Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

This user blankly reverted all my changes, that I, with some effort, had put into the Chris Pronger and National Hockey League rivalries articles. Among my changes were bypassing some redirects, unlinking dates, and merging identical references. His position - right or wrong - was that "August 3, [[2005-06 NHL season|2005]]" would be an appropriate link that should be kept. (And for that reason he reverted all my changes blankly.) My position - right or wrong - is that a calendar date obviously refers to a calendar year, not a season or a draft. Maybe this isn't the right place to resolve this dispute.

But what I object to is that he reverted all my changes, instead of - as I suggested on his talkpage - posting a (reasonably) polite message on my talkpage, explaining what he didn't feel was correct. An alternative would be that he himself re-add the specific changes that he didn't agree on. Instead he described my edits as "mistakes" and "unconstructive", and labeled me a "mindless busybody".

LarRan (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide diffs of the personal attacks? and notify the user of this alert as required. --neon white talk 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is his first revert of my edit to the "Chris Pronger" article: [1]. He reverted me once again in the same manner later the same day, but his revert has now been reverted by Orlandkurtenbach, and that version is the current one at present.

This is his first revert of my edit to the "National Hockey League rivalries" article: [2]. He reverted me once again in the same manner later the same day, and that version is the current one at present, since I don't want to engage in edit warring.

The invectives can be found on my talkpage, "Unlinking dates" section, second part. Here's the edit that added them: [3]

I have notified him now. Missed that.

LarRan (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have not looked at the diff's related to article content: we cannot deal with that here, only incivility. I've read the entire page that you linked to related to incivility, and I have significant trouble finding what you call "invectives". The edit that you kindly provided the diff for includes the phrases "please don't engage in mindless busybodyism and ignore the details. It's up to you to go that extra mile and make the constructive change". Based on your response, I believe that this is the portion you're concerned about. Truly, this is borderline: he didn't call you "a mindless busybody", he suggestion you don't engage in "mindless busybodyism". In fact, he then went on to suggest what would make your editing better. Feel free to correct me or enhance my understanding. -t BMW c- 15:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it is useful, and would add to the article, to include a link to the seasons in the Chris Pronger article, the fact that they are dates does not make it absolutely necessary. This is why I have decided not to revert on that article again. However, the National Hockey League rivalries article uses season links to establish greater context, and should not be removed. I'm glad that LarRan has not reverted me there, and I would ask him to agree to keep the season links in that article. I don't think it should be up to me to fix the problems caused by his edits. Why did I choose to revert all his changes? As I said, I do not think I should have been the one to fix the problems caused by his changes, because I had other articles to get to in my watchlist, and because his other changes were negligible, as the targets redirect to the articles. Redirects are something I'm anal about, but in this particular case I don't think either version would be a substantial improvement for the article, and him removing the season links diminishes the quality of the article. Since he is making the changes, he should make them good changes, not drive by script-type. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do have an obligation to at least keep or reinsert useful edits. If it was worth your time to visit and full-revert, it's worth your time to do a little help to the article. -t BMW c- 17:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that wikiquette alerts are not the place to continue a content dispute, do so on the relevant talk page. --neon white talk 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there has been worse behaviour than Pwnage8's, but there seems to be a pattern of him viewing himself as "presiding" over other editors' contributions, reverting others' edits at will with the comment "try again" if he does not approve of them. It (the attitude) can be seen both in his remarks on my talkpage, and on the edit summaries of his reverts. Also, other editors have recently complained on his talkpage about edit warring on dates, so this is clearly not a one-off.

Regarding his reason for full-reverts (he's got "other articles to tend to"), I think I value my time as precious as I guess he is valuing his, so that argument is invalid.

Finally, disguising invectives (albeit rather mild ones), in hypothetical expressions does not make them anything other than invectives. If that were the case, one could easily get away with "don't do this, or you're an idiot".

LarRan (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, if there's such a "pattern" it wouldn't be too hard to provide extensive diffs? --Pwnage8 (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that some of them have recently been added to your talkpage. LarRan (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I revert people's changes with "try again"? --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, here? You seem to be reverting LarRan, replacing dates with old-style wiki-linked dates and changing proper-case ("Where they met in playoffs") to camel-case ("Where They Met In Playoffs").

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 07:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's already been discussed here, and that's one diff. LarRan alleges that there is a "pattern" of this happening everywhere. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"not again" and "not again" (reverting removal of MySpace URLs). "why remove them?" (reverting removal of full-stops (periods) in an initialism). " lmao.. i'm sure it does. just about every article that isn't a GA does, but we don't see mass taggings of them" (removing a refimprove tag). "i can't believe someone tagged/removed this, considering all the ridiculous claims in this article" (reinserting an uncited claim). "how is this not notable? how are any of the other unsourced claims notable?" (...and again).

