Welcome to wikiquette assistance | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Active alerts
Uncivil conduct by User:Conte di Cavour
- Conte di Cavour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
General note: CrimsonBlack (signature) and GustoBLSJP (old username) are both User:CrimsonSabbath. Guoguo12--Talk-- 20:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Conte di Cavour labeled my edits as "vandalism" and made personal attacks on his User talk:Conte di Cavour, even with my sourced, well discussed and impersonal arguments on Talk:Italy.
diffs Talk: Italy [5] [6] [7] [8]
CrimsonBlack 15:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- As for what I remember, I only reverted some deletions by GuboBLSJP, because the user insisted to delete parts that are supplied with reliable sources. I never reverted the contributions of this user, nor made personal attacks. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am GustoBLSJP. I only deleted the redundancies and kept most of the text. Before my contribution, i stated on the talk page of the article various times. The idea proposed was not the appropriate. The data must be neutral. I always showed the sources.
- CrimsonBlack 15:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- CrimsonBlack 15:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonSabbath (talk • contribs)
- I'm not asking for any kind of penalty for this User. I just want that my future contributions be respected, and the deletion of the talk i had with the cited User, on his "Talk page". I don't want any kind of association with such User.
- CrimsonSabbath (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) User:Conte di Cavour and User:Brutaldeluxe seem justified in undoing at least some of your edits. For example, in this edit, you removed sourced information citing "it's harmful to the NPOV". But, WP:NPOV tells us that to "avoid stating opinions as facts," and the text you deleted did not state, "Italy is the 'sick man of Europe'". No, it simply pointed out that it has been referred to as the "sick man of Europe", and there are references for proof. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). To quote Conte di Cavour, "You have deleted a lot of parts just because you didn't agree with them, but in case of sourced statements you simply can't do it". Guoguo12--Talk-- 19:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not protesting for the edits of the article. I had insert parts with sources, discussed the subjects and helped to turn the article more Neutral. I really think the article could be improved, as i stated.
- User:Conte di Cavour misunderstood my edits as vandalism, maybe for not reading my inserts on Talk: Italy.
- CrimsonSabbath (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- See "Economy section rationalization" on Talk: Italy. CrimsonSabbath (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
(←) I realize that you are trying to improve the article and I thank you for your contributions. I also acknowledge that Conte di Cavour is reacting to your edits in an uncivil manner (swearing, shouting, etc., see user talk) and that considering your good faith edits vandalism are violations of WP:AGF. Even edit warring is not vandalism. However, you must understand that neutral does not mean unbiased. It means that all verifiable viewpoints are fairly represented. "Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say" (WP:V). However, calling your edits "vandalism" is certainly incorrect. Guoguo12--Talk-- 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help and opinion, Guoguo12.
- This section must be ended, to not get tiresome.
- CrimsonSabbath (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I have sent Conte di Cavour a follow-up message summarizing this discussion. I hope that both you and Conte di Cavour will continue to edit and improve this encyclopedia. I especially hope that you will remain undaunted by your recent conflicts and I thank you for keeping cool and remaining civil. Guoguo12--Talk-- 23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I apologize with Crimson/Gusto for having exaggerated. I hope that now everything is settled. Thanks a lot to Guoguo12.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I have sent Conte di Cavour a follow-up message summarizing this discussion. I hope that both you and Conte di Cavour will continue to edit and improve this encyclopedia. I especially hope that you will remain undaunted by your recent conflicts and I thank you for keeping cool and remaining civil. Guoguo12--Talk-- 23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I will try to control more my edits and discuss more on the subjects.
Thank you, Guoguo12. CrimsonSabbath (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Milowent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pig_slaughter (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pig_slaughter|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I entered a discussion on the AfD for Pig Slaughter. User has been aggressive, insulting, and made patently false accusations with no evidence.
His first comment was prior to mine, upon another user deleting his account. Diff: [12]
He remained out of the discussion for a while after that. His next contribution was to accuse me of WP:SOCK with no evidence. I removed the comment from the page per WP:PERSONAL. Diff: [13]
I posted a message on his talk page, telling him that I did not appreciate the unfounded accusation. I will admit that I was not very polite in the message. Diff: [14]
He responded by stating it was justified since I was being extremely uncivil in the discussion on the AfD. When I said that was not sufficient reason, and asked for an example, he stated that he did not need to give one. Diff: [15]
This was especially confusing, given his previous statement on another user's talk page. Diff: [16]
His next comment made an attempt to veil his attack on me, and criticised me for citings policies, guidelines, and essays. Diff: [17]
I asked him again, on his talk page, to please refrain from making personal attacks, and asked him to review WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL, and that if he could not stop, I would have to escalate the issue. I also attempted to allay his concerns regarding policies, with the hope that he would stop. Diff: [18]
This seemed to be it for a while. He made constructive, and civil comments on the AfD [19], [20]
However, my hopes were dashed by the most recent edit [21] seemed to drop all pretext of civility.
I could not go to WP:RfC/U since nobody else seems to have asked him to stop, and it certainly is not severe enough for WP:ANI.
My hope here is to help him realize that such behaviour is unacceptable on Wikipedia, or failing that, to escalate the issue to WP:RfC/U.
Homo Logica (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh. HL's own incivility is the only cause of my comments, but in the interest of avoiding wiki-drama, I will refrain from any further discussion regarding HL's comments on that AfD. I would appreciate knowing HL's prior account name, however.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- As I have stated before, I have not had any previous accounts. Continuing to accuse me of WP:SOCK while stating that you will be civil and assume good faith, is problematic, at best.
