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

Stuck

I recently wrote a message to Wetman about his comments towards me on the talk page of Amazons [here], where he implied that I wasn't a competent adult and stated that we couldn't have sensible discussion when I disagreed with him on the issue. When I wrote back to him, he replied [here] and again called me incompetent, accused me of having "misplaced self-confidence", implied that my educational background was inferior to his, and compared me to an "aggressive class clown". It is not for my sake that I'm putting in this wikiquette alert, it is for the sake of others. Another editor has told me that Wetman has been rude to him on occasion as well, and I fear that his behavior will start driving away new editors. Asarelah (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman has avoided direct personal attacks here, and has tried to make his inflammatory comments non-specific. However, at the root, he is being quite incivil and needs to stop. Mangojuice^talk 04:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had trouble which I tried to discuss with him here but he was less than civil. There's more at this location with additional information from User:Polaron. - Denimadept (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman, having made some 52,000 edits since September 2003, whose resources of patience and forbearance are in perennially short supply, has surely raised some resentment, particularly by inappropriate laughter and frank, often sharp remarks in response to various dishonesties, pettiness, aggressive behavior, attacks with the WP:CIVILITY club, disinfopage pushing, list-making and other coxcombry. His Talkpage archives will show the nature of his habitual discourse quite plainly, and may be thumbed in order to select out further disgraceful examples of his "inflammatory though non-specific" comments:

User talk:Wetman/archive3Mar2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004

User talk:Wetman/archive12Aug2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Oct2004

User talk:Wetman/archive15Jan2005

User talk:Wetman/archive22Mar2005

User talk:Wetman/archive23Jun2005

User talk:Wetman/archive3Sep2005

User talk:Wetman/archive1Dec2005

User talk:Wetman/archive28Mar2006

User talk:Wetman/archive3July2006

User talk:Wetman/archive15Oct2006

User talk:Wetman/archive7Feb2007

User talk:Wetman/archive25Jun2007

User talk:Wetman/archive10Aug2007

User talk:Wetman/archive28Dec2007

User talk:Wetman/archive16April2008

Remarks concerning competency in the field of Greek mythology belong at Talk:Amazons, where the complainant deleted a commonplace statement in July 2007, but did not have sufficient interest in the subject to have it on his Watchlist. Rather than make defensive retorts to individual complaints, Wetman prefers to let the record speak for itself, and to reserve the option of perhaps making some general remarks with broad applications— or perhaps not— once everyone has fully expressed themselves. Wetman (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your record does speak for itself. Here are three people who you've annoyed. I suggest you try harder to be less annoying, as repelling people from Wikipedia is not productive. And I can't believe you are totally ignorant of your effect, given, as you say, your record. - Denimadept (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had kept the Amazons page on my watchlist, I simply didn't notice the remark that you made until recently, which I stated in my initial note to you on the talk page. I am also a woman, not a man, just so you know. I would also like to point out that a neutral third party, MangoJuice, also believes that your behavior has been inappropriate and incivil. Asarelah (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also had a disagreement with him about an addition he made to History of Chester, where he saw no need to add a reference to some material he had added, commenting that the article was mediocre. Of course, it would always remain mediocre if people had this attitude. A reply from him suggested that since the wikilink he had used contained a reference, that would suffice, but recent discussions on WP:Reliable sources confirms that I was correct in stating that this was insufficient. He then ended the discussion by making a statement: "What very high standards for such a mediocre article! Wetman never keeps articles on his Watchlist that are so distinctly "owned", so, that will be all from me at this article." The accusation of ownership was totally unjustified, and a comment by one of the leading contributors to UK articles: User:Jza84 supported the view that his comments were highly uncivil. (diff of exchange on History of Chester page.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A spat I had with him yesterday at Talk:Dorian invasion over my changing a word involved quite a bit of personal attacks and insulting language. He does not play well with others. Too bad, as I actually value his contributions. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, don't mean to imply that he's useless or anything like that, but that he needs to play with others better than he has been doing. - Denimadept (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wetman is indeed a very dedicated and obviously intelligent editor, he simply needs to learn to handle disagreements with civility. Asarelah (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this viewpoint. He needs to be able to deal with disagreements better and accept that others can be correct and he can be wrong occasionally.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how should this issue be resolved? Asarelah (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were easy, we wouldn't have brought it here. However, perhaps it's time to get more active. I feel he needs a apollogist following him around to try to reduce his negative effects, but I doubt anyone would apply for the position. I'd appreciate it if he'd try to consider his words first, forego his attempts at humor in such situations, and assume good faith in all situations other than blatant vandalism. - Denimadept (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what's the next step here? Just how do we get him to listen to us? Asarelah (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we send him a pretty woman to soften him up a bit? If anyone has a spare pretty woman around, have her come by my place afterwards. :-D No, wait, before! Denimadept (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant more in terms of protocol for Wikiquette alerts than anything else. We have reached a consensus that he needs to change his behavior, but through what channel? Does an admin have to talk to him or something? I'm just unclear on what we do now. Asarelah (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left Wetman a note on his talk page to let him know that we have reached a consensus here. Whether or not he chooses to add more input to this discussion remains to be seen. Asarelah (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WQA is non-binding - this page exists to try to help you guys resolve your dispute and to give advice on how to deal with civility issues. If you find that the conflict is still going on after you've come to a consensus on this page, you'd probably need to escalate to a WP:RFC/USER, WP:MEDCAB or other forum on WP:DR. Those forums have varying levels of formality. If you see gross incivility and direct violations of policies, you can file a report at WP:ANI if your attempts to curb the problem are unsuccessful. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman has been specifically invited to contribute a few further words, though his sense has been that introducing any exchanges of pert ripostes here would more likely add heat than illumination to this forum with a jury of three. TEven the most casual observer will detect an unusual lack of collegiality in the above posts: collegiality is the substance of which civility is the surface. Civility without collegiality is often taken for irony, sometimes correctly, for irony naturally arises from a perception of the difference between things as they are and things as they might rightfully be expected.

Wetman would regret ever making any sharp remark that didn't have a point. The tempest spilling onto the present saucer arose from hostile and less than adult reactive responses defending two uninformed deletions, and from the insistent insertion of a disinfobox with incorrect dates for Ponte Vecchio, which Wetman answered with unforgivable wit and class. Concerning Asarelah's deletion of a perfectly neutral mainstream statement concerning creation of individual names for Amazons in later Antiquity, see Talk:Amazons#Amazon names and to Asarelah's offended remarks— months later— at Wetman's Talkpage. Concerning User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 's response to learning the new word "relict" having mis"corrected" it to "relic", see User talk:Wetman#relic vs. relict and Talk:Dorian invasion.