I don't know if I would agree with LarRan that there's a "pattern", but there are in a very short period a number of unhelpful edit summaries accompanying questionable reverts and edits. In particular, re-adding an uncited claim is bizarre - uncited claims can be removed at any time, and re-adding them is unhelpful. Reverting bot-edits that are consistent with MoS are unhelpful. Reverting the removal of MySpace links could be OK, but not with "not again" as an edit summary.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one: [4]. A pattern does not necessarily mean that all edits "everywhere" are unhelpful, or accompanied by questionnable edit summaries. Regular occurrences are enough to establish a pattern. LarRan (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chris Pronger reverts have to do with linking season articles, not full stops or the like. I wrote "not again" as an edit summary because I had a lengthy discussion with Piano non troppo about official band MySpace links where he didn't address the points I made, and I was simply maintaining status quo because he didn't give a good reason for removing the links. But that's another issue entirely. Drive-by taggings are a disease, and I don't see how adding "refimprove" when it's reasonably sourced helps the article. In that case, it's much better to tag individual claims with "citation needed", although I couldn't see any that needed that. As for Rogers Centre, I didn't notice that the info that was removed was integrated into the article already. Those embedded lists have to go, and I'll be doing some work on that later on. The article does very much suffer from unsourced OR, and what I added was a factual statement. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you did revert the initialism, reinserting full-stops. It's already been noted above that it's incumbent upon you not to revert good parts edits, but instead correct the bad parts. That you had discussed MySpace links is great, but not at all clear to other editors - and status quo is not an acceptable reason for ignoring policy. Your views on what constitutes a disease are also not a good reason for removing tags (and you may wish to rethink your description) - particularly as one {{refimprove}} tag is often better (for readability) than peppering an article with {{fact}} tags, though I note that you didn't even do that - you simply removed the {{refimprove}} tag altogether. Not realising that an un-cited claim already exists in an article seems to me to be a bizarre reason for re-adding that claim to an article: that the article suffers from un-sourced original research is no excuse for adding yet more un-sourced original research.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having problems with him, too. The infobox on Korn had been duplicated a ton, and I accidentally removed them all, instead of all but one. He then decided to tell me that he reverted my vandalism and called me a "stupid vandal noob" (although that was my edit summary for said "vandalism" although I didn't vandalize in the least way). User:Green caterpillar came to my aid, and reminded him not to bite the newcomers (it would seem this isn't the first time, as Green dug up a lot of incidents of Pwnage biting new IPs or users.) I replied on his talk page and signed his guestbook, both edits to his pages reminding him of the "vandalism" hoax he is trying to pull. He removed my signature and comment from his userpage guestbook, which I wouldn't mind, but he called it "garbage" on my talk page and removed it saying it was vandalism, and added it to the number of times his page has been vandalized. He also called pretty much everything Green said garbage. I'm really not surprised that his name is already on this page, he is very abrasive and rude to newcomers like me. I would like to point out that I am NOT a vandal and never will be. My evidence for all of this is on my talk page, his talk page, and Green caterpillar's talk page Thanks, Winston^talk 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Winston and everyone else pretty much summed it up in my opinion. Can't think of much else at the moment. Green caterpillar (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't ignoring policy with respect to the MySpace links. We both have our own interpretations of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, and the issue hadn't been settled (and still isn't), so I was just upholding consensus (that they are allowed). I didn't put {{fact}} tags, because like I said, I didn't see any claims that needed them. Just about every article that isn't GA needs more citations, but nobody in their right mind will go out and tag them all. Agree? I fail to see how that helps the article. What I added to the Rogers Centre article is not original research and could easily be cited. I wasn't going to bother with that at that particular moment though.

Now, as for this situation with Winstonator, here's what happened... I came across the Korn article in my watchlist, and I saw an IP edit (an immediate red flag) and noticed it was vandalism (no surprise there), so I undid it.[5] Afterwards, I noticed that something was very wrong with the infobox. The image that used to be there was gone. I consulted the history, and noticed something very ironic. Winstonator's revision replaced the photo of the band with "erection development", which wasn't showing due to it being a "bad image" that is only allowed in relevant articles, and I found his edit summary quite intriguing because of this.[6] It was clear from this, that he had no idea how to revert vandalism, and I needed to consult him about the edit. I went to his talk page and added a tongue-in-cheek section about him being a "stupid vandal noob" (per his edit summary). I was expecting him to check the history and post on my talk page admitting his mistake. Two days later, I notice I have new messages from Winstonator and Green caterpillar. Out of my hundred or so edits in that timespan, Green caterpillar picked out three where he alleged I was making personal attacks and not assuming good faith. If one looks at this, I was removing an obvious bad faith edit. Also notice that I did not just revert the entire edit, but only the part that was obvious vandalism (a clever way vandals make their edits slip under the radar is to mix them with good-faith edits). This is a non-starter. And yes, when I'm accused of all these bad things in a warning template-style fashion I'm going to call it "inflammatory garbage".[7] Now, I know what's going on, so I really don't need to be bothered with this issue on my guestbook. It is not the place to post grievances about my edits. That's what the talk page is for. This is not what you do on someone's guestbook. Compare to this. Well, seeing how my post was taken the wrong way, I made a longer one explaining what he did wrong, and even gave him a link to Help:Reverting so that something like this won't happen again.[8] Today I noticed another post of his on my talk page, where he tells me to "assume good faith" and then proceeds to make bad faith accusations: "You seem to have an inflated ego, someone needs to pop that balloon. Green caterpillar is right, you're trying to make yourself look good by targeting innocent users like me."[9] You may not have wanted to vandalize, but you certainly did "f**k up the wiki", and all I wanted to do was make you aware of that. I also noticed that he posted a personal attack about me on his userpage,[10] which is a violation of the userpage policy. Per What may I not have on my user page? #10: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." I ask Winstonator to kindly remove it as soon as possible. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll take it off my userpage. I didn't know about Wikiquette alerts so I tried to take things up on your guestbook/talk page, but then I looked here. As for the "erection devolpment" thing, I thought that was a concert picture or something, as they tend to have odd names. I could have sworn that the picture showing was the regular band picture as well. I just want you to put the "userpage vandalized" count on your userpage back to 4, as I might have attacked you, but that wasn't "vandalism". You call everything vandalism. You can't act like a victim, the sequence of events went as follows:

• I saw the problem on Korn with the duplicated infobox, and I removed them all, instead of all but one. The fault was mine, then.
• Pwnage attacked me on my talk page, and Green caterpillar on his.
• I took this to the Wikiquette alerts.

I admit that the fault was mine of not correctly removing vandalism, but one thing I will not stand for is being accused of vandalizing myself. I said some things I shouldn't have, but so did Pwnage. You look down on everyone, as if you're better. That's my problem with you. Winston^talk 20:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether or not you were violating policy by removing the MySpace links is moot - this is about civility. Your edit summaries for both MySpace reverts consisted of "Not again". Under the circumstances any reasonable editor would have seen a bot removing MySpace links, and an editor reinserting them with a non-descriptive, un-helpful edit summary. If I'd seen that I would have reverted you (and I note that you were, indeed, promptly reverted).
• You removed a {{refimprove}} tag without making any attempt to deal with the underlying issue because you didn't agree with the editor who inserted the {{refimprove}} tag. A civil response would have been to first discuss with the editor, or to insert {{fact}} tags where necessary and then remove the {{refimprove}} tag. You apparently did neither - you assumed the editor inserting the {{refimprove}} tag didn't know what they were doing, and simply reverted them.
• Just about every article that isn't GA needs more citations, but nobody in their right mind will go out and tag them all. Agree?