- Homo Logica (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Milowent should drop the sock accusations, implicit or explicit. On the other hand, in a single delete discussion, HL's replies to Joy, Carrite, Dreamfocus, and Qrsdogg (and maybe more) strike me as unnecessarily snippy; additionally I find repeated references to an insignificant essay tendentious. I'd suggest dialing it down. Gerardw (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- AfD's are often become fairly contentious, but this isn't one that I expected to provoke such emotion. Since this is the first AfD HL has participated in, it's understandable if he/she doesn't know all the unwritten rules. It's generally good form on AfD to make a clear argument and then find something else to do, particularly if tempers are running high at the time. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to clarify that I am not emotional over the AfD. I was mildly upset by repeated unfounded accusations, as well as continued insults, implicit and explicit, which was why I took all of my comments about the matter off the page. It simply wasn't the place.
To Gerardw, can you elaborate on snippy, please? If I was uncivil, I would absolutely like to know what I was doing so I can avoid it in the future. As for calling an essay insignificant, I would say that's a subjective value judgement. It has been put up for MfD, specifically because one of the users disliked it being cited, and while people may disagree with the purpose, very few call it insignificant. The reason it was repeated, was because it was my suggestion for the article, and since people were responding to me as though I were advocating a different position, it felt very relevant to explain my position, and point them to the essay explaining it in greater detail.
To Qrsdogg, my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that an AfD is very much like a Talk page. People discuss back and forth, to come to the best solution for the article. Much like how Joy and Dream repeatedly responded to the sock, to attempt to address the concerns. Just as both discussed with me, within the AfD, to attempt to address the concerns.
Homo Logica (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you're basically correct. AfD's are supposed to be an open discussion rather than a vote. Discussion is good, but at times it can degenerate into people repeating the same things over and over again, often becoming less civil as time goes by. So while it is usually good to discuss things (sometimes discuss things at length), it is sometimes best to just walk away. Here's a good example of an AfD that turned into an avoidable "battleground" type arguement. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Requested samples:
And please, don't try to make this into a WP:POINT. It isn't about WP:WINNING. But, as I stated, that's just for my suggestion that you to spend some time away from the page. Fix it. Joy, please refrain from making this personal …. As for how big the problem is, I would refer you to my complete breakdown of the WP:UNDUE and WP:ORIGINAL of the sections, above.
That, and the repeated posting of rebuttal statements, especially when the significant consensus was keep. Gerardw (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will try to be more careful in the future. The first comment was mostly about the edit summary "Two can play at this game", which seemed to be going down the route of trying to "win". I was probably unnecessarily terse, though, in all of them. I'll try to mind it.
- I would also like to point out that Milowent has been continuing to attack people on the AfD, and related talk pages. [22] [23] [24].
- It is quite evident that what Milowent has gotten from this response is that his actions are acceptable.
- Homo Logica (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps my "two can play at this game" edit summary was unwise, I could see how you got the wrong impression from that. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not that Milowent's actions are ideal, it's that WP is not a police state and minor incivilities are best dealt with by ignoring them or walking away. Yes, some of his responses were snarky, but not sufficiently egregious that any action is warranted. Gerardw (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- So, to be clear (and not meant as a criticism, just trying to understand the position), his 9 explicitly incivil and insulting comments [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] (and the one on here) related to a single AfD, are not significant enough to warrant a warning template on his page about his behaviour?
- Homo Logica (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think, reading through this, that there's no disagreement with you that Milowent shouldn't continue implicitly/explicitly suggesting you're a sock without acting on that accusation. It's tiresome and inappropriate. I, personally, don't see a need for a warning template, nor do I really understand what that achieves. This isn't Congress, and official "censure" doesn't have tangible effect (if it even does in Congress).
I suggest that you re-review the comments above that you deem "explicitly incivil and insulting" as several of them are clearly neither. Further, you should be careful with your AfD contributions as noted previously, to avoid the appearance of trying to shout down a clearly developing consensus. Also, your repeated suggestions in the AfD that people "calm down :-)" when they were not, in any way, acting un-calm might also be construed by some as being...well, if not uncivil, then certainly rather obnoxious. Dream Focus makes a very valid point on these "calm down :-)" suggestions on your talk page. I think the relevant essay is WP:KETTLE. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 12:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think, reading through this, that there's no disagreement with you that Milowent shouldn't continue implicitly/explicitly suggesting you're a sock without acting on that accusation. It's tiresome and inappropriate. I, personally, don't see a need for a warning template, nor do I really understand what that achieves. This isn't Congress, and official "censure" doesn't have tangible effect (if it even does in Congress).