Where do the greater incivilities lie in these three cases? Do they really lie in a sharp word of well-deserved reproof? Wetman knows how to apologize when an apology is required, as a look through the Talkpage archives he has listed above will show. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit is by its very definition a compromise with mediocre information: Wetman is under no illusions, but strives for fewer inaccuracies, no matter how aggressively they may be insisted upon. Wetman's negative encounters at Wikipedia are commonly with over-confident assertions of misinformation, but are rarely met with such toxic reactions as these present ones. --Wetman (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So even when treated with all possible civility and given accurate references, he's still holding onto his position. I'm darned if I know why, since it's clear he's not an idiot. I suggest that Wetman return to the scene of the skirmish and re-read what happened there. Perhaps he will feel enlightened when he realizes his error, but I'm not holding my breath. - Denimadept (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wetman, I have no idea how you can possibly interpret this thread as having a lack of collegiality on our part. We respect your contributions and dedication, we've even stated so. The problem here is that you seem to think that its perfectly okay to insult people and to call them ignorant when they happen to disagree with you or question you on some point where you are convinced that you are correct. You say that you would regret ever making any "sharp" remark that didn't have a point. Well Wetman, you're obviously an intelligent man, and if you wanted to, you could make your points without resorting to "sharp" remarks which antagonize other people. I'm baffled as to why someone as dedicated to the encyclopedia as you are would choose to alienate his fellow editors in such a fashion. Asarelah (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A key point, Asarelah. - Denimadept (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about lack of collegiality, but Denimadept's "spare pretty woman" comment doesn't strike me as a demonstration of "all possible civility", nor does it give "accurate references", nor is it a serious attempt to resolve any dispute. In addition, depending on one's cultural background, that comment could be seen as offensive, patronizing, sexist, disgusting, or simply idiotic. Do you see my point? Please "unstick" and archive this thread immediately, I find it disgraceful to the purpose of this page and a waste of time. Wetman is an excellent and respected editor. Occasional mild condescension and hurt sensitivities don't justify this hullabaloo. Look at how this thread started ... we need to move on! ---Sluzzelin talk 23:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to change the subject will not fix the situation, Sluzzelin. Wetman has a tendancy to piss editors off, and that is not helpful. - Denimadept (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making gratuitous misogynist remarks while looking for reasons to get pissed off won't fix anything either. I don't know what you expect. Obviously Wetman won't perform like a circus seal to your satisfaction. Fine, continue this thread if you truly believe it will "fix" anything. I don't see anything that needs to get fixed, except perhaps the hypersensitivity of a couple of editors. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Deninadept was merely attempting to lighten the obvious tension here with joke (for the record, I'm a woman and I didn't find his comment sexist or offensive). Perhaps it was inappropriate, but I doubt that he meant anything by it. Anyway, Wetman's personal attacks against myself and others hardly strike me as mere "mild condescension". His attitude has been extremely supercilious. I certainly agree that Wetman is an excellent and respected editor, nobody can deny that, but that hardly gives him the right to disparage and insult fellow editors simply because he has a disagreement with them. I don't appreciate you calling my attempts to resolve this dispute with him in a reasonable manner "disgraceful" and "a waste of time", nor would I call myself hypersensitive, as I have been editing Wikipedia steadily since 2005, and I have never met an editor anywhere near as abrasive as Wetman has been. I am doing my very best to handle this uncomfortable issue in a civilized and reasonable way, and I think everything that I've posted reflects that. I'm not sure what to expect here either Sluzzelin, but I'm not feeling very optimistic, given the way this thread is going. Asarelah (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin writes: "I don't see anything that needs to get fixed, except perhaps the hypersensitivity of a couple of editors." So, complaining about a gratuitous accusation of ownership of an article when I (quite rightly as it turned out) asked for a reference to back up a fact he had added is all right, and is hypersensitivity on my part? Similarly, trying to state that a link to another wikipedia article is a sufficient reference for that fact, when this violates official wikipedia policy is also all right, and it is hypersensitivity on my part to request this? I suggest that it is not. I also suggest that Wetman's reaction to this last issue is the hypersensitivity brought about by me asking him to correct an error of omission. The reaction seems almost to be brought about by a sense of affrontery that I should have dared to question him on this matter. It is not under dispute that he makes very good contributions, but that does not absolve him from behaving in a way which demonstrates the collaborative nature of wikipedia, and it is quite wrong of you to suggest that very good contributors should not reasonably have matters raised about their behaviour in dealing with felllow editoirs who make reasonable requests of them, or that in so doing they are attacked for raising them about an editor who makes otherwise good contributions.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first instance of offense, the one that started the thread, was a reaction to a post by Wetman which was nine months old. The offended user did not first continue a discussion on that talk page, nor seek "dispute resolution" on Wetman's talk page. Instead the nine-month old issue was raised directly here. <Untrue account of order of events struck out by Sluzzelin. Apologies to Asarelah and misled readers. The fact remains that it was a reaction to a nine-month old post. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)>[reply]

That is simply not true at all! If you read this thread from the top, you will see that I did indeed seek dispute resolution on Wetman's talk page, as can be seen right here, where he handled it by calling me incompetent, accused me of having "misplaced self-confidence", implied that my educational background was inferior to his, and compared me to an "aggressive class clown". That is why I filed this alert! Asarelah (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your admission that you were mistaken. Anyway, the reason that I didn't go talk to Wetman right away is because I generally use my watchlist to keep an eye on the articles themselves rather than the talk pages, and I was also heavily preoccupied with various other articles that I was working on. I simply hadn't noticed Wetman's edit until recently. Anyway, the time lapse is irrelevant. The fact remains is that Wetman was very much out of line, and I don't see how you (or anybody) can possibly defend his behavior towards me on his talk page. Asarelah (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<Continuation of original, now amended post by Sluzzelin> The only personal attacks I see in the second instance, here, are those accusing Wetman of "being patently offensive" and the statement "Wetman doesn't seem interested in doing anything but being offensive". Wow. This comment would have offended me, but Wetman chose not to react.

The thread linked by DDStretch does show civility on his part, but "If you are at all unsure how to do this, WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:References will provide some guidance." could easily be interpreted as patronizing when addressed to a regular editor.

You see, it's often possible to take offense from what we see as violations of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and so forth. (This was my point regarding the "spare pretty woman" remark) It regularly happens when we argue as if we ourselves, as projected into online space, were involved, not the articles, not the words. The easiest solution, in my opinion, is to focus on the topic and ignore the rest. That is my advice, and I have nothing more to offer. I doubt very much that I, one completely insignificant non-admin with no clout or personality, will be able to persuade anyone who takes offense and the path of personal interference. Continue this thread, if you think it is going to improve the encyclopedia. I don't think it will improve anything, but merely exacerbate the grudges. I may be wrong. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Wetman found my response patronising, he was quite at liberty and intelligent enough to say so, in which case, I would have readily apologised to him. However, it is never appropriate to react to perceived incivility or patronising comments with uncivil or unjustified accusations, as he did. Your hypothesis, if it were found to describe what Wetman thought, provides an explanation for his actions, but it does not excuse them in this case. I agree that the easiest solution is to stay focused on the topic, and I hope you will point this out to Wetman yourself in advising him or her that it was inappropriate to react to any perceived patronisation in the manner he or she did, since your comments could equally well be directed at him or her as they were at me. For my part, if your hypothesis were found to be an accurate description of how he or she took my comments which provoked his or her reaction, I will apologise. I hope Wetman would do the same, but only his or her behaviour, rather than hopes and desires and hypotheses about his or her interpretations and actions, can decide the matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought: if the complaint made is that I was patronising in reminding Wetman, an established editor, of the policy regarding the need for verification, then the complaint clearly fails: Wetman did not apparently know the relevant policy which is that other wikipedia articles should not be used to verify information in different articles. In this case, pointing out the policy seemed quite reasonable, and it is difficult to see how a justified interpretation of this could be viewed as patronising, though if Wetman says that is how it was interpreted by him or her, then of course I will apologise. People have slips and minor errors from time to time, and perhaps one should pay attention to the reaction they have when these are pointed out.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between DDstretch and Wetman is that DDstretch pointed out what he percieved as an error on Wetman's part in a civil, gentle manner, and did not berate Wetman at all. Wetman chose to point out an error that he percieved me as making by belittling my background. Why you would complain about DDstretch's remark and yet dismiss my taking offense at Wetman's insults towards me as hypersensitivity on my part is extremely puzzling to me. It strikes me as a double standard on your part, Sluzzelin. Asarelah (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Layla2008 continues to add, then when someone undoes the same unsubstantiated, uncited statements over and over, the Layla2008 posts them again. In one instance, Layla2008 wrote: (cur) (last) 00:32, 24 April 2008 Layla2008 (Talk | contribs) (10,903 bytes) (→References: you can run best friends, but you can't hide) (undo) CatDogLover (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question? It appears you have not notified the editor of the issue. Perhaps you should talk to them before bringing it here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a complicated two-sided problem based on a content dispute, and possible conflict of interest.