Actually, I strongly disagree. When I see an article that needs more references, I tag it. When I see a section that needs more references, I tag it. And when I see a claim that is unreferenced, I tag it. In each case I make some effort to verify the claim first. I'd add that, like your earlier reference to tags as "a disease", phrases questioning editors' sanity are unhelpful at best. Please be more civil.

• You added an uncited claim to the Rogers Centre article. If it can be, as you claim, easily cited then the correct thing to do would have been to cite it - not make a snarky edit summary about its removal. If you couldn't be bothered citing it then and there you should not have reinserted the claim - and you certainly should not have left a "How is this not notable?"-edit summary - unless you reference the claim how is any other editor to know that it's notable?
• This is not about content; I note that most of your edits seem fine in and of themselves. It's about how you deal with other editors. Those acting in good faith deserve to be treated with respect. Even trolls and vandals should be treated with courtesy per Don't Feed the Trolls - otherwise you're simply encouraging them.

Earlier you appeared to claim that you had made no reversions in which the edit summary consisted of "Try again" (Where did I revert people's changes with "try again"?). I immediately found one; another editor has found another. Edit summaries like this are precisely why I am concerned. Wikipedia is not a game; it is a collaborative attempt to build an encyclopaedia. Doing so requires courtesy and respect for other editors, and a level of discussion that transcends snarky edit summaries like "Try again", "Not again" and adding unreferenced claims with "How is this not notable?"

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've lowered the vandalism count back down to four, per Winstonator's request.

• Tagging is something that's arbitrary, and editors sometimes disagree about how and when it should be done. I did not see any reason for the tag to be there and couldn't find any claims that need sourcing. In any case, it's always helpful for the tagging editor to describe why they added the tag in the edit summary and/or talk page. It helps to avoid these types of cases.
• The Rogers Centre article needs a ton of work anyway, so anything that needs to be sourced (and there's a lot of that) can be done later. I don't see what's wrong with the edit summary. If you're going to remove that claim, then you should remove all the others because they have the same problem.
• Only two edit summaries that have "try again" in them does not constitute a pattern or problem that needs to be resolved here. I will keep it in mind however, that they are frowned upon. As for "not again", I don't really see the problem with that. I was upholding consensus, and I view Piano non troppo's MySpace removals as disruptive. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good enough for me. Thanks for taking the time to consider and discuss this, and working towards an amicable solution. Notwithstanding other editors' views, I'm happy with this outcome.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for lowering the vandalism count, I appreciate it. Winston^talk 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've decided to give my (real) two cents, now that I could think of something.

My greatest concerns are that Pwnage8 is biting the newbies and not assuming good faith. The edits I put up on his talk page that Winston described are examples where editors at least tried to help, yet were treated rudely by him, and this is the kind of behavior that drives away new editors. Everyone was new once, and if people are constantly insulted and ridiculed in the manner Pwnage8 is doing, how many will stay to edit? Probably not many, which is why I want this to stop. Green caterpillar (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, I don't like Pwnage8's apparent assumptions of bad faith and contempt of IP addresses, such as above, when he said, "and I saw an IP edit (an immediate red flag) and noticed it was vandalism (no surprise there)". Green caterpillar (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three diffs = I bite newbies and assume bad faith? That's not assuming good faith. Although 84% of anon contribs are constructive, that still leaves 16% that aren't, which warrants every anon edit needing to be checked. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. Take it or leave it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can bring up more if you want, and it seems that LarRan has already brought up a couple. When Winston told me about you, I thought maybe it was an isolated incident, so I looked into your contribs, and these were just some I found at the top of the stack. And apparently, yes, I think you are biting newbies and assuming bad faith, per what everyone (including me) has said. Seeing that there is a Wikiquette alert on you, I decided to look deeper, including at some more recent contribs. Here are a few:

• Unexplaned reversion of good faith edit: [11]
• Contentious edits: [12], [13] - I cannot find a single policy which says only articles are notable.
• Unnecessary newbie biting: [14], [15] - "nope" is not a valid revert justification
• and, the edits LarRan has discussed: [16], [17], which were somewhat of a violation of the reverting guidelines, where the page specifically says, "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, try to improve it", and "If only part of an edit is problematic, consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit", something which you apparently did not consider. Also, "try again" is not constructive and only serves to bite the user.

I am going to say this again. How do you think these users feel when edits they may have worked hard on are reverted with an unnecessarily harsh, unconstructive, or even no explanation? Do you think Wikipedia looks good in their eyes as a community? Probably not. This is why we have behavioral guidelines like WP:AGF and WP:BITE. I strongly recommend that you take a very good look at both of them, because many users can probably agree that you are violating them to some extent. It doesn't matter whether it's three edits or more; your editing behavior needs to change. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, this edit was not only a misinterpretation of H:RV, but calling someone a mindless busybody, as LarRan said, is a personal attack. It doesn't matter whether you phrased it differently either; according to WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Also, the wiki-cred comment on my talk page can also be considred a personal attack.

Seriously, please change your behavior. Per WP:NPA, your behavior could be enough to get you blocked already, per "...even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption". I am not just making suggestions anymore - this is a warning. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just posting to prevent archiving. In the past few days I haven't been paying much attention to Wikipedia, that's why I haven't replied. I probably won't be at the computer until Nov 22 (UTC), and at that point, this thread would be fair game for MiszaBot II. I will replace this post with a proper reply when I get back. Please hold off on replying until I do so. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty. I'm posting for the same reason. Winston^talk 14:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. And again.[reply]

Why? The original message: "I probably won't be at the computer until Nov 22 (UTC), and at that point, this thread would be fair game for MiszaBot II". Today is Nov 27. If there's been no desire/attempt to reply by anyone and no additional concern raised, then let it go. ►BMW◄ 16:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all let it go, but apparently Green Caterpillar still has a problem with me, and has accused me of things I didn't do. I intend to defend myself against these accusations, I just haven't been around Wikipedia very much over the last couple weeks. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now then, let's get back to the issue at hand. Green caterpillar has made a lot of accusations in his last post, which are unfounded. The "good faith edit", as he puts it, to the Ontario article, introduced vandalism, unsourced claims and POV language. Reverting such a change does not need to be explained. Bands that are influential for a musical style are notable per the music notability guidelines, and should have their own article. The notability guideline is specifically constructed in such a way that notable bands have an article, and non-notable bands do not. Since nobody bothered to write an article, and there are no reliable sources to substantiate the claim and allow for an article, they are not notable and do not belong. You also complained about this reversion, which was undoing a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Why are you complaining about me upholding policy? You are also defending genre warring by complaining about this revert. Where are the sources that say they are "hard rock" and NOT "screamo"? Why are you defending blatant vandalism? Have you actually taken the time to check the factual accuracy of the change by the IP? It's wrong. "Nope" is absolutely a justification to revert in this case. "Nope. It isn't the administrative center of Samarskaya Oblast." Is it any wonder why I made the "wiki-cred" comment when all you are doing is making unfounded accusations and warning me about blocking when I am upholding policy? Do you think Wikipedia looks good as a community when you do that? You wouldn't make a very good administrator. All of this feels very BITEy to me. I'm being singled out for no reason.