Check for uncivility and not adhering to AGF at Talk:Environmentalism#Environmentalism
- Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Environmentalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please take a look at this discussion and see if user Viriditas did not adhere to WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL during the discussion which I have chosen to extricate myself from. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's quite a long discussion to be parsing for parsing policy violations. WP:DIFFs would be helpful. Gerardw (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Gerardw is correct: We need specific examples of comments that may be a problem (an easy way to do that if fiddling with diffs does not appeal is to quote some brief unique text such as the signature timestamp, so people can easily search for the comment). I just quickly skimmed Talk:Environmentalism and did not notice a WQA problem. There is a lot of discussion about a proposal to include something on "environmentalism as a religion", but in my quick skim I did not see any concrete proposal or uncivil commentary. AGF only goes so far—I did not see a comment accusing anyone of bad faith, and in the absence of a specific proposal (which I may have missed), the discussion seems unduly long. What specifically is an AGF problem? Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
GenKnowitall
- GenKnowitall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Center of gravity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I (Melchoir) have been involved in a content dispute with GenKnowitall for about two days. His attitude is partially responsible for the difficulty I'm having in resolving the dispute, because it is so taxing to interact with him. Rather than provide diffs, I'll just point to Talk:Center of gravity. Melchoir (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry you are having difficulty adhering to the discussion and editing process, Melchoir, preferring to simply hijack an article and make substantive and objectionable revisions without discussion, where the article is being actively discussed and edited. Some of your material is good and may be included, with prior discussion. Yet you have been repeatedly asked to participate by submitting a proposal for discussion, which you have not done. Please submit such in discussion instead of complaining about how 'taxing' it is to collaborate. Additionally, resolving a 'dispute' first requires that there be a bona fide dispute not just disagreement, offer a position that is properly stated and supported by some authority, and then engage in good faith with responsive answer to replies to resolve it. There should there be a real (as opposed to fabricated ) dispute between authority, otherwise it is just a food fight. This has been explained to you. Please participate in the editorial process instead of what you have been doing.
- I have little sympathy for your complaint Melchoir, as you were involved in a previous incarnation of the article, based plainly on a flawed understanding of the subject, trampled an article by a previous author, mucking editing up so badly an entire deletion was the only sensible exit. You wish to do that again. No, sorry, the subject deserves better. Your behavior so far has not been exemplary, and except for the fact that I believe and hope you have good contributions to make to the article I would have made complaint about you. I submitted an article which you agree is correct as stated. I have treated you respectfully and in good faith. Join the discussion with your proposals and engage in good faith editing. GenKnowitall (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- GenKnowitall's contributions indicate he is unfamiliar with the WP:Consensus model; I've commented on the specific content dispute on the talk page. Additionally I've left warning for his personal attack on another editor on the talk page. As this is primarily a content dispute I don't think there's a lot more to be done here. Gerardw (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Gerardw, but will post the following which I had prepared.
- GenKnowitall's first edit was three weeks ago, so it is not surprising that their understanding of procedures is incomplete. I have not investigated the content dispute or much of the discussion because this comment is sufficient to show a problem: the term "vandalism" has a specific meaning here, and must not be used to describe good-faith edits; do not comment on an editor's background ("graduate student")—article talk pages are to discuss content; terms such as "You were on notice" and "I will seek your removal" are highly inappropriate in the context used. Subject experts are welcome, but they need to demonstrate their expertise by providing reliable sources that support their edits, and by responding to points raised (and there should be multiple sources for such a well known topic as this; see WP:DUE or possibly even WP:REDFLAG). Wikipedia requires collaboration and when an editor reasonably requests a reason for an edit (as was the case with the diff just given), the reason must be supplied. There is no urgent reason to revert an article back to one's favored position—instead, editors should provide explanations on the talk page and allow a reasonable time for responses. I would have thought there were plenty of good editors watching this article, but if more input is needed, post a comment at WT:WikiProject Physics. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
So... if we're done here, I can take this page off my watchlist. :-) Melchoir (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
A dispute over editing process arose, compounded by the actions by two people who were not involved in the article and whose sole apparent purpose of entry was to precipitate a technical edit war. Article content cannot be seriously disputed, examined, or improved where collaborative process is so thwarted. Instead an admin has entered, agreed to mediate, and will practically decide process. Complaints may be made, but the above seem neither formal complaint nor official action on a complaint, nor good faith attempt to resolve anything, so are perhaps best understood as continuation of the edit war while admin actions are decided. GenKnowitall (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Two uninvolved and experienced editors confirmed above that you are mistaken. New editors are allowed a lot of rope, but you need to quickly understand WP:CIVIL because this comment is not acceptable. If you think about a typical unmoderated newsgroup where the majority of content consists of personal attacks, it will be apparent why Wikipedia enforces the comment on the edits, not the editor procedure (that is, it is ok to claim an edit is misguided although you will be ignored if no policy-compliant reason is provided, but it is not ok to claim that an editor is misguided). Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Re: Unwarranted Accusations by Boringbob4wk
- Boringbob4wk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Both on my talk page and at that of playwright Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, User:Boringbob4wk, whose contributions date only to April but who claims to have been on Wikiepdia longer, has called my fully discussed, good-faith edits vandalism at least three times (these two [33], [34]) plus an edit summary ([35]). Aside from meat-puppet/sock-puppet issues I will take up elsewhere, he attacked me for reverting, with explanation, an anonymous IP (one of several with the same initial IP address) who had removed citation requests from uncited claims; turned fully cited footnotes into a bare number and link; and inserted uncited claims within foonoted passages, along with numerous style errors, and promotional WP:PEACOCK terms and tone.
You'll see from my responses throughout that I've remained polite and temperate.
I'm sure my reputation and full record can handle the unwarranted attacks, but this type of slanderous, uncivil behavior should not be condoned. Before he does this to others, I believe someone should make clear to him that abusive posts and unwarranted accusations are not allowed.
If possible, I would like him to voluntarily remove his abusive posts from my talk page and state on the Aguirre-Sacasa page that good-faith edits are not vandalism
Thank you for any help you can give on this. It is much appreciated. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Boringbob4wk, accusing an editor of vandalism because you disagree with the content is a personal attack and not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, so please stop. Gerardw (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at it, there are a few issues beyond just that:
- Assuming good faith went out the window somewhat hand-in-hand with the personal attack in Boringbob4wk's first edit summary/edit to the article. This is also important since they reference the level one warning templtes in their post to Tenebrae.