• Best Friends Animal Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Layla2008 (talk · contribs)
• CatDogLover (talk · contribs)

Essentially, Layla2008 wants this version saying the society has Scientology ex-Scientologist members and culty roots. CatDogLover wants this version, not saying that. This is what the contention is about. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I did not at any point mention Scientology roots, merely that The Process Church was founded by ex-Scientologists, which is a well-known fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.64.227 (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction noted. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article seems to portray the organization in a very positive light. Regarding the dispute, it seems to me the editors have not done anything improper (the debate seems quite civil), and that the best final version would be something in-between that advocated by Layla2008 and CatDogLover. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a problem has arisen with User:Viriditas that appears somewhat insoluble to me. We have both edited the same article Children of Men off and on for over a year, and every time I make an alteration to the article, he reverts it, refusing to discuss a compromise or seek a valid consensus. Instead I receive increasingly uncivil remarks and personal attacks.

The specific content prompting this complaint about Viriditas' behavior regards the primary sourcing practice of observable phenomena (ie, the laughter of children during the closing credits) to use the film as the primary source. Initially the matter was in regards to using the {{cite AV media}}: Empty citation (help) template to provide a time-stamp for where the laughing occurred * (I disagreed, considering the matter within the same purview that we consider plot summaries as well as being redundant and unclear; the section where the info was used is called “Closing Credits” and the laughter occurred throughout that part of the film. As observable phenomena which was also noted by closed-captioning does not need citation, I removed the template) - Viriditas saw that as an act of [[WP::NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground|war]].

His discussion behavior is unnecessarily dismissive, impolite and littered with personal attacks and incivility. I have been accused by him of trolling, ([1]), wiki-lawyering, cherry-picking information and/or gaming the system, ([2], [3]) and repeated again ([4], [5], [6]), pov-pushing (at least every other post of his makes the same accusation presuming without current evidence that I am trying to edit in a "pet theory" interpreting the laughter), and sock-puppetry, though only by hinting at such ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) which presumably release him from the responsibility of actually proving such through SSP or RfCU.

This behavior extends outside the article and beyond singling out only myself for abuse; any folk that disagree or comment on his behavior are dismissively characterized by Viriditas as trolls, harrassers or (quite often) wiki-stalkers, and removed their comments from his user-talk space, almost invariably accompanied by an entirely inappropriate or misleading edit summary ([16], [17], [18], [19]). These are just the instances of other established editors being dismissed in just the last few weeks.

While we have always taken a more liberal approach towards refactoring one's own usertalk space, he also removes dissenting comments from article discussion ([20], [21], [22]), which in itself is a Civility violation. More often, he simply dismisses their posts with an uncivil comment that evolves into greater incivility through sequential, small edits or labeling them negatively ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]). Many of the editors treated in this fashion withdraw from the article and discussion, thereby leaving Viriditas to edit relatively unopposed.

As I have been the frequent recipient of this unfriendly behavior in the past, I took specific pains to avoid reciprocating this incivility and personal attacks when they re-occurred in Children of Men (article and discussion) as well as elsewhere

Unable to provide equitable counter-arguments to my policy/guideline supporting explanation of my edits and dissent ([34]), Viriditas first added cn tags to the info ([35]), and then stated that he was going to remove the instance of the laughter before removing the citable information completely. ([36], [37]), and began edit-warring ([38]) his version into the article, always quite careful to go up to, but never across the 3RR threshold.

This was accompanied by his increasingly confrontational approach to the discussion process in not only article discussion, but forum-shopped it to two separate noticeboards (NOR and [[RS) and the Wikifilms Project as well. To whit:

1. He has repeatedly referred to archived posts I made while still a new editor, presumably to imply that I am adding an OR interpretation to the article that I simply have not in over a year. This is presumably to poison the well as to my contribution value.

1. He has also repeatedly referenced various anon accounts that do offer interpretations of the sounds,* a veiled reference that I am socking via these anon accounts. These accusations are made without substantiation from either SSP or RfCU. My requests that he provides evidence of either complaint or checkuser have been pointedly ignored and even repeated afterwards in several venues *. If the well weren’t poisoned enough already, adding repeated accusations of sock-puppetry jolly well makes it nigh radioactive.

1. Viriditas’ demeanor in discussion has been marred by personal attacks and significant incivility in both the article, ensuing discussion and other venues. I could list at least a dozen diffs that indicate where it is stated that I have never read a policy, am ridiculous and apparently have the IQ of a over-ripened eggplant (though not specifically that particular vegetable).

1. When it was pointed out in ‘’both’’ noticeboards (by at least five different editors) that the laughter ‘’could’’ be added and sourced to the film, Viriditas refused to accept a compromise that would end the stalemate, demanding that music played during the closing credits should be added as well to the section (instead of the section entitled “Music”, where it would be more accessible to the reader). This refusal of his came with the speculative (OR) assessment * that “removing the music adds interpretive value to the children’s laughter” *. I noted that this assessment was as speculative as the archive interpretations he kept referencing himself.

1. After edit-warring his 3RR (1, 2, 3) for at least the fourth day in a row, and after his last revert, requested page protection less than 10 minutes later.

As I noted before, many other editors have encountered this same abrasive behavior, and it extends back beyond the 1 1/2 years I have been a user here. While Viriditas does make valid contributions to some articles, his demeanor ‘’always’’ turns ugly at any sign of dissent, and those who do not back down are then subjected to his vitriolic attacks. This doesn’t foster the best examples of politeness, professionalism and the assumption of good faith that helps Wikipedia work effectively. Viriditas knows this, as he admits he is being uncivil ([[39]]). However, this admission is followed by even more personal attacks and incivility, which suggests that he is either unaware of the behavior, or cannot prevent himself from engaging in it.

Since repeated requests and attempts at DR ([40], [41], [42]) from me are always mischaracterized or simply removed without comment ([43], [44]). I would further note that attempts at mediation (the most recent attempt by MPerel, a friend of Viriditas) have all failed because Viriditas has shown a marked unwillingness to participate in any discussion where he must admit he is acting incorrectly.

Therefore, I am submitting this wikiquette alert in the DR process to share my concerns with the community, as this appears to be the last step prior to taking action that would have lasting (if not permanent consequences) for Viriditas.

I would ask that an intervention be initiated, to help counsel Viriditas on dealing politely with those whom he disagrees with. As the only other recourse is to simply report him to AN/I, for which he would almost certainly be blocked — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)

I’m disappointed that your first edit back after being blocked is to continue the war with Viriditas. I don’t believe it is in your best interest to draw attention to your behavior in this, as you are not innocent and it is unlikely you’ll get the response you are hoping for. My suggestion is that you move on from this dual between you two that has been the source of much wearisome verbosity, and at the least, try to avoid each other. The matter over which you both are battling is not worth all this. --MPerel 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are disappointed, but the matter that ended up with both of us blocked doesn't mitigate Viriditas' claim of innocence here. As you are clearly his friend, it is expected that you would defend him, but I don't recall you piping up to tell him to knock his edit-warring off whilst it was going on. I don't recall you even noting how his behavior was at all objectionable, and you're his friend. You could have nipped this in the bud, and told him to fix, curb or otherwise cease his behavior, but you were oddly silent throughout it. While it boiled over in my dealings with him. The very fact that he has been this way with others, and yet somehow could not stop himself from violating all of the incontrovertible claims I've noted above while you stood silently by rather voids your rather inappropriate claim of 'disappointment'. Before you pipe up to defend your post, maybe you could point out where you pointed out your disappointment to Viriditas about his behavior. I am guilty of not tolerating his behavior, and edit-warred with him; I take the hit on that. I was not guilty of anything else, 3RR, NPA or civility violations - I was only guilty of not putting up with his OWNish nonsense. Perhaps you missed that in your hurry to express your disappointment.