As for the dispute with LarRan, apparently, you are late in this conversation, which is ironic, since my post is long overdue. I did not call him a "mindless busybody". Please refer to Bwilkins' first post. My watchlistitis did get in the way when I was making those edits, and it's already been discussed here. I should not have reverted like I did. Anything else? Another laundry list of "bad edits"? I think we're done here. I hope you are too. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and failed to explain user:Eklir that his actions against some fellow editors are causing more harm than justified, and on course it turned out that he insists to have a right to remove content from other people's talk page at his will, namely he declared that he is going to remove any non-english comment from the talk page of the editors he opposes [18] [19] [20] (user:Doncsecz and user:MagyarTürk seem to be in this set). Discussions (history is broken because they were copied 3 times by him): here. His actions are clearly violating the user page policy and not meet any reason to intervene based on Talk_page_guidelines (especially the section on user talk pages). I am not sure he is not involved in stalking, but I do not want to judge him in this way. I repeatedly requested difflinks to support his allegiations which he neglected to provide. I would like to know, however, who is right, and since I strongly believe that it is wrong to mess with other users talk page without explicite request to do so (and in this case the opposite is true, as he was asked to stop it) I'd like to persuade him to stop these actions immediately and avoid them in the future, and maybe stop reverting edits of the editors in question without inviting neutral third parties in the discussion. Thanks for your insights. --grin ✎ 21:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC) is true that users are asked to communicate in English only: Transparency is critical to the Wiki concept, and since this is English Wikipedia, communicating in another language means that your conversation is now secret from the vast majority of Wikipedians.[reply]

Whether Eklir's actions are justified or not depends a whole lot on context. If the users in question have been disruptive, colluded during edit warring for example, and they have been asked politely to communicate in English and consistently refused, Eklir's unilateral removal could be justified. Do you know if there has been a dialog about it at all? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think removing talk page messages is the correct way to deal with such issues and whilst english is prefered no-one is going to get blocked for not using english, it just doesnt help an editor not to communicate well. --neon white talk 00:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If communicating in another language is the only issue, I absolutely agree with you. That's why I sorta want more context. If the users in question have been disruptive in other ways, I could potentially see some value in an inflexible application of the rules. Maybe...

Has Eklir been notified of this thread? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The issues involved have been amply discussed here. In short:

• Translation request. Grin (d)'s protégé Doncsecz (d) has been warned repeatedly, on his talk page here and elsewhere, of the consequences of not adhering to guidelines. Translation request served: 01:16, 13 September 2008; last notice: 22:42, 15 November 2008. (As it is, he still ignores all translation requests and continues his use of languages other than English, no explanation offered.)
• Statistics: 50% of Doncsecz (d)'s edits which are not language-neutral (14 out of 27 of the last 50 at the time of probing) are consistently in a language other than English, no translation intended or even any criterion of "unavoidability" suggested. That's disruptive enough by any standards of WP policies. As for the other edits, they are indicative of the cooperation he is willing to offer on WP: None to people who are not of his mind:
  • 13 of his contributions were affectively in English. Of these, three were insults (dull, nonsense, history faker allegation, etc.), eight were reverted (two by myself, six by others), and two barely survived WP criteria for retention;
  • 23 of his contributions concern the editing of graphics, tags and the adding of reference sources in languages other tban English or one of the major publishing languages. Except for the eight edits on his own page, most of them were reverted as being either unsourced or inappropriate by editors other than me;
• My reverts: My decision to revert on Battle of Petrovaradin which Grin (d) qualifies as "starting an edit war" were based on the same motives as the decision to revert on Battle of Grocka: Putting a definite stop to unsourced attempts, based on bias and edit warring, to modify the list of belligerents in battles which all can be subsumed under the historically accepted heading of Ottoman-Habsburg wars. If Grin (d) is not not satisfied with my handling the case, he is not only disaggreeing with my own decisions but also with all those who have been involved in handling the case, faithless (^speak) and Blueboy96; and notably with Blueboy96's decision to block his protégé under 3RR.
• Non-English contribs: Consistent non-English editing can be reverted whether it occurs on talk pages or not and this not only because of English language guidelines. Comments on talk pages have to conform to the WP core principle of civility and in this respect have to meet the threshold of verifiability. If comments are consistently not in English nor in a major publishing language, there is no way to reasonably encact and act on WP concerns. In the present case, the comments are eminently written in a language no one understands and eminently offensive to one who does; and it is upon the offending editor to act and demonstrate, within the 5 day grace period I granted (added to the 66 days he already had to act), that his non English edits are not offensive.
• What Grin (d) calls mediation attempts: On one hand, what there is to see, judging from his own editorial biases, is that Grin (d) is supporting firmly one party's right to act without concern for WP-friendlyness; On the other hand, doing my job on WP has been bringing me into direct conflict with a particularly difficult user, Doncsecz (d), where I could use some support myself. One doesn't see how Grin (d) could have mediated anything here: Nemo iudex in parte sua.
• My alleged removing of reference sources: In a new intervention in favor of his protégé, Grin (d) holds me responsible for removing non-English reference sources. As it is, my editing history rather shows that I consistently revert the unmotivated blanking of non-English reference sources or non-English citations from authors writing in languages other than English. In this particular case (Republic of Prekmurje), I asked for reliable and verifiable references written in a language or a translation that is accessible to those who will audit the article under criteria of WP admissibility. An auditor may be expected to be capable of verifying sources written in a major publishing language such as French, German and so on, but not sources written in Prekmurian. What I suggested and continue to suggest is that articles which cannot be audited according to WP standards of reliability and verifiabilty are elligible for deletion under one of the deletion processes that are available.