- Both the section heading and content of their post on Tenebrea's talk page show a serious misunderstanding of what vandalism is. There also seems to be a disconnect on how biographies of living people are handled. Mainly that {{citation needed}} is rarely used and removing questioned or questionable material immediately is the common practice.
- Teanabrae's assertion about Boringbob4wk removing post's to their own talk page, [36], is a little worrying. Since Boringbob4wk only commented to Tenebrae's post, [37], the assertion comes off as hyperbola at best.
- Bringing a user talk spat to an article talk page is rarely warranted. At best, referencing user talk pages should be to point out the points have been discussed previously, that's it. A section on the bio's talk page expanding on why certain edits have been made is fine. Hammering the accusation, or making one, isn't.
- One last thing, Boringbob4wk should take another look at the warning templates, how they are worded, and how they escalate. Their post to Tenebrae, the more it is looked at, appears to be an attempt to browbeat or shame an editor away from an article rather than correct, in this case non-existent, problematic editing practices.
- - J Greb (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at it, there are a few issues beyond just that:
- You're absolutely correct about my misreading Boringbob4wk's talk page. When I went to add a post the first time, it looked as if my first post had disappeared, and so I re-added it. There may have been an "Edit conflict" page in between that confused me. I do take back that assertion.
- And now I see he is slandering me to another editor here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Two things in direct response to Tenebrae:
- You still need to rethink dragging the accusations onto the article's talk page. I realize the accusation stings but the article's talk page is not the place to vent or add drama. If you feel the reasons for the edits need more explanation than can be provided in an edit summary, fine. Stick to the content of the edits and why they are valid or needed. If you need to comment on another editor's edits, stick to the content and why there is an issue. Leave commenting on other editor's comments on you personally to the user talk pages and venues like this.
- As noted on my talk page, the post to GoingBatty was made prior to this thread. That in no way excuses it, but you need to be careful in placing the order of events. You may have just seen the post - I missed it in the contribution history as well - but it had been done at the time of the original attacks.
- And to Boringbob4wk:
- Accusing an editor of vandalism on an unrelated page such as [38] is much worse than doing it on the related talk pages - the article's, their own, and WP:AIV. If you are going to ask an editor to check edits, pages, or re-run a bot on a page, it can and should be done without accusation about third party contributions or motives.
- And weaseling around it like [39] here is as bad. If you want to discus the content of the edits, use the article's talk page. If not, see the above point to you and point one to Tenebrae.
- Having a page semi-protected only prevents unregistered - IPs - and extremely new registered editors from changing the page. It does not affect your ability to edit the page. If an IP wishes an edit made, the can request it on the article's talk page. The tone of your post suggests you are acting on behalf of another. They can ask for themselves.
- While the post to GoingBatty was part of the initial posts attacking Tenebrae, the one to Crit is a new attack. To repeat: If you believe or have proof vandalism, file it at AIV. If you have a strong case to present of an editor being biased in there editing file it at WP:AN/I. Do not just attack them on third party user talk pages.
- - J Greb (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Two things in direct response to Tenebrae:
- And now I see he is slandering me to another editor here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, JG, for taking the time and effort to make a thoughtful, detailed reply. You're right about the article's talk page: I would not have 'ported the post over to it had not the vandalism accusation appeared in the article's edit-summary/history.
- I've just seen that this editor has been blocked for his various actions, and I'm grateful that your post to him as to why was so detailed and specific. I've probably said this before, but taking on admin responsibilities adds so much more time and work to one's voluntary contributions to this encyclopedia. I remain very impressed by seeing both in your admin duties and as just a regular member of WikiProject Comics that you don't cut corners and that you take the time to give specific, point-by-point posts. Even if one disagrees with your point of view on one particular topic or another, as I'm sure I have in the past, anyone would have to say — I certainly have said and do say — that your points are always reasonable, clear and well thought-out. I continue to learn from all my veteran Project colleagues. Seriously. Thanks for all your work. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Sergecross73 and Nickelback
Ok so he is putting up some false information at the Nickelback Wikipedia and I don't like that. Also, ever time I change it to the correct information he reverts it to the false information, please block him for false info. Oh and he is stalking me every time I do an edit. Also, he is harassing me because he thinks I'm Picklesatwar which I'm not, but he keeps harassing me saying the two words "you are". ; Nickelbackrules1518 ; (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC);
- (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nickelbackrules1518)
- I am an involed editor in this situation and have tried to communicate with the above editor . Nickelbackrules1518 has been directed to Talk:Nickelback#On going problems on many occasions and despite my efforts to start a civil conversation he/she simply does not respond. [40]. [41]. Not all the addition merit reversal in my opinion, however others have raised concerns about the edits as a whole.Moxy (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Note that Nickelbackrules1518 and Picklesatwar have indeed been shown to be the same editor and have both been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to clear things up, we have tried a number of times to work with "Nickelbackrules", but rather than engaging in numerous discussions we have started on the discussion page, he choses to ignore them, and instead break WP:3RR and engage in sockpuppetry (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nickelbackrules1518) I never harass him, I merely tell him to stop breaking wikipedia policy, and to discuss things on the talk page. Then, he has the nerve to report me here, and without notifying me. *sigh* Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- No worries, we would have notified you had there been something discuss. Gerardw (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Steven Walling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Joseph Farah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm beginning to have a hard time assuming good faith with this user, so I was hoping someone could talk me down, have a word with him, or both. He's repeatedly reverted me on Joseph Farah with a (IMO spurious) explanation that it violated WP:SELF, and then WP:BLP. I understand his desire to protect Wikipedia, and those reverts aren't the behavior I'm seeking guidance in responding to-- the content is already under review at BLPN. Rather, it's the manner in which he's conducted himself in the making of those reverts that has made me feel uncomfortable.