I am not sure what sort of response you think I am expecting; Viriditas tends to archive or blank (with a variably unpleasant remark) any note of his unacceptable behavior. This could easily lead others to feel that no one takes exception to his behavior. This fairly proves that such is not the case, and I can back up my claims with recent citations.

I am not interested in battling with Viriditas; he clearly doesn't believe he is capable of mistakes and it is equally clear that he cannot accept criticism even from those people who he doesn't feel at odds with. He simply isn't worth my time; having been blocked twice for having to deal with him/her pretty much sums up my feeling towards dealing with them. I will not seek Viriditas out, but I will not back down in any situation involving that editor, especially when they pull the crap they have. As his/her friend, you might counsel them to avoid me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Arcayne, you say you will "not back down in any situation involving that editor". This is the intransigence that has you two at loggerheads and is blinding you from seeing what’s really important. My simple advice (to both of you), let it go, be willing to be big enough to back down even if you think you are right, for the sake of higher priorities. If you empower someone to push your buttons, you make yourself weak and lose all objectivity, which is why you only see the villain in each other. I’m not an admin, btw, precisely because I don’t wish to be a policeman. I’d rather appeal to you as a fellow human being and peer, and as such, I encourage you to shake it off and move on. Cheers, --MPerel 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this advice is tendered only towards myself, MPerel, and not towards your friend - or did I perhaps miss a post on his user talk page? I think you are personally a nice person, but you aren't being exactly neutral here. I appreciate your input, and am not empowering anyone, except maybe for myself. When I say I will not be bullied by Viriditas, I mean precisely that, and naught else. My information above is objective; the diffs essentially speak for themselves. If I used old posts of yours aggressively and called you a sock-puppet, you'd have me in front of AN/I so fast, my grandchildren would have whiplash. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to write me off as the friend of your enemy to discard my advice, it is entirely up to you to take it or leave it as you see fit : ) I’m not sure any of my "friends" would find me an advantage in Wikipedia disputes, since I hold my friends to much higher standards than mere Wikipedia policies. In fact, in the case of Viriditas, as far as Wikipedia goes, though I find him more in the right and the greater victim of injustice in this conflict with you, I have refrained from jumping in to defend his cause (thus my public “silence”). This is because, from my perspective, the personal conflict between you two is of more concern to me than the state of the article you are battling over. People are intrinsically more valuable than this project, and so I refuse to join in battles over silly things, or encourage such behavior in my friends, even if they are technically in the right. And they hear as much from me behind the scenes. And actually no, your grandchildren are safe from whiplash, if you made wild accusations against me (as you’ve kinda done actually, but no worries, I let it pass), it would not be my way to run to AN/I, as I’m not one who feels compelled to correct people’s misperceptions about me; I let people believe whatever they like. A final thought… You might consider the possibility that in the higher realms you and Viriditas are good friends and together planned to irritate each other in this lifetime in order to help each other become better people. --MPerel 22:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting theory. If true, I must remember to kick the crap out of my higher self when I get there. Viriditas is not my "enemy," but I have little assumption of his good faith. He needs to bank that up quite a bit of that to warrant any consideration from me. This isn't even a matter of 'once burned, twice shy'; I've been burned by him to do anything but expect the worst in any given conversation. I appreciate you taking hte time to contribute your comments, but I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with your assessment of his "victimhood" in this matter. The diffs noted above prove them to be overlooking rather considerable failings. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last I heard of this Arcayne Children of Men problem was at Wikipedia:RSN#Closing credits on Children of Men, and according to posts there, you had also brought it up elsewhere (NOR is mentioned). Consensus was clearly against you (Arcayne); I find it hard to understand why you are still on about this, unless the goal is to simply overwhelm with verbosity. It seems very straightforward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Sandy - maybe you actually missed the actual wikiquette alert, posted above? The consensus from the different talk pages was something rather off-point from this particular page. The point had very little to do with seeking consensus (btw, Viriditas did not find a consensus to remove the sound of the children's laughter; when he didn't, he simply threw in some wrenches about the music, and then games the system to get the article locked). I realize that with a fairly long and invlved issue, its kinda hard to keep the eye on the ball, but I thought the wikiquette alert was pretty clear. Take a moment to actually read it, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas: arbitrary break 1

Btw, Viriditas was a member of the complaining party in a recent Rfc (against Ed Fitzgerald), and was among a few editors specifically asked to refrain from disruptive and unseemly conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Ncmvocalist, all I see there is your own "outside view" endorsed by no one else that you posted after you were called out for your own inappropriate behavior at the RFC. --MPerel 06:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MPerel, could you please confine your comments to those regarding the Wikiquette alert? It seems that Ncm was confirming a problem that I've pointed out. You may counter that by noting the inaccuracy of the editor's statements. Let's avoid motivations, since none of us are mind readers. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor's statements are inaccurate, yes, as Ncmvocalist's "confirmation" was, as I pointed out, nothing of the sort, since he is only referring to his own comment that no one else endorsed, in a post he made at an RFC where Ncmvocalist was actually the one called out for being disruptive. --MPerel 07:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you get your facts straight because there is no inaccuracy. My conduct was not considered questionable by the admin who warned him for his disruptive and unseemly conduct at the Rfc (the personal attacks particularly). I also noted such misconduct in my findings (with evidence), as well as a clear warning that failure to refrain from such conduct may result in intervention by an administrator, or the Arbcom. My note at the Rfc was confined to the conduct in relation to that dispute. Although I have not gone through this alert in detail (except to note a few examples of incivility), if the editor is engaging in such misconduct elsewhere that has led here (eg; incivility, edit-warring), and the behavior continues, then there is no choice but to exhaust the final steps of the DR process. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, need I remind you of WP:CIV? You appear to have a habit of accusing people of civility violations right after making rude comments to them. In the future, please be mindful of your words. Instead of suggesting that MPerel get her facts straight, you could at least show your fellow editors some respect. This is exactly the kind of behaviour you engaged in on the RFC talk page when you tried to ridicule me by insulting my knowledge of RFC evidence. Hopefully, you'll take this warning to heart and stop it. And for the record, contrary to what you claim, at no time did any administrator specifically ask me to "refrain from disruptive and unseemly conduct". User:Toddst1 contacted me to say "Please do not make personal attacks as you did here", and I replied to him on his talk page, thanking him for his polite warning. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Viriditas (subject of this alert): Unlike you, I am not in violation of any policy or guideline here (or at the Rfc), but if you feel otherwise, you are welcome to ask an uninvolved admin for their advice on the matter (as well as on what constitutes disruptive/unseemly conduct). And for the record, labelling something I've said as inaccurate, when it isn't, is not only incivil and disrespectful, but is a demonstration that a) she did not fully familiarize herself with what actually happened, or; b) she deliberately misrepresented my statement to further her friend’s position - (one of the many problems of being ‘involved’ but in any case) I did not consider it the latter as it would be assuming bad faith on Mperel.