As I said, I will eventually have to do what I'm here for without reckoning on support from editors like Grin (d). Best, Eklir (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think neon white had it right. The discussion Eklir is pointing to, and the guideline it refers to is about talk pages on articles, not user space. In user space, there has always been greater leniency about content, and as she states, while English is preferred, it is not required to prevent being blocked. Reading WP:user page also makes no reference to English being the only language. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 20:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, i cannot find or concieve of any reason why non english shouldn't be ok on user and user talk pages. --neon white talk 01:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I would respectfully ask that Eklir consider acknowledging a misunderstanding of this one policy, which would address one of the two issues here. Non-English doesn't appear to violate any policies for user talk pages and I am absolutely confident it is fine for sources, even if English is strongly preferred. For the record, I think Eklir's deletions of user space talk sections were mistakes but they don't seem to be in bad faith, just a mistaken understanding of existing policy, which is why I would be happy for a simple "Ok, now I understand. Sorry." so we can move on. If in doubt, ask an admin before you do wholesale reversions. As for the content dispute, this really isn't the right forum. I would strongly suggest Eklir and grin go to Wikipedia:Third opinion as the next step. This is exactly what they do best over there. You guys are adults and all are trying to make the articles better, even if you disagree on methods. I am confident you can hash it out there, all you need is someone to mediate a bit. We all need that sometimes, which is why it is there. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Dennis Brown and neon white, but I am a little concerned about Eklir's implication that the non-English content may be offensive. I have seen cases arise at ANI where a non-English comment was added on another user's talk page, and it turned out to be a rather vile epithet. Eklir is right when he/she says the verifiability principle comes into play even when we are talking about user talk pages... If both editors are consenting, I'd usually be inclined to let it go -- but if Eklir has evidence that the non-English comments have WP:CIV or WP:NPA problems, for example, it would be valid to both admonish the user(s) for that and strictly forbid them from communicating in non-English in the future.

I may have misunderstood Eklir's implication, though; or the implication may be false. If the comments are inoffensive, then I am inclined to agree -- I would rather users communicate only in English for the sake of transparency, but in that case Eklir's reversion does not appear to be necessary and is likely only to stir up more controversy. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: The reason I am much more willing to entertain the idea of forbidding non-English communication on talk pages is because multiple times I have seen people using non-English communication to avoid scrutiny while making comments they know are wholly inappropriate. Also, my interpretation of the cited passage from WP:TALK is that while it does not explicitly call out User Talk pages, the same logic applies (that the information be understood by the community at large) so while I would typically not make a stink about two consenting users communicating in another language, I would discourage the practice. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't "consider" forbidding English. Even Jimbo Wales can't at this forum either. The policy on Wikipedia allows non-English and simply put, we can only interpret the policy and apply it to the current situation. Telling someone they must use English here at Wikiquette violates a whole host of policies, including assuming good faith and I am not remotely considering that. If you want to change that policy, this is the wrong page. As for this current situation, I would suggest translate.google.com to translate just about any language. I would first try that. The "offense" would be the content of the message. It can never be the language it was spoken in. IE: you simply cannot say "No Spanish/French/German because you might say something offensive", as that is against everything we stand for here. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in any language is still public. There are enough editors who can translate where needed. If two Serbs discuss an issue in non-English on their usertalk pages and actually come up a solution for something to solve world peace, we'd all be pleased. Talk on article Talk pages should always be in English. ►BMW◄ 00:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the policy or guideline that shows this? I have seriously looked for it and can't seem to find it. If that is the case, I would want to know what it is. Otherwise, it is only an opinion, which doesn't help the issue. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I do not see any of the original parties contributing, nor anyone demonstrating a policy that Wikipedia user pages are English only. Does this need to be bumped up to ANI? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 19:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be the right place for it. A better venue would be The village pump policy page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely support the views of Jaysweet (talk). In this particular case:

• Satisfying translation requests is clearly mandatory for Wikipedia talk pages. The offending user has consistently ignored such requests.
• Profanity and insults are being used as I pointed out already. However, my assertion of this is no proof in the absence of an authorized translation.

I therfore must insist: Either all the incriminated comments are translated; or they are deleted. Best, Eklir (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is not current policy. --neon white talk 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ: It is current policy. Satisfying translation requests is mandatory and comments using profanity or insult are deletable. Eklir (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current policy has already been pointed out above. Using english only applies to article space. User pages are a very different space to article space. Policies/guidelines that apply to article space do not apply to user space. That's the bottom line and it's not up for debate here. According to user space guidelines you can request that a user remove content that you feel may be inappropriate but ultimately removing it requires some community consensus that it is inappropriate. You cannot simply make unilateral decisions about the suitability of content. (unless the content violates WP:BLP which can be removed without discussion) See Wikipedia:User_page#Inappropriate_content. If you think there is offensive content or personal attacks i recommend asking an admin to check it out or posting an WP:ANI report.--neon white talk 17:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – User has forum-shopped this one, and it has also been posted in ANI

First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response. Ninevite (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineveh 209 (talk • contribs) [reply]

user:Faustian trace my edits and put own vision of my words and edits [21] [22] Failed to proved any AD REM comments [23] he/she put other in misconseption about existing dispute on articles content by distoring the mean of issue - [24]

• It’s achieving by a vary simple but durable way – if nominate an Abwehr Major General Erwin Von Lahausen, Abwehr Division I Head as “Austrian officer” forgot to note what it happened in Hitler special train were actually Hitler present. And a cherish point – to stress the reliability of data – “conversations between German officials recalled six years after the conversation”. So the reader easily forgot what here is spoken not about hearing at Pip-Creek County court but about International Military Tribunal Trails on Major War Criminals. And refuse to follow the reccomendation [25] by possible involving of tWikipedia:SOCK and WP:MEAT - to simply revert my edits. Jo0doe (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Can someone help me to comprehend. —BradV 18:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reply is not help - becouse it does not provide nor advice, nor explanation. Administrator still keep silence [26] while I've read at Wikipedia:Administrators - [27] - [Wikipedia:Administrators]Jo0doe (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – 2 separate warnings to HPJoker