I began to feel attacked and delegitimized when Steven reverted my edits with the comment "per WP:SELF" and accused me of being disengenuous on his talk, but without comment on the article's talk page. When I requested that he self-revert and discuss on Talk:Joseph Farah, he instead characterized my arguments as "stupid," "cynical," and "ridiculous.". I subsequently re-added the material, prompting another revert with an edit summary authoritatively forbiding others (presumably me) to include the sourced material, and a talk-page admonishment that my contribution was "not acceptable. End of story."
As he was originally involved in this discussion by User:JakeInJoisey requesting "administrative oversight" of my contributions, and as he declares on his talk page that he's a WMF employee, and due to what I perceived to be the inappropriately authoritative tone he was taking, I suggested that his behavior appeared to be less that of a volunteer editor on equal footing to myself, and more that of an employee of the WMF oversighting an article. This was met with an accusation that I'd made ad-hominem arguments, along with another declarative statement asserting that my edits violate WP:BLP, and that he had brought them to BLP noticeboard for further attention. That seems disingenuous to me, as the request he brought to BLP/N was for a general review of "the latest batch of contributions by [this] anon", and did not repeat his previous assertion that the edits were prima facia violative of BLP policy.
I guess, in short, I'm feeling as though this user hasn't assumed my good faith, and that he's referentially implying authority in a manner which disempowers me as an editor, and precludes collaboration on an equitable basis. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here's what's going on: Another editor asked me to get involved because of a BLP concern (They did not get involved themselves.) Now that the anon is failing to successfully argue for their opinion, and has been reverted in part or whole by two other editors as well as myself, they've simply moved on to making ad hominem accusations against me. To be clear about "authority" or having someone "disempowered": I have not used my sysop rights, and I already reiterated on my user page and on the talk page that I'm using my volunteer account and it's not a Foundation issue. I have done nothing to prevent this anonymous editor from participating in Wikipedia, or even suggest that they cannot or should not be editing. That's nonsense. While the dispute continued, I went to the noticeboard for outside input rather than revert again, which is meant to prevent edit warring between them and myself. In short: I find this to be a frivolous attempt to try and divert the issue from content to contributors. Steven Walling 23:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Claiming that it's been "reverted in part or whole by two other editors" is an outright fabrication. It's been reverted in part by only one other editor, pending discussion on WP:BLP/N. I defy you to provide diffs that prove otherwise. I'm increasingly concerned at your failure to recognize the referential power implied by mentioning your status as a sysop. I'm also disturbed by your repeated failure to assume good faith, as evidenced by this most recent characterization of my concern as "frivolous." It's disingenuous to suggest that repeated reversion and misleading talk-page commentary do "nothing to prevent this anonymous editor from participating in Wikipedia." You've been both condescending and dismissive since the inception of this conversation; it's highly unbecoming of an admin. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly as someone in the middle of a heated debate with me, you're not in the best position to make a clear judgement about what is and isn't appropriate or becoming. Also, it really has nothing to do with being an admin, as adminship is not an editorial position and gives me no right to make an executive decision about the content. As for the diffs, everyone can see the history of the page: you continue to edit war back and forth over multiple issues in the article. Steven Walling 19:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding your accusation that I'm "edit warring"-- diffs or it didn't happen. Regarding your claim that I'm not in the best position to make a clear judgment about what is and isn't appropriate or becoming: you are 100% correct, but I suggest you're similarly compromised. That is why I initiated this WQA discussion in the first place. I would appreciate comment from uninvolved users. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- uninvolved User:Off2riorob. Stephen has not made a single edit or comment that requires dispute resolution. This is a simple content and policy discussion that is now at a noticeboard (BLP) and the article talkpage already and there is nothing at all in Stephens actions that deserves dispute resolution at all, in fact IMO his actions have been exemplary in this situation. As for the edit warring comments about IP:24 - the user WP:BOLDly added the content and it was disputed and removed and the IP:24 re added it twice against bold - revert - discuss - WP:BRD Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- We appear to have a difference of opinion on the meaning of the term "uninvolved." In my view, you are not. You should disclose your involvement in the issue. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am completely uninvolved and have a complete NPOV position on partisan Republican and Democrat content and Barack Obhama conspiracy content. I am a UK residence acting here as a neural experienced contributor to this issue and at the WP:BLPN thread, from assessing and investigating the IP:24 users contributions I am also commenting now here. I am also not a online supporter or friend or connected contributor to the S Welling account. I have made only one quite minor edit to the Joseph Farah BLP as such I am completely uninvolved WP:UNINVOLVED - Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- (ec - please use 'preview') WP:BRD isn't policy, and you are clearly not completely uninvolved. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you attack me doesn't make me involved. Policy or not - its good practice and as I said - I am uninvolved and S Walling has zero editing issues to reply to here Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- That was borderline incoherent. Did you even check the diff? It's hardly my attacking you-- it's your edit, in which you alter a comment you made and I'd replied to in a way that altered the context. And WP:UNINVOLVED isn't relevant unless you're secretly an admin. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- You continue with your worthless personal attacking battlefield comments and imo you are simply being disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- That was borderline incoherent. Did you even check the diff? It's hardly my attacking you-- it's your edit, in which you alter a comment you made and I'd replied to in a way that altered the context. And WP:UNINVOLVED isn't relevant unless you're secretly an admin. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Just because you attack me doesn't make me involved. Policy or not - its good practice and as I said - I am uninvolved and S Walling has zero editing issues to reply to here Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- (ec - please use 'preview') WP:BRD isn't policy, and you are clearly not completely uninvolved. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am completely uninvolved and have a complete NPOV position on partisan Republican and Democrat content and Barack Obhama conspiracy content. I am a UK residence acting here as a neural experienced contributor to this issue and at the WP:BLPN thread, from assessing and investigating the IP:24 users contributions I am also commenting now here. I am also not a online supporter or friend or connected contributor to the S Welling account. I have made only one quite minor edit to the Joseph Farah BLP as such I am completely uninvolved WP:UNINVOLVED - Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- We appear to have a difference of opinion on the meaning of the term "uninvolved." In my view, you are not. You should disclose your involvement in the issue. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Involved editor comment: I'm not seeing any evidence of wrongdoing on Steven Walling's part. Gerardw (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Original submitter comment: To be very, very clear, the wrongdoing I'm alleging is that the user under discussion reverted my edits without being prepared to engage in a extended discussion, and that he employed dogmatism, arguments from authority, and personal aspersions to the end of bolstering his position. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Icex15 and User:Night of the Big Wind
- Icex15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs)
I am in a dispute with Icex15 (talk · contribs). He is driving me nuts with his behaviour. He started yesterday with editing on WP, good enough to start immediately with an editwar and 24 hours block. Now he is back and haunting me over a rude remark (polite version: I told him to start using his brain) that was already removed by an admin. I gave him advice over how to sign his edits on talkpages (no effect), over the mentoring project (no effect) and to read the information in the welcoming template (plain refused). He is getting under my skin...
Effected pages:
- Revision history of Columbidae: 9 reverts, no discussion
- Revision history of User talk:Night of the Big Wind
- Revision history of User talk:Icex15
- User contributions ICex15
By now I get the idea that is a plain vandal or worse, a troll.
This goes straight out of hand, so I need your help/advice. Please! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I am also in a dispute with Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs). I was only replying to a comment he made on my message that wasn't towards him. I was writing my message in my appealing block section explaining what happened to the people who review block appeals, and he kept the dispute going by leaving a message under it. He said to me use your F****ng brain which I found to be offensive he was basically called me stupid/idiot which was a personal attack which violates Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks, and Civility Codes, and he also told me to stop whining which I though was disrespectful as well.
He keeps telling me I need to follow the rules, but I think he needs to follow the rules as well. What he said was it doesn't matter if he breaks the rules, because he is an experienced editor. I am not going to listen to his advice on how to edit, because he was rude and disrespectful towards me. I might listen to another experienced Wikipedia editor who's civil, respectful, and polite on advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icex15 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 May 2011
- This appears to be about Columbidae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (I added the unsigned and this link to assist the discussion). Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ooops! I just noticed that this section is a result of the previous section (#User:Icex15). I suggest that no further discussion should take place here (instead, comments about both editors belong in the above section). Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Merged the two request. It is a symptom of the problem that this happened. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ooops! I just noticed that this section is a result of the previous section (#User:Icex15). I suggest that no further discussion should take place here (instead, comments about both editors belong in the above section). Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is an easy WQA case:
- Night of the Big Wind: Please do not use plain language because Wikipedia operates on the basis that there is good in all of us. Of course no one is a troll here, but when a comment is indistinguishable from that which might have been left by a troll, it is best to not respond.