To Arcayne: you may find a mere Wikiquette alert is not effective for this editor, because clearly a warning (however polite) by an admin was not enough to stop him. But seeing you’re here, see how it goes. If he persists in engaging in disruptive or unseemly conduct of any sort (including edit-warring, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, misrepresentation, disruptive point-making or the like), I suggest you take it straight to AN/I. If this again has no effect, then there is only one option left. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, Ncmvocalist. It's good to have confirmation outside of Diffs that Viriditas isn't all that polite. This Wikiquette alert is in fact an attempt to use DR correctly. Personal contact at his page has been ineffective. Contact in article discussion has ended up in both of us being blocked not once but twice. This was the logical next step. When (and not if, unfortunately) his behavior recurs, this step will have been documented. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcayne, the irony of you posting a wikiquette alert against another editor I’m sure does not go unnoticed by the many editors with whom you’ve had conflicts. Viriditas has shown remarkable patience with you which I have not seen returned by you, and I’ve tried to nicely advise you that continuing your vendetta against him is unproductive for all involved, particularly in light of your own poor behavior, not only with him, but with many other editors. I prefer to spend my limited time at Wikipedia on more positive aspects, like working on articles, but if you’re going to continue disrupting the project by harassing a very productive editor (in the top 100) with 60,000 edits, who has created hundreds of articles, brought many to FA and GA status, along with producing countless DYKs, then perhaps my time will be better spent preventing this persistent disruption by documenting your problematic behavior in order to bring it in check. The preferable route of course is that you simply stop this pursuit and consider the negative effects of your behavior, how you are creating a tedious, wearisome environment for many other volunteers who invest time on this project. Please think about what I am saying. --MPerel 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I have thought about it, MPerel. I would submit that his "remarkable" patience is matched and even surpassed by my own patience at his antics. That I hadn't called for his immediate blocking back when his tendentious behavior started says that I was patient beyond reason with him. I appreciate your friendship with him, and I know you think that his 40k edits makes him the best thing since sliced bread, but I have a few edits myself. That I don't have as much free time as Viriditas has to feed the wiki is clear. That you seem all too willing to ignore his crappy behavior and discount my pointing it out is cause for concern. You've made your point: you think Viriditas can do no wrong. Got it. I utterly, utterly disagree. His good edits do not excuse his abrasive, wiki-lawyering, demeanor. While I know you like to only focus on the positive aspects, it doesn't mean we can ignore (or excuse) the negative aspects. Please think about what I am saying, MPerel, before responding again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To MPerel: please do not attempt to intimidate other editors by threatening to retaliate. This is not the place (if any) to make such remarks. You're of course welcome to take any route you wish; whether they will have any merit is yet to be seen - you may want to think twice before prusuing any such route. And, I would like to remind you (or in case you didn't know, inform you), that immunity is not provided to any editor who violates basic policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Ncmvocalist: please stop your bad faith assumptions, which are incorrect, as there was no such threat of retaliation. And please stop jumping into these pages creating more heat than light. --MPerel 19:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To MPerel: please take your own advice and stop making frivolous accusations of bad faith against others. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate what I said earlier: the WQA page does not exist only to endorse people's comments - however, it does not exist to make threats of any sort, let alone this (If you don't stop pursuing the DR process against him, then I will consider pursuing it against you for your problematic behavior (even though I would not if you drop it)). That is retaliatory - plain and simple. The DR process does not exist for such a purpose. Therefore, you have been warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arcayne's WQA complaint is part of a longstanding dual between him and Viriditas and only furthers the bad blood between them. I doubt you have looked into the history or you would not be making these idle threats and so called warnings against me. My own part has been to try to help resolve the conflict through informal means, apparently to no avail. Other editors have withheld calling Arcayne to account for his behavior, because most productive editors would rather focus on actual encyclopedia work rather than waste volunteer time in dispute resolution, which rarely has a positive end. In fact a very one-sided misrepresentation has been allowed to thus far stand unchallenged, only because responding to it would only drag things out into an unproductive battle and most editors who have the project's interest at heart would rather invest energy elsewhere. If you read what I said carefully, the gist of my statement was to question whether Arcayne really wants to pursue a formal route, as it will only waste all of our time from more productive work, and Arcayne will not find himself at any advantage or achieve any positive outcome if the time is taken to adequately answer his accusations as it will draw attention to his own behavior. I don't see how you can read retaliatory threats into what I said. You are unfortunately forming opinions based on very little knowledge of the situation. --MPerel 20:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, MPerel. While there is a long-standing contentiousness between myself and Viriditas (not a duel), the complaint addressed his behavior not only with me but with others. I am unsure why you continue to ignore that; you seem quite intent on pointing out only my past troubles (of which I am aware). I am aware that I am no angel and instead of engaging with Viriditas, should have immediately ignored his trollish behavior and simply reported him to AN/I. As well, I have had past difficulties with other editors. How does any of that invalidate the complain presented above? I have pointed out that Viriditas has failed every attempt at dispute resolution thus far - even those initiated by yourself. He has been staggeringly rude to more editors besides myself, and the only editors with whom he doesn't share this dismissive attitude are those who choose to agree with him.

The best defense is not a good offense, MPerel. Rather than highlight my difficulties with other editors, perhaps focus your comments on the content of this complaint on its merits or flaws. If you find you are unable to do so because of your pre-existing friendship with Viriditas, I would alternately ask that you please avoid attacking the person bringing the complaint. My past does not invalidate the complaint. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ... when you bring a dispute you're party to, your role in it is usually examined. Have you considered, after so many years of this, that others might see it differently than you do, and it might be more productive to edit another area for a while? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand that my role in the matter is actually examined, but - apart from edit-warring (which is bad enough) - I have not made any personal attacks or violated any civility rules. MPerel was pointedly ignoring the initial complaint to say that Viriditas should be lauded for his behavior, and not counseled to improve upon it. Precisely what do you see different, Sandy? What in my wikiquette alert do you see that is inaccurate?

And I do edit elsewhere productively. And not once have I edit-warred an article before trying to lock it in place in an article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To MPerel: again, when another editor has engaged in misconduct, it does not invalidate the complaint. WQA is an early step of the DR process - if the subject of the alert stops engaging in misconduct hereafter, then that's as far as it will go. It really is that simple. What you said (about a dual) can only be taken into consideration if the misconduct did not continue, but Arcayne begun making meritless claims in other steps of DR - (so far not the case/this has not happened). Clear? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Seems things have calmed down. Please reactivate if there are further problems. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kobra85 is not behaving in a constructive and civil manner, he constantly insults other editors and undermines their work. Whenever someone tries to communicate with him, including me, he often responds with a certain dose of arrogance, cynicism and mild personal attacks.
Just a while ago, after I tried to solve disputes with him on his Talk Page, he blanked it with an edit summary:
QUOTE (verbatim):

• 13:33, 7 May 2008 I'm tired of listening to people bitching about not getting their way

The history version of my failed attempts to communicate with him in a normal way can be found HERE and HERE. Other examples of incivility:
From his Talk page edit summaries:
QUOTES (verbatim):

• 16:02 6 May 2008 Kobra85 stop bringing this crap to my talk page
• 10:33 7 May 2008 Kobra85 you wish you contributed that much
• 16:07 15 April 2008 Kobra85 I need a break, idiots are annoying me

Additionaly, he tries to impose himself as an exclusive "admin" on many articles, especialy those related to the Republic of Macedonia and its culture. He often reverts other people's work maybe because of political reasons. He unilaterally removed some templates from many Ethnic Macedonian music-related articles, without making proper replacements for all of them in advance, which may also qualify him as vandal. A consencus can not be achieved, so I kindly ask the administration to take the necesary measures. Thank you. --Dzole (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more example of his explicit language on: User: Revizionist's Talk Page
QUOTE (verbatim)

• 15:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Signed as Köbra (same user as User: Kobra85): Don't be so bloody ignorant, I reverted the article three times to rid it of your god-forsaken bullshit. If I had reverted it a fourth time, which I have not, then I would have broken the "three-revert rule"... Christ Almighty!

