ( talk) 09:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)I've been following the "complaint" against me, and was considering replying there. However, User:Stefanomencarelli has commented as a so-called "third-party". This user was banned for 1 year for the exact things I reverted him for, and I won't participate in his vendatta against me, or be reading up on the discussion anymore. I still can't read his bad English either, which is why his "contributions" are continually removed from articles by other editors besides myself, among other problems. As for why I'm staying out of the discussions altogether: less stress! With the exception of two users, the other editors don't see a problem. Oh, I'm still laughing at the IP's comment about having "fixed" the broken template! All he did was hide the problem on 2 pages - the template is still broken - he fixed nothing. And for the record, I like the line spaces on the edit screen because I have bad eyesight, and the spaces help to break up the long templates, especially after several hours at the computer. I don't see how the extra linebreak in the article itself affects anyone, other than looking a bit funny. I'll go in favor of eyesight, plus the articles won't need to be adjusted when the specs template is finally fixed. - BillCJ (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, i have just three things more to say:
This wikinette page wuold explain that, in fact and in spite of some basic rules, there are editors authorized to censor others, no matter if their contribution worths or not. The fact that BillCJ is able to come here and simply explain how he not want to talk/discuss/re-elaborate instead to 'delete on the spot', and nobody sees a problem with, it's really impressive.-- Stefanomencarelli ( talk) 10:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Dave asked me to express my opinion here. It looks to me like BillCJ could have been a little more tactful in his edit summaries, but it also looks to me like the IP address is way overreacting, which tends to look like trolling behavior. If everyone would, for the time being, restrict their activities to discussing the content issues in the talk pages, that could go a long way toward resolving this.
And you wonder why I'm happy not to be an admin. 0:)
Baseball Bugs
What's up, Doc?
carrots 12:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment from an administrative perspective: My perception of the purpose of blocks is not to punish, but to prevent disruption. In this case, BillCJ would have to be persisting in disruptive behavior -- which he's not; he's dropped it and is avoiding interaction with his accuser. The disruption, IMO, is coming from the IP editor continually beating a dead horse. Therefore, I recommend ending this discussion unless and until BillCJ "offends" again. Thereafter, if any further noise on this issue comes up from this IP editor, it should be rollbacked. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, this user, angry at me for having reported him for a 3RR violation, has embarked on campaign to refer to me exclusively as "the reverter" [74] [75]. I warned him to stop [76], and this [77] was his response (not untypical, by the way). Can something be done about this? He needs to be warned in the strongest possible terms to cease this kind of behavior, or else be blocked for it. -- Athenean ( talk) 18:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if you cannot avoid one another for the long-term, then walk away, even if it means from the computer entirely, until you both settle down. The exchange demonstrated by the last two diffs in Athenean's first posting are the epitome of childishness on both sides. (no, I am not name calling, I am saying the edits made were childish, just as there are edits I have made I am sure that could be called "stupid"). Daring someone to do something, followed by that person doing it again shows neither of you are calm enough right now to edit, so I say take a 1-day wikibreak, or at least long enough to cease the inappropriate behavior. Nothing here is a blatant personal attack, but continued incivility is disruptive, and refusing to halt disruptive behavior is blockable. Athenean, try to avoid Balkanian's word and especially try to make a point of not reverting his edits if you can help it. If he makes a truely troublesome edit someone else will certainly fix it. Balkanian's word, stop referring to Athenean as "the reverter" since 1) it is incivil especially since he has told you to stop (even if he hasn't before now, this thread certainly is telling you he doesn't appreciate it) and 2) it is designed to be disparaging and baiting. I also suggest that if someone reverts your edit, whether it is Athenean or someone else, instead of reverting them, try discussing the edit on the talk page. If you proceeded in this manner in the first place you would never have been blocked for a 3RR violation.