- Icex15: This user appears to be incompatible with Wikipedia. First two edits: diff1, diff2. Remaining edits are to repeatedly post an undue and pointless comment diff3, and to ask users why the the undue and pointless comment was removed. Multiple editors have reverted the comment, and the user was blocked, and shows no signs of stopping. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Off2riorob
- Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- WIkipedia:Wikiquette alerts (edit | [[Talk:WIkipedia:Wikiquette alerts|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wikipedia:BLP/N (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:BLP/N|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User repeatedly claims to be uninvolved in the User:Steven Walling issue on WQA, despite that being demonstrably not the case. User also refactored his own comments on BLPN in a way that altered the discussion's context, and responded to a request that he clarify which content was in place when, per WP:REDACT, with an accusation that I'm being pointy. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- And then he characterized my concern as "worthless." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. That's pretty much my point. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I fear I do not see what precise violation of Wikiquette actually occurred here. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- How about adding an accusation that I "attacked" this user to a comment that I'd already responded to? It dramatically alters the context of my reply, and a user who simply reads the page has no idea that my response is not, in fact, intended to be responsive to that accusation. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I do appreciate the tea, though. ;-). 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Also - I dispute there is any violations worthy of report or dispute resolution in this report and I completely reject it and will not respond again. As such via my rejection this noticeboards value is degraded and anyone who considers the report valid is welcome to escalate the report. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)That really doesn't make sense -- your participation doesn't determine WQA's value. Regardless of that, this report is appears to be simply retaliatory and most unfounded. It does appear Off2riorob refactored his comment after someone replied, which isn't quite copacetic. Gerardw (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- This petty issue is a waste of precious time and anon has failed to make out claims of involvement, be it during this WQA or in the one filed yesterday (and it is becoming disruptive). Off2riorob, stop feeding the anon with excuses to end up involved in some silly dispute with you when you can just revert the amendment, or if you feel you must include it, make it as a separate sentence with a separate signature (in brackets or something if you want to include it in the same reply). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem with Wikiquette here. Move on. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- For posterity, I disagree. A tennet of WP:Wikiquette is "Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles)," which the user under discussion flagrantly failed to do. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Bullmoosebell
Bullmoosebell (talk · contribs)
There is a user named Bullmoosebell. Because he was the last who edited a page I asked him something to his talk page. Instead of telling me he cannot do it, he rudely deleted my comments. When I asked him to be more polite, he sent me a comment from which I understood he hadn't even understand what I was asking. Then I begged him to answer but he deleted me and didn't answer. Please do something to make him a)More polite and b)To understand what I ask. (I am user IP 178.128.75.48 but I changed today. I am the same person)--46.12.45.67 (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please do not read too much into what happened. Wikipedia is a very big place, and it is very likely that Bullmoosebell did not know what your comment (apparently this) referred to. Someone else who had more time might have replied and asked you what article you meant, and what you were suggesting, however on this occasion that did not occur. A user is entitled to remove (almost) any message from their talk page without explanation, and your message might have been quite puzzling, so the easiest course was to remove it. Repeating the message just gives an impression of unduly pressing some point, and you should not expect a volunteer editor to respond to some issue that you want raised. Next time, please put a new section at the article talk page. If you want to alert an active editor (although that should not be necessary if they are watching the article), you could post on the user's talk page with a link to the article talk. Example wikitext:
[[Talk:List of current United States Senators]]
which displays like this: Talk:List of current United States Senators. - In conclusion, unless you have something more specific to mention, I do not think there is an issue which needs consideration here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am BullMooseBell. As I stated in my comment to IP address 178.128.75.48 (now IP address 46.12.45.67), initiating a discussion pertaining to a specific article should be posted on that article's discussion page (where any user with that article on their watch-list can provide input). I am not inclined to entertain a discussion with any persons directly on my talk page, especially if the user does not even have a registered account. Understand, it is not my prerogative to upset you, though your continued pursuit of a response from me reflects your feelings have been hurt. However, communication with defamatory remarks, after I gave you guidance on how to accomplish the task, can be perceived as offensive and will not be tolerated. This has been explained to you by many other users, as well. Frankly, your conduct is immature and I am unwilling to assist you considering you are making this a personal matter. If you wish to discuss the content of an article, post a new discussion on the talk page of the article. Attacking another user will not allow you to achieve your desired results. —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC).
- Why does this matter and why are we still discussing this? A non-registered user is upset because they feel I was rude to them, which is completely subjective. They asked a question and I guided them to the article's discussion page. In a vilified stance, the IP user contacted me multiple times after guidance was provided. I felt their comments did not warrant a response considering their efforts should have been focused on the article, not attacking me. This whole line of discussion is trivial and a waste of our time. If you wish to research the discussion, simply read the User talk pages. Bullmoosebell (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. No gross (or even moderate) incivility here. See [43] for examples of posts from the other IP on Bullmoosebell's talk page (which were difficult for me to understand). OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- We are still here because you chose to comment. I'm asking because it appears you simply reverted their comment on your talk page without comment -- so I'm asking where you directed them to the article talk page. Why does their status as registered or non-registered matter? Gerardw (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why does this matter and why are we still discussing this? A non-registered user is upset because they feel I was rude to them, which is completely subjective. They asked a question and I guided them to the article's discussion page. In a vilified stance, the IP user contacted me multiple times after guidance was provided. I felt their comments did not warrant a response considering their efforts should have been focused on the article, not attacking me. This whole line of discussion is trivial and a waste of our time. If you wish to research the discussion, simply read the User talk pages. Bullmoosebell (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Jake Fuersturm
User:Dave3457
- Dave3457 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Femininity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a dispute with Dave3457 at the article Femininity. The tone of this dispute has been very uncivil, in my opinion, from the beginning. There's really no progress being made and any help would be really appreciated. I really just want to discuss the specific changes and reliable sources, but Dave3457 has been accusing me of a lot of negative motivations which I disagree with and I find unfair. Even if I do have some biases (I'm not going to say that I am a 100% neutral person, I doubt anyone is) I think the only useful thing is to discuss the actual changes and sources and not the other editor. I've tried being friendly and pointing out AGF, I've tried being firm, and I've also advertised this dispute at some Wikiprojects and the NPOV noticeboard. Below are some examples. Thanks. 12345Aronoel (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any obvious Wikiquette issues here. It's clearly a content dispute, and Dave3457 patiently explains and supports evidence that suggests you are editing with a bit too much of an agenda. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly don't believe I have an agenda. How should I move forward? --Aronoel (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe a WP:THIRD opinion would convince you otherwise. This is really a content-dispute. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Both Dave and Aronoel seem to be editing in good faith. They just happen to be presenting two different, but valid sides of an issue. I think the discussion would benefit from a de-escalation of bad-faith accusations and more effort to keep the discussion at a respectful and collaborative tone. I would encourage Dave to refrain from the "agenda" rhetoric, and especially refrain from insulting Aronoel with comments about his/her edits being "absolutely laughable", etc. The debate should be focused on the quality of the sources, not on personal accusations about "agendas". Everyone has opinions and those opinions affect what people contribute to Wikipedia. As long as people are adhering to Wikipedia policy, that's usually OK. In other words, debate the content (and sources), not the editor. Kaldari (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe a WP:THIRD opinion would convince you otherwise. This is really a content-dispute. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- I honestly don't believe I have an agenda. How should I move forward? --Aronoel (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Could anyone comment further about my behavior in this dispute? For example, how I should have handled it differently, or how I should respond to accusations that I have an agenda? --Aronoel (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Should have not edit warred. Should have not replying to Dave's explanations with more questions and "I don't understand"s. Should have gone WP:THIRD or WP:RFC when it became clear your were unlikely to agree between yourselves. Gerardw (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You just ruled in my favor in the above dispute but...