(end of quote)--Dzole (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note for Kobra on his talk page making sure that he is aware that he needs to abide by WP's civility policies at all times. This also includes a 3RR warning and an explanation of how 3RR works. However, I also noted in my response that I have not had time to fully research the whole issue, so my response is to be considered incomplete right now - I may have more to say to all of you later. (This may also come from another WQA "staffer" if they get to it before I can.) Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivil behavior - User:Kobra85 (again)

After several warnings by several users about User:Kobra85's incivility, I couldn't stand his insults, and had to report them. This is only one of them:

• User: Kobra85: Don't be so bloody ignorant, I reverted the article three times to rid it of your god-forsaken bullshit. If I had reverted it a fourth time, which I have not, then I would have broken the "three-revert rule"... Christ Almighty!

Source - User: Revizionist's Talk Page

Regards--Revizionist (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: merged this second WQA into the main complaint since it regards the same issue. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Hogenakkal Falls regarding the location of the falls relative to the border. A party who was recently entered the discussion, User:Sarvagnya, has since he entered the discussion acted as follows. He belittled others for treating an editor with a few months experience the same way he himself treated an editor with not even that much experience when that editor was new, the editor in question being one of the participants in the current discussion. He has not apparently bothered to familiarize himself with any of the discussion which took place before his arrival, as is indicated by his appearing to produce the same arguments that had been made and dismissed earlier. He has also regularly insulted virtually everyone else involved in the discussion, often in ways which have little if any bearing on the discussion itself, and, basically, acted outside the rules of conduct. I do not believe this is the first time this party has engaged in such conduct. I believe it would be a good idea if this party were told by an uninvolved party that his behavior in this matter is less than acceptable. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with what John Carter has said. A skim-through of the article Talk page, searching for "Sarvagnya", should verify this quite quickly. (Of course, any editor wishing to carry out a more complete read-through is most welcome to do so.) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's had repeated trouble with civility ever since he was a newbie himself. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, it is an ongoing problem. But I suggest an Rfc (user conduct) might be more effective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My observations as an editor of Hogenakkal Falls. User:John Carter (came on board under solicitation by Wikiality123) and User:SheffieldSteel (accidentally joined while trying to prematurely settle AN/I issue against Wikiality123 as an Admn though he is not an admn) are newer (appeared to had no knowledge about the topic) to the Hogenakkal Falls than many other editors including Sarvagnya (see archived discussions). Looks like they joined just with an intension of supporting user:Wikiality123 and repeatedly/deliberately ignored views of others. The language by user:wikiality123, User:John Carter and User:SheffieldSteel is quite intimidating and often offensive towards anyone who try to correct current mistake in the lead. One of them had gone to the extent of using BS. They have fueled into escalation in heated arguments Sr editors including an Admn involved have not made any efforts to keep discussions cool. It is requested to keep discussions calm and move forward towards a consensus than foot dragging. Naadapriya (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Naadapriya was repeatedly told directly that the material he sought to add was not in fact supported by the evidence he provided. He repeatedly, and at least once expressly, ignored any and all such comments. He also repeatedly tried to introduce POV material, stating that it was NPOV. His own abject failure to respond to the valid points he was repeatedly advised about could hardly be said to have helped the situation. It has been repeatedly noted that Naadapriya is a comparatively new user. However, I do not think that his misunderstandings of the policies, guidelines, and processes of wikipedia are the responsibility of anyone but himself. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Another ongoing problem. Again, I suggest Rfc (conduct) - 2 separate ones - 1 for each of them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC was initiated, but Naadapriya and Sarvangya chose not to take part in them. As for the use of BS by me I have repeatedly pointed to Naadapriya that I was talking about WP:BULLSHIT. If he wants I can show him diffs of his guru Sarvagnya himself using it several times!! Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW can Naadapriya point out a single edit that he would have made to the Hogenekkal falls article other than about the jurisdiction? The intention of this editor and what interests him to this article is well explicite. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction: There was a request for Mediation involving Naadapriya, who disagreed with the proposal. As far as I know, no request for Comment has been filed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I strongly recommend going straight to Rfc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure is SheffieldSteel is aware that Sarvagnya did visit the previous RfC, which was obviously of the same issue. He left message on the talk page saying that my RfC was filled with total bad faith, whereas the user could have joined the RfC if he really intended to. I would support an RfC if initiated, but nevertheless, I won't be too optimistic about the outcome. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to filing an RfCU when an alert here is still not completed? Having minimal knowledge of this particular process, I welcome any informed input. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't - RfCU can be opened at any time. I think it is preferrable in this case too. But, it does require an amount of time and effort. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see Ncmvocalist, Wikiality123 and John Carter getting together here. Something common I found from all three about me.

1. were more interested to block me than answering my comments
2. tend to get offensive when facts are shown that contradict your POV
3. lobby to get others involved just to oppose
4. Try to taint with false accusations

To John Carter : It is a puzzle to see that you refuse acknowledge seeing an WP:RS I pointed out from the existing article which even Wikiality123 has acknowledged (see discussion on rejected mediation page). Editors need not have to invent a new RS if there is one already in the article. Also I was under the impression that you were mostly helping towards reaching a consensus. Now you sound different by going back to already settled discussions. Is this an action as an Editor or Admn?. To understand your role better still you owe an answer in open for my inquiry posted on your talk page To Wikiality123; As usual looks like you forgot about discussions on speculative water project section To Ncmvocalist : Surprise to see you here (hope voluntary not by solicitation as other editor did) all of a sudden but I am lost on what you are talking about now.

BTW : Team efforts are good when they are constructive Naadapriya (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked extensively with Sarvagnya over the last two years on dozens and dozens of articles. IMO, he is a very pleasant and high quality editor and has several invaluable contributions to wikipedia over the last two years. After a quick survey of both Sarvagnya's and the Carter's contribs, I must say that this wikiquette alert seems to be motivated by content issues in which the Carter and Wikiality seem to be involved in against Sarvagnya. It would be better if Carter sorted out content issues on the talk page instead of taking barbs at his opponent here. I also see no need here for a RFC or any such thing. It would almost a violation of WP:POINT. Thanks, KNM ^Talk 01:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sarvagnya is easily one of the most amazing editors I've come across. He's one of our best defenders of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and also a content-editor of high quality. Thanks to him, scores of articles have improved from using sources like tamilnation.com and blogs to using better, more academic sources. This here is mob lynching and nothing else. A very quick look at your recent histories shows that you guys got your bluff called on a certain talk page. And you decide to get even by filing this dishonest alert. I completely and emphatically disagree with this ganging up against and attempt to browbeat one of our best. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvagnya is easily one of the most amazing editors I've come across?? Really?? Crikey you haven't looked around have you. Addressing POV and writing article neutrally is a very important issue but can anybody say he goes about what he does in a respectable fashion and treats other editors civilly?