The
Seeker 4
Talk 19:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Greglocock promised me some of his 'special attention' after for disagreeing with his edits (he insisted on using an unaccessable, potentially unreliable wartime primary source). Recently he addressed all other editors (often) disagreeing with his POV as 'fanbois'. When the the reference he 'requested' was given to him, he addressed these as 'fanboi exaggeration' and threatened to 'clean up the mess' which I would 'not enjoy'. User:Greglocock was already warned to refrain from incivility. Kurfürst ( talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
From the diffs I have seen the "fanboi" namecalling is a little much, but not severe enough to be called a serious personal attack. Saying that he is going to single you out for "special attention", though, that is very uncivil, certainly seems to me to be a threat, and a threat to edit war with you. User:Mmyers1976|Mmyers1976]] ( talk) 12:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
User IbnAmioun has written: "You should look at the consequences of obsessive stalking a character." [78]. I find this to be an impolite/uncivil communication, because it can be interpreted as a threat. Ulner ( talk) 11:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
IbnAmioun making uncivil comment in edit commentary: [ [79]]. Ulner ( talk) 23:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please have a look at the interactions between myself and User:Roux at User talk:Roux? We've been conversing, and I think that we're not understanding each other 100%. The conversation has devolved into a conversation about who was rude when, and I would very much appreciate the perspective of a third party. To anyone agreeing to have a look, I thank you for your time. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this has anything to do with DougsTech. This is the third time in a few months that I've had an interaction something like this, and I'd like to learn from it. There is a certain personality type around here that I seem to be very bad at interacting with, despite my efforts. Since Roux has seemed willing to discuss, by continuing to reply, I thought I might learn something from this by asking for a third opinion. Roux has been offering to report me, but he hasn't done it, so I did it myself. If he's not willing to pursue dispute resolution, then maybe he shouldn't have threatened me with it. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The conversation didn't seem to be doing much, but Roux had some kind of openness to keep talking about it (until just now), so I got the impression he was trying to get something across to me. Excuse me for wanting to learn from my experiences. I'm clearly "doing it wrong". Goodbye. - GTBacchus( talk) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not being dishonest. What possible motive would I have for that? Why does he keep giving me things to reply to? Why not actually end the conversation, by ending without throwing in little barbed attacks? - GTBacchus( talk) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If you reply, then it's clear that you do not consider the discussion over. Learn control. It should be easy for you. - GTBacchus( talk) 07:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
See section above. This is out of hand. I gave him a final warning, he seems uninterested in desisting from the attacks, so it would seem that he needs to be blocked until he agrees to stop making personal attacks. // roux 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I’m concerned about the civility of the actions of User:Jezhotwells relating to Eurovision Song Contest articles. WikiProject Eurovision had two similar articles nominated for Good Article status that would have become the ninth and tenth such Good Articles for the project. They had been awaiting reviews for more than a month, and an hour or so before Jezhotwells decided to take them on, an ip adds a comment stating that the reviewer should check the reliability of two of the sources [80]. When the review started, Jezhotwells decided to quickfail and claimed that the sites are blogs and therefore unreliable [81]. I came online right after he failed the first and sent him a message asking for clarification of why he would fail and pleaded for him to discuss this before he take anymore action. [82]. In what I feel to be a gross violation of assume good faith, he quick-failed the other article. From then on, a discussion began where I was lectured on what blogs and reliable sources are and a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard was started. Though there was an overall lack of participation in the discussion, two outside editors responded. One told me that Jezhotwell’s actions were uncivil and I should try a reassessment with another editor, [83] and another told me that the only problem he sees with the sources is that they may be overused and that I should diversify them before GA status is granted. [84]. The uncivil behavior continued when Jezhotwells informed me that he will reassess all of the other GAs of the project to make sure that the sources are reliable [85]. This action is highly POV as there is still no consensus that the sources are unreliable and it is highly unlikely that the many GA reviewers who reviewed the other Eurovision articles just made a mistake about the sources. I was just going to let this whole thing go and submit the two recent articles for reassessment, but the incivility continued this morning when he decided to tag several Eurovision articles with unreliable reference tags [86] [87] and then opened a reassessment on an article and decided to delist as a GA within minutes of starting the reassessment using his personal belief that the sites are blogs [88].
I ask administrators and other editors to look into this matter and determine if the actions of Jezhotwells were civil and determine if he assumed good faith. Most troubling to me is that after waiting so long for these articles to be reviewed, he failed them without even inquiring about the reliability of the sources, without asking for a second opinion, and without waiting for any response from the editor as is routine. I don’t see why they could not have been put on hold while a discussion of the reliability took place. He had a preexisting view on the subject and is carrying on with his edits as if he is right even though there is no consensus on the matter. I find it difficult and frustrating to edit and improve Eurovision pages knowing that he will be there to make a scene about the sources, or request a reassessment and motion to delist based on his personal beliefs once again. What use is having these two recent articles reassessed as he mentioned [89] if he will just personally reassess them later and fail them once again? What’s to stop him? He is going around telling me on a dozen or so articles that I have the burden of proof (which i do) yet there is a rough consensus that the sources are in fact reliable (also see here for a project-wide discussion on the reliability of Eurovision sources. His editing is disruptive and must stop. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 16:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)