After reviewing some talk page comments from a fellow editor of an article, I noticed that HPJoker has shown quite a bit of incivility (possibly bordering on personal attacks) in talk page comments and edit summaries, and seems to be using his userpage as a blog or form of social networking, which Wikipedia does not allow. Here are the diffs that I found to be concerning: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]

I was just wondering if there are any more experienced editors or even admins that would be able to sufficiently remind or warn the editor of the policies, as I would rather not be the target of the editor's wrath from what I've read of his comments. Atlantabravz (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warned for both the improper humour/incivility with his "friend" and using the userpage as a social network. While I was there, I noticed that you had not advised them of this WQA filing. Please remember you are required to do so. ►BMW◄ 13:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that this situation is resolved. The editor in question has responded in this way: Here and Here. Maybe an admin needs to take a look at this editor's behavior. Atlantabravz (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say his 72 hr block because of his replies makes it more resolved. Let's just say that the warnings "resolved" it to the level that WQA can, because we generally are unable to put blocks. ►BMW◄ 12:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:MickMacNee has been very rude to me at a certain AfD. After reviewing some of his past correspondences I see that this incivility is a pattern with this editor. Diffs here, here, here, and here correspond to his action against me at the AfD. His pattern of incivility can be seen by a threat here, editor harrassment here, an accusation here, an insult here, some belittlement here, calling another user a "drama whore" here, calling somebody ignorant here etc... All of these within the past four days!

I would like input about what can be done with this type of user who freely allows his/her temper to leak into Wikipedia. I would also like a direct, sincere apology from User:MickMacNee. We can still respect each other if we have different interpretations of policy. Themfromspace (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, I am being stalked for opinions at an AFD about cake. Wow. As for the Ireland edits, these are all likely to soon go to full arbitration, and if you don't understand the full timeline/context, it isn't realy sensible to cite one small part of out of context. But anyway, as for cake, anybody who thinks my comments are unreasonable will be entertained to the full extent of my abilities without laughing too much, I promise. MickMacNee (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the example given for "accusation" above makes more sense if read in conjunction with User talk:Sladen#A picture of a box no less, a previous thread—and when done so, the accusation of an accusation is somewhat less tenuous. (I have not evaluated any of the other edits). —Sladen (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, first I read the cake page (oh my god, delete it already - and don't "threaten" DRV because that's disruption, pure and simple). Then I read the diffs provided. As of this point, I really only see one case of "incivility". Snarkiness, maybe. I'm not a big fan of the shotgun approach here. I'm going to give you a chance to re-read your diff's and determine which actually violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. ►BMW◄ 12:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – No incivility

User:Readin made the following comments against me on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), which I don't find particularly civil.

Now we've each had a chance to state a view. How cutting our your trial lawyering for a bit (we know from your user page you have legal training) and let people put in their opinions. You seem to have too much time to spend endlessly arguing with and reverting people you disagree with. Give some other people a chance to respond.

As you can tell from the page as well as my edit logs, I did not make any comments to stop anyone from expressing their opinion. And what does the fact that I have received legal training got to do with anything? Please let me have your comments.--pyl (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you and Readin have a history here. In fact,because of this history, as an attempt to stimulate discussion from others (rather than just he focus of the arguments of the two of you), Readin requested input from others before the two of you started arguing. Regardless, Readin has not said that being law-trained was bad, or that lawyers are bad, or indeed that you are bad. Wikilawyering of any type is a bad bad thing. He does, obviously, recognize that your "strength" is an your ability to argue a position (whihc perhaps comes from your legal training). Please allow others input when it is requested, and WP:AGF. ►BMW◄ 12:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Wikipedia has a very curious standard towards "civility", and I guess I should not expect Readin to be polite to me since we "have a history". Ever since the last discussion on this board, I have been acting as if the "history" never happened, but it now appears to me that the history is what I am stuck with.

If the logs are examined, I fail to see how I should be talked the way I was talked to by Readin. Is it civil in real life to accuse someone of having "too much time to spend endlessly arguing with and reverting people [he] disagree[s] with" and "How cutting our your trial lawyering for a bit"? What have I done to deserve that kind of comments? What sort of "good faith" am I supposed to assume by these comments?

Are you saying that Readin can present half a picture, then request for others to comments, and I am not supposed to make my own case? I don't think I prevented anyone from commenting by me making my case.--pyl (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You completely miss the point, and by doing so you're also not AGF towards me. History has nothing to do with it, it was simply a side-note. If I'm chairing a meeting, and I ask for a roundtable discussion starting on my right, everyone (including you) will get to make their comment. However, if YOU decide to start instead, it may actually change the nature of everyone else's comments. Not soing so is like treating it like the discussion was ONLY you vs Readin and was simply like acting as if only the Crown and the Defense lawyers ever get to talk. This time, he was asking you to let the jury speak too. THAT is trying to elicit DISCUSSION and CONSENSUS and not simply make it an argument between 2 people. ►BMW◄ 13:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You completely miss the point, and by doing so you're also not AGF towards me. When the "history" is mentioned at the first place, I am not sure if any reasonable person would take it as a "sidenote".

It is not hard to tell that Readin's comments about lawyers was simply a smart arse comment. It is beyond me how this kind of smart arse comments are considered to be accepted in Wikipedia.

If the log and discussions are examined, it is clear that I simply just made my case and left it at that. I was happy to hear other editors to make comments. Using your example, I would say that it is unfair to invite the jury to make a comment when only half of the story is told. The discussion clearly showed that I was not arguing with Readin. I don't think good faith was assumed for my benefit.--pyl (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you felt that your comment deserved to be heard before others has just proven my point. Thanks. Every so often, it would be wise to site back and listen to others first. ►BMW◄ 14:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is, the very function of this forum is to deal with the complaints of people's uncivil conduct. The decision gives out the message that it is ok to make sarcastic comments against another editor if they don't listen to you. Indeed, any reasonable person in the real world would interpret Readin's sarcastic comment as saying that lawyers and legal training are bad. If you disagree with me, make those comments to your lawyer next time and ask your lawyer if he or she considers those comments civil. You then made a general comment that "Wikilawyering of any type is a bad bad thing". I am not sure what that means in this case, but I would find it offensive if being a lawyer means I am presumed to be doing Wikilawyering. If the logs are checked, it would be clear that there is absolutely no such evidence.