Why is that I always see Lahiru_k and KNM when it comes to articles against Tamils? Please keep your personal preferences outside Wiki. Sarvagnya is someone who delibrately selectively quotes to demonise TN or Tamils [45]. When Sarvagnya talks about me in his intepretation as iltreating a novice Naadapriya, Sarvagnya himself was the one who hit me with questions when I was a very much new user, with less than 20 edits on wikipedia. There is no way Sarvagnya could have not realised that am novice, because it was he who posted the first ever message on my talk page. Whereas Naadapriya knows wiki rules well. In his own words, you can see him quoting (or misquoting) wiki rules and policies. Sarvagnya would freely ask me in his own rude way about references, but when his mate Naadapriya is asked to provide references, it becomes iltreating a novice. I know a few more people other than KNM and Lahiru_k who would come here in support of Sarbagnya, including a fruity admin. I think I will email a few admins with the list of members who I expect to come in support of Sarvagnya and with reasons why, so that I can build my case easily on them. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Neither of the editors above seems to have noticed that several people had commented that virtually every comment Sarvagnya had made on the page prior to this posting here was at best a violation of civility, often worse. While I welcome informed discussion, I have to say that I don't see anything here, other than perhaps an attempt to whitewash the comments of Sarvagnya which were adjudged by virtually everyone involved as being clearly unacceptable. The RfCU may well go ahead in any event, when this discussion is closed, as even several other editors, including Relata above, who I believe tends not to be involved in these subjects often, seem to disagree with both of the last two editors above rather markedly. John Carter (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having continued to read the above, some of those commenting here also seem to fail to understand the difference between content issues and conduct issues - but this can be clarified elsewhere. RfCU is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with user John Carter. Sarvagnya does have a long history of being rude, abusive and insulting. A quick look at his talk pages should provide ample proof. --Madhu (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now an RfC awaiting activation at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarvagnya. John Carter (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – IP user warned

99.145.9.206 (along with a series of other IP addresses, all very likely the same person) inserted some unreferenced statements at Aspartame. After the material was removed and the matter raised at Talk:Aspartame, the editor became increasingly aggressive. The latter of the two personal attacks has been removed four times. Each time the message is removed, it is promptly reinserted. This is a kind of combination personal attack-edit war on a talk page!

Does anyone have any suggestions? I would personally like to see the user threatened with a block if they continue to reinsert the attack.

The target of the abuse, User:Edgar181, is an administrator, but I imagine he is reluctant to use his powers against this user as he is personally involved. I thought this incident was worth mentioning here, because it is wasting quite a lot of time and is rather unpleasant.

Ben (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I took a look and gave a "this is your only warning" to the IP for violating WP:NPA and coming close to violating WP:3RR. One more repeat of that and I'll block him (or another admin will). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superb, what a response!

Cheers

Ben (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe User:KnightLago is making false accusations of sockpuppetry against me because of my disagreement with his opinion on the Sandra Lee (cook) talk page. Instead of reporting suspected sockpuppetry on Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets, Knightlago simply removed several dissenting comments.

I brought up the matter with him on his talk page stating that I have never used User:Hahaho3's account. He responded that he used Wikipedia:CHECK to verify that we were the same. This is impossible, and I believe that he is making theses accusations in order to silence dissent to his suggested move.

If you look at the talk page for Sandra Lee (cook), you'll even see that User:Hahaho3 and I disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloudyskies41 (talk • contribs) May 9, 2008

Well, I have already left this user a note apologizing for the mixup, but I will leave an explanation here as well. Sandra Lee (cook) has been repeatedly hit by a persistent sockmaster, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Biff714. Biff enjoys continually inserting BLP violations into the article and its talk page. On the talk page he has supported himself, opposed himself, and just been a general pain. Biff, using an IP, and Hahaho3, appeared about the same time as the above user did (who was also editing under an IP at the time) and started his usual nonsense. I requested a CU be run and a number of socks were uncovered. In the process, the CU blocked Cloudyskies41's 1st IP and Biff's IP. I then struck both IPs' comments from the talk page thinking they were Biff. Cloudyskies41, under a second IP then appeared shortly after the block claiming not to be a sock. I told him a CU had just been run and found sockpuppetry. Cloudyskies41 then appeared, again asserting that he was not a sock. I then asked the CU to recheck the situation and he found that Cloudyskies41's 1st IP did not appear to be involved after all. So I unblocked his 1st IP and left an apology to Cloudyskies41 and un-struck his comments under his 1st IP with a note about the mixup. This was a good faith mixup, while trying to deal with a persistent sockmaster, for which I have already apologized. KnightLago (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – The editors involved seem to have sorted this out. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a serious difference of opinion, here. I don't mind being reverted, but I don't deserve insults and threats. Might I impose on someone to step in on this? I don't want this to escalate and I'm extremely agitated right now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were not threats or insults; they just mentioned that you need to look at A7 CSD criteria more closely before tagging articles. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True incivility is the type that drives away contributors, and disruptively tagging decent articles for deletion is one way to achieve that. east.718 at 03:06, May 10, 2008

See also Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#User:DarkFalls. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has also been posted here SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 03:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and all has calmed down among the aggrieved parties in the past five minutes. Can somebody proficient with pretty templates please close this one out? east.718 at 03:13, May 10, 2008

Thanks. Didn't mean to open such a can of worms. Such is the risk of new pages patrolling, I guess. Enjoy your weekend, all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rocketboom page has an unfortunate history of viciously negative attacks countered by unnaturally positive edits. Anonymous edit wars, COI warnings from admins, personal attacks -- this one has it all. The owner of Rocketboom (User:andrewbaron) recently created an account and could use some new-user guidance. He's not signing his posts, he's deleting other users comments, and so forth. Worse, he's clearly upset about Wikipedia as a whole. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt until he added material claiming that his then year-old show "premiered" during an Apple keynote when the Apple video clearly shows otherwise (his show is not even played). I've been trying to keep a calm, quiet distance and clean things up gently, but I'm officially calling in reinforcements now. I would like to get other editors involved to give him a bit of the "welcome wagon" treatment as he's a smart, influential guy that can undoubtedly help other parts of Wikipedia even if he lacks perspective on his own work. Likewise, I think it would prevent conflicts if I could get some editorial help on the page. If he sees other editors involved, I think we can turn this around. Thanks. -Cleanr (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left them a message. [46] Hopefully that will help. If a few neutral parties could watchlist Rocketboom and help keep it clear of slander and puffery, that would probably help. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user and I met at Jeremiah Wright controversy, an article I created. Recently, a discussion got underway regarding the views from academians on the subject. The concensus decided that the section was too long, but User:CyberAnth did not think so, and labeled myself and another editor as "POV cherry-pickers". Meanwhile, I had been involved in a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama which had been going nicely and we were making progress. CyberAnth decided to interrupt that progress and post this on the page (which was later removed because it was unconstructive). The user then began a section at Talk:Jeremiah Wright controversy entitled POV pushing, where he accused myself and two other editors of being uncivil and partisan. I was upset, and responded, justifying my actions as I had not (and have not) done anything uncivil or against guidelines. In that message, I told the user that I was an experienced editor and pointed to two articles which I greatly aided in becoming featured: Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan. CyberAnth then began stalking me and followed me over to the Ronald Reagan page, tagging the article for POV and unbalance. He also went to the Nancy Reagan page, and added in a claim that Mrs. Reagan was addicted to prescrption medication. I have reverted both edits. He then began a discussion at the Talk:Ronald Reagan page called Hero worship, calling the article "sanitized" and that he will be "working to introduce such critical material in a scholarly manner." There is also a possible sockpuppet of his, User:Bramlet Abercrombie, who has just begun to edit the Ronald Reagan page at the exact same time that CyberAnth did, and has added in quotes that had been removed many months ago. I think that issue is largely resolved, however, but the disagreements with CyberAnth remain.