According to Wikipedia protocol, am I aloud to accuse someone of bias editing on a talk page? Personally I'd like to think that we are all "big boys and girls" , but on the other hand I can see how it could result in a kind of "melt down". On one level Aronoel is right in that I was focusing on the editor rather than the edits. On the other hand everything I said was true and she is doing harm to Wikipedia's good name, (whether she realizes it or not) and it would be helpful if other editors understood the motivations for her edits and her editing tactics and thus kept an eye on her.
In short, while you ruled in my favor in a big way, I suspect that I may have been in the wrong when I publicly accused her of having an agenda even though she did. In my opinion, I have all kinds of evidence that she is letting her biases effect her editing and that she is even being disingenuous in her edit summaries, but I’m thinking that I may have crossed the line first.
Again, in your ruling you said “ Dave3475 patiently explains and supports evidence that suggests you are editing with a bit too much of an agenda.” Are you sure that I can do that on the talk page?
I have to be honest, while I should take the time to try and expose her, I'm thinking in hindsight, as she suggests, I may have gone about it the wrong way.
Dave3457 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- WP:AGF says to assume that the other editor is doing what they feel is to the benefit of Wikipedia. The ruling was not in your favor, it was in Wikipedia's favor. You should move on from this. Don't try to "expose" anyone, the effort will harm Wikipedia more in the long run than whatever you feel is wrong with Aronoel. Just let it go and move on from here focusing on the edits and assuming the best in others.--v/r - TP 02:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- TP What I meant by exposing her was that I plan to go through the proper channels.
- I would point out that WP:AGF only works if everyone actually is editing in good faith. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is an extremely powerful tool for those who desire to move public consciousness in a desired direction. And no, I obviously did win the judgment, but neither am I here gloating.
- Kaldari I agree with your recent changes to the feminine talk page and the position on Attack pages however there has to exist a channel with which to expose people you believe are not editing in good faith. Presumably this is the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave3457 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dave, as I said, attempting to "expose" people is harmful to Wikipedia in the long run. Keep in mind that you have a biased point of view against someone you've had conflict with. You feel they are editing in bad faith because of that bias. That is why WP:AGF is most important here. You need to assume that despite what you feel is the truth, that there is the possibility that they feel they are editing in good faith and you need to acknowledge that. Another good principal is WP:DGAF. Just let it go. It will reflect just as poorly on you if you can't get over this incident. I say that with the utmost respect and interest in your well being as a non-involved editor.--v/r - TP 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- TP What I meant by exposing her was that I plan to go through the proper channels.
Owain the 1st
- Owain the 1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Owain the 1st has made multiple personal attacks over the last few hours. I received a probationary period based on WP:ARBPIA for asserting that another editor was a liar. I don't think this needs to escalate that far (unless no action is taken) but I am asking for an admin to redact the comments (or simply strike) and make it clear to the editor that ARBPIA 4.1.2 (Decorum) is supposed to be enforced.
- [65] (asserting that another editor is a liar is certainly not acceptable. The other editor took offence to what looked like a rhetorical and snide question but there was no excuse for saying it was "lies")
- [66] (this one is just annoying but it is rude)
- [67] (commenting on the assumed intentions of another editor is usually prohibited)
Cptnono (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Cptnono is hounding me over 3 pages for many hours.Here on my user talk page [68] where he was told not to comment on a thread that was about a different subject but continued anyway, I deleted most of it here [69].He is also following me on another two threads namely here [70] and here [71]
- I would add that your first claim has already been struck through by you here [72]Owain the 1st (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC).
- Looks like a storm in a tea cup to me. The first is in response to an accusation, the second is trivial and the third is mild compared with other comments on controversial articles which are not brought here. Aside from asking everyone to moderate their language I can't see that any action is required --Snowded TALK 07:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see any comments worthy of the label "personal attack". WP:DR please. Prodego talk 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then this will go to AE. He is not allowed to assert other editors are liars. Period. If an admin does not want to tell him that then I hope he gets topic banned instead.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- You need to assume good faith yourself - just because editing gets heated, as it does sometimes, doesn't mean one should run to WP:WQA. Instead, stay calm and cool. If you cannot do that you may want to try contributing in a less controversial area. Prodego talk 03:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then this will go to AE. He is not allowed to assert other editors are liars. Period. If an admin does not want to tell him that then I hope he gets topic banned instead.Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do not see any comments worthy of the label "personal attack". WP:DR please. Prodego talk 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Uncivil Conduct by user: AndyTheGrump
- AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Talk:Ed Miliband
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ed_Miliband&diff=432021300&oldid=432020008
Andythegrump is telling established editors to "Fuck Off". This incivility and violation of wikietiquette needs to be addressed. Gimpman (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)