I am not sure what sort of point you are trying to prove here. It appears that you are saying I am not wise by not letting others speak first. If you check my logs, it would be clear that I do, and I understand your piece of wisdom. In the current situation, Readin presents a case that was biased - a story half told, and the requested comments would then serve less value. However, as I said above I believe this issue is outside the function of this forum.--pyl (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the bottom line is this: I was unable to see the purported sarcasm; I saw someone asking you to lay off what has appeared to be a history of "wikilawyering" for a few minutes in order to gain comments from other editors in order to try and gain broad WP:CONSENSUS (which was going to include your commentary as well). ►BMW◄ 12:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. That was no history of "wikilawyering". That's why I found the comments insulting and sarcastic. According to WP:LAWYER, wikilawyering means:-

Wikilawyering (and the related legal term pettifogging) is a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of judging other Wikipedians' actions. It may refer to certain quasi-legal practices, including:

1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy;

2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its principles;

3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express;

4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

Check my logs and you will see that I don't engage in this type of practice. It appears that Readin has successfully used the fact that I'm a lawyer to make people assume or even presume that I do "wikilawyering".--pyl (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I provided specific instances above. I'll say no more on this issue other than say to work nicely and cooperatively with others, and they will respect and work nicely with you. It sure wouldn't have killed you to wait for a couple of other people to reply first, when you were recommended to do so. ►BMW◄ 14:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Editor2020 reverted _{pedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophia_(wisdom)&diff=249772507&oldid=249731570 this user's edit} without an explanation. That's the kind of crap that keeps new editors from coming back. —Werson (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an etiquette issue. Editor2020 has already explained the edit here --neon white talk 00:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sudharsansn uses very bad uncivil language (latest being today at 1, 2, and 3), against me, simply because I dont agree with his revert-war-style of functioning. This is not the first time he is uncivil either, being a longtime wikipedia user, and his latest remarks are totally disgusting, to say the least. ­ Kris (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is definite issues with personal attacks, not assuming good faith and general incivility here. I've warned two users about edit warring on this article. Hopefully dispute resolution can now begin. --neon white talk 18:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To let Srkris repeatedly talk about my profession, 1, 2 and 3 which he inferred from my mention of that in another talk page, and let him bash me is what is actually disgusting. It is nearly pointless to have a system, like Wikipedia, to work on the consensus gained by POV mongers, including having a Wikiquette page in which editors like Srkris, with absolutely no regard for anything in WP, report this here. He just wanted to get me blocked because he was blocked a few days earlier and he was involved in an edit war with in the Sanskrit article. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the 12h ban imposed on User:Sudharsansn yesterday, he/she comes back from the block and again indulges in personal attacks on me by calling me a troll, POV monger etc apart from the general incivil tone of his entire post. Clearly the ban hasnt helped much thus far. ­ Kris (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop whining here. Your basic intention is to intimidate editors and quite obviously you jump on them before they jump on you. You'd have been the object of this ban if I had reported about your repeated intimidations and uncivility. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I like to appeal this ban, although it has been imposed, with the intention of clearing it off my block log. This was my post:

"Srkris, stop acting like you are drunk and berserk. Being a ruthless POV monger does not give you the right to talk about my profession or my field of study again and again"

These were his posts that preceded mine:

• This is for the Sociolinguistics professor - look who first..

• Sudharsansn the sociolinguistics professor

• The professional linguist said something in your talkpage

• Sudharsansn, the sociolinguistics professor, hasnt made a single meaningful contribution to any of the sanskrit-related language articles

• got labeled by you as his opponent. Now enjoy his company

He has goaded me into asking him stop the nonsense and quoted me off the context to simply go on a rampage and get everyone against his POV banned. Although the block has passed, I would like the ban to be reconsidered and that removed off my block-log. A look into this is very, very relevant. Thanks [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 05:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You were banned for your personal attacks at 1, 2, and 3 just two days back, and after coming back out of the ban, you again repeat the action yesterday, so your first ban didnt apparently help you, and you need probably another ban for the second offence. Me calling you a linguist or a sociolinguistics professor does not amount to any incivility and cannot have goaded you into using foul language against me, so your reasoning is amusing at best. ­ Kris (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what is being explained as a frivolous charge. To call someone a troll does not indicate a personal attack and this has been pointed out by several other admins and editors in the sections of this same page in which you have frivolous charges against other editors. Trolling indicates editing patterns and NOT the hairy creature from Norse mythology. Just because you cite something as a personal attack does not make it one. It has to be accounted for as a personal attack and consensus gained to establish it. You cannot unilaterally establish consensus that it is a personal attack.

You repeatedly talking about my profession in the disparaging sense and mapping that to what you consider as 'incompetence' thereby degrading me, my profession and my professional competence is what called goading someone. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. [[::User:Sudharsansn|Sudharsansn]] ([[::User talk:Sudharsansn|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sudharsansn|contribs]]) 05:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your completely missing the point here. Simply saying "but he started it" doesn't justify the personal attacks above. From WP:NPA - it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. It may well be that Kris is using this as a way to get at you but just bare in mind that he wouldnt have been able to had you not responded. --neon white talk 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'd agree with the comment that personal attacks are not justified and Sudharsansn should not have responded as he did. However, a prolonged period of goading through personal attacks should be taken into account. I did contemplate suggesting that Sudharsansn should think about his response to baiting in future, in particular to use the dispute resolution process rather than responding in kind. Justin talk 19:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at that text again, if that was the post that resulted in a block, then to my mind the actions of the blocking admin were not entirely correct. The correct sanction (in my opinion) would have been to block both editors to allow them to cool off. Having blocked only one, the action seems punitive rather than preventative and blocks should never be used as a punishment. I can see how Sudharsansn might feel aggrieved, particular in light of the sustained personal attacks that preceded his outburst. Justin talk 19:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm repeatedly getting insults from this (new) user.

• [34] "you are clearly a hispanophobe" (for the second time, even though I've already told him I'm half Spanish)
• [35] "you just can't accept the facts , im not going to waste my time explaining this subject (which i clearly dominate over you)"
• [36] "i wont even waste my time with you explaining something which is clearly above your intelectual level"
• [37] "we need somebody else instead of Ferrick here , someone more lenient and who has a little more insight into this subject"

I've been struggling with trying to get them to understand the policies of WP:V and WP:NOR but I just get insults in return. As my requests for no personal attacks are falling on deaf ears, I would appreciate it if someone could put a polite note on their talk page to request they cease this behaviour. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can give the user a friendly warning about policy on etiquette. --neon white talk 19:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still getting the insults - [38]. The user in question seems to think it's OK to put "no attack intended" after making the attack. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Matt57 has spent the last day doing nothing but harassing me. It began when he

• ignored a merge discussion and unilaterally redirected an article with a ridiculous edit summary.
• He then continued in his semi-vandal ways by removing another template.
• then edit-warred and again deleted/redirected the article under discussion
• placed a message on my talk page with a non-existent policy application
• next, called my comments "silly".
• next, comments on my talk page: "Why dont you go spend your time in more useful stuff"
• after spending all his wiki time on this issue he announces via edit summay "this really silly issue which is a waste of time"
• he then followed me to another issue I was involved with. The basis for his opposition to the move (which i obviously supported) was another personal attack against me and another editor - "Please spend your time in a more useway way, Cerejota and Brewcrewer"
• Finally, after I reverted his edit while pointing out that he was personally attacking other editors, he reverted with a threat to have me blocked

Why dont you also mention:

You reverted an admin's edit, after he explained what he was going to do. In the same article, you revert warred a couple of times [39],[40],[41] trying to maintain the single line article which everyone thinks should be merged.

You removed the SPA warning I had put in. When I reverted the edit, you reverted back again calling it vandalism in your edit summary. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is your civility problems. You have yet to strike your personal attack, insulting two editors, at Talk:November_2008_Mumbai_attacks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted my comment, if that makes you happy. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me very happy, but more importantly, it pleases the Wikipedia community which whom you interact. Hopefully, future comments on talk pages will comment on content, not contributors. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that no personal attack applies to yourself as well, accusations of incivility and vandalism are not civil and only inflame a situation. In future consider a polite word with the editor. --neon white talk 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Redirects and merges do not need to be discussed, editors are allowed to be bold and i can see how an editor would consider this uncontroverial so this is not a breach of etiquette rules. Accusations of vandalism are not assuming good faith. Content disputes are not etiquette issues, remind all involved editors to discuss in a civil manner and use dispuite resolution if necessary or in this case an afd. --neon white talk 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cerejota had proposed a title move of the article November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Cerejota made the following edit in which they uploaded an image to ridicule one editor's comment in the discussion. I reverted the edit here. Cerejota commented on my talk page here and re-added their image here describing it as a valid counterpoint. User:Cerejota's actions are not a civil way to conduct a title move request and I am requesting an uninvolved editor to comment on the handling of the proposal. Switzpaw (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst i don't think this is necessarily uncivil, it does give undue prominence to one editors POV and therefore seems inappropriate. I think this could reasonable be considered under the same guidelines as 'Avoid excessive markup' on talk page guidelines. --neon white talk 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, what a misuse of process! Ridiculous arguments warrant ridiculous responses, and this is a classic case. There is no un-civility, only disagreement, expressed in such a way as to demonstrate the incredible stupidity of the argument. BTW, other editors agree with me. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that this may not be a civility issue, and it may have been possible to solve this issue by asking for it to be removed. However accusing editors of a 'misuse of process' in an etiquette alert is hardly recommended. I doubt that guidelines agrees with you as i have pointed out, for now we are assuming good faith to the point that we believe that you had no intention of being disruptive, just take note that giving prominence to points in this way may lead to misunderstanding of the consensus and that it may become a civility issue. --neon white talk 04:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But other editors disagree with you too. It may not be uncivil per se, but it was undeniable rudeness to a constructive editor trying to make a point. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as rude as removing content, or doing wiki alerts without so much as approaching me for clarification and comment. And of course others disagree, however, this just means things are not as clear cut as you try to make them seem in your original post. Perhaps a little less self-righteousness might be in order. Also, get a sense of humor. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I did not remove your content; I've already stated this. I was trying to get you to do it yourself. A little self-righteousness (even false self-righteousness, as in this case) is necessary to combat the original self-righteous offense (see taste of your own medicine). I have a sense of humor, and your move could have been funny, but in this context it was rude and uncalled for (I feel like I'm in middle school all over again), especially when after forceful removal, you reinstated your comments multiple times as if you were trying to prove some unnecessary point..? ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a polite word and an assumption of good faith would have been a better course of action. Just to be clear i don't have a problemn with the use of humour or the image, the issue i have is it's placement outside of the normal text flow, there is a danger that it may be misunderstood for instance it may be seen incorrectly as a summary of a section or consensus. Also consider what would become of talk pages if everyone contributing did a similar thing. --neon white talk 04:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Switzpaw (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this image inserted by Cerejota is just rude and unneccesary. He inserted the image again after you removed it and I've removed it again. Being polite and appropriate comes first and having a sense of hmor comes later. As you said too, it wouldnt look pretty if everyone started using images in talk pages like this. Infact Cerejota, it makes your argument look weaker. Dont reinsert the image again. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Being polite and appropriate comes first and having a sense of humor comes later." should be a Wikipedia mantra. Nicely said, Matt57. ~ Wadester16 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

User:Billyca had repeatedly added WP:POV to "Mypods and Boomsticks",1 no matter how many warnings we give him.2 Where do I settle this? -- A ^talk/_contribs 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This board is for etiquette issues only. In this case the editor has breached the 3 revert rule, give him/her a final warning about edit warring and then is it happend again report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --neon white talk 05:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this thread [42], started by this account, User:Molobo is accusing me of revisionism despite my request to stop this insult. The article (Drang nach Osten) gives sourced information about the use of the slogan, some of which was introduced by me. Molobo seems to regard the slogan as a historical truth, however he has provided no sources at all, calls the sources in the article fringe and accuses me of OR without providing anything that would back his allegations. Note also the sophisticated way he puts his revisionism/fringe/OR insult as a lecture about how "we on wiki" handle issues like that. Molobo has a disruptive history and is on civility and NPA parol [43]. I do not want to have my name smeared and ask you for intervention. Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Taken to AN/I

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Listed at AN/I