Bascially, I have acted civil and CyberAnth has not, through failure to discuss or participate in discussions at Jeremiah Wright controversy, he needs to read WP:NPA, and stop WP:STALKING. --Happyme22 (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about CyberAnth. This editor has not engaged in constructive debate and has instead insisted on editing to their liking. In place of discussing, they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a POV pusher. Trilemma (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happyme22 and Trilemma are in cahoots and have been doing some serious POV pushing in various articles by removing excellent material not to their particular liking, as if they WP:OWN things. It's pretty sad. Then they use this to try to continue that POV pushing by giving a slanted and extremely biased view of the conflict in their favor. These guys are such reverters of material and so constantly watch articles people might as well not even bother editing them. Cryptographic hash (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that I have not communicated on Trilemma's talk page ever, save when I notified him of this discussion, so we are certainly not "in cahoots" when it comes to anything. And you, Cryptographic hash, have also failed to point out any specific examples of where we have been "giving a slanted and extremely biased view of the conflict in their favor." I see that you have also begun stalking me and followed me over the Reagan article as well. If anything is sad, it is the fact that we have to continue pointing fingers at each other rather than resolving our disputes through discussion, something that you and CyberAnth haven't done. Happyme22 (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: CyberAnth continues in his stalking of me, now claiming that the Reagan article is full of POV, even though I pointed out to him that it is featured and not (by giving specifics). He seems to think that by not including a lot of info on Michael Reagan, the article is unbalanced and POV. And he has tagged the article as such. I cannot revert it, because that would be my 3RR. Happyme22 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will take me a little while to look at this edit wars history, back when done Billsmith453 (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the Happyme22 statement. The only POV-pusher is CyberAnth/Cyrptographic Hash, who is edit-warring to add slanted appraisals from questionable sources in the Ronald Reagan article, including smears of Reagan written by an undergraduate.[47] Happyme22 has a point of view, but has edited neutrally and towards consensus; when he and I disagreed over the appropriateness of a quote, he yielded to my addition of it. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, I note that CyberAnth / Cryptographic Hash / Bramlet Abercombie have been making identical edits on identical pages with identical complaints. I strongly suspect sock-puppeting. Gabriel Duvall (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Gabriel, Trilemma and Happyme22. It seems very likely to me that CyberAnth, Cryptographic Hash & Bramlet Abercombie are the same person. They seem to have made numerous rather odd edits, and don't seem to be interested in consensus. What course of action do you three have in mind? Billsmith453 (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the user CyberAnth. This user is often uncivil, accuses anyone who disagrees with him of POV-pushing, and has personally attacked me on the Jeremiah Wright controversy page in question. VeritasAgent (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I don't have a specific plan of action, although I have put in a request at the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser page to verify who CyberAnth, Bramelt Abercrombie, and Cryptographic hash really are. If they are indeed all socks, then the best thing to do is request blocks. If they are not, what do you suggest doing? Happyme22 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user Art4em (talk) is edit warring over the article Rat Bastard Protective Association. Currently he has spoofed a protected tag on the article (the article is not protected) and has reverted my disputed tag on several occasions. He has also posted inflammatory comments to the WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area project page. In truth, the user has already been counselled several times regarding his posts at User_talk:Art4em and also User_talk:Jonny-mt/Archive_4, but I'm not sure if this is now significant enough to take to a higher level of dispute resolution. For some of the gory history to this, you can see the full details at User_talk:Art4em and some further commentary on my talk page. Some friendly guidance would be much appreciated, in particular whether this is the appropriate forum to raise this. Debate (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the article Rat Bastard Protective Association has since been full protected, which is fine as far as it goes, but in hindsight I probably wasn't clear enough in my last comment. Ultimately the problem is a user who insists on creating articles and adding content to articles based almost entirely on one single source, most likely his own personal website, and that unreliable material is still sitting there. Debate (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to addressing the deletion of my articles, however, since User:Debate has not speedily deleted this article Rat Bastard Protective Association as my other two (to my dismay and formal/wiki objections), I would like to review to the Party Down Scandal first, since it was deleted despite my and other wiki protocol requests. Moreover, I would like to review how other editor's supportive comments in the Discussion Room were deleted without being addressed or contested by Debate. I would like them to be included in the record. Respectfully --Art4em (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When articles are deleted, their talk pages are also routinely deleted. A single user talk page (usually the creator's) or a deletion review is the place to continue discussion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How convenient. So you are telling me that you support the speed deletion of pages without debate? Moreover, you are inferring that you condone, and that I (or another sole entity) can go around and speedily delete pages summarily, as was the case with my two pages, despite protocol objections / and other editors refutation of the deletion???? -- I find it amazing how you believe that deletion of pages done without / against protocol is proper procedure??? --Art4em (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. From my interactions with this user, I am of the opinion that he is either unwilling or unable to distinguish between content discussions and personal attacks/incivility. He repeatedly takes personal offense and lambasts other editors personally for their editing practices connected to his articles of interest. Debate even gave an exhaustive review of the references used by Art4em in House where the Bottom Fell out, explaining his positions on each one and why he felt they did not meet Wikipedia's expectations, and Art4em accused him of 'ignorance and errors beyond belief, and later accused Debate of 'stupidity or some philistine agenda, again accusing him of "ignorance beyond belief.". The only conclusion I can come to is that Art4em's concerns could only be addressed by taking his side in the notability discussion of his articles of interest and officially criticize Debate's actions in connection with the same. He does not seem to acknowledge the legitimacy of others' arguments, or does not want to accept that he may be in a very slim minority opinion group. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments: unfortunately, as I said to you earlier, you appear to have the cart in front of the horse...Moreover, my 'contextual' comments again and again, (and see above) have gone went unheeded, thank you. I would love to discuss my first deleted page, namely, Party Down Scandal. Why is that so incredibly difficult, why not discuss the content of my complaints, and ensuing frustration with such inability to engage the content?????? Sincerely --Art4em (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because your attitude here detracts from your efforts and ours, and you refuse to acknowledge this fact. The "horse" in your analogy is really the user; the "cart" is the content. When the horse starts bucking and thrashing, the "content" becomes unstable and won't make it to its destination. We all work with each other in discussing and resolving content disputes, but no one wants to work with someone who calls other users ignorant philistines. When you lose the attitude, and dare I say, apologize, then we can get to the task of addressing your content-related concerns. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I strongly object to the comment that I do NOT accept the legimitacy of others comments. However, such aired objections and comments by SOLE complainant (as were deleted) that the San Francisco Chronicle, et al, is NOT a legitimate news source would be considered bizarre to many in the wiki community, too, not just myself...--Art4em (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly beg to differ, since you came late into the discussion, let me outline my grievence in the first instance:

1. My Party Down Scandal was tagged for deletion. Fine, I have no problem with that. 2. I and others posted our claim to examine the tag...and we deserved a fair hearing in the Discussion Page (re: not the deleted forum). This is standard/proper proceedure. 3. There was strong support in FAVOR of the article. 4. The article was deleted, period. I have a problem with that. No debate ensured -- only injustice and unfair practice / against wiki protocol. 5. Now then, I have asked you many times to instill justice and protocol against the harsh treatment. Hence my frustration at your suppport against wiki protocol and editorial injustices. 6. Now you ask me to apologize for having my pages deleted against wiki protocol? You gotta be kidding? You want me to say, "Geez, I am sorry my pages got instantly deleted!" I gotta send Andrew Kean a copy of this request....

--Art4em (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All involved: This is Wikiquette Alerts. The purpose of this page is to help resolve personal disputes and matters of civility through informal mediation. This is not a noticeboard for resolving content disputes, requesting deletion reviews, or otherwise dealing with non-civility matters. If you want to resolve a civility issue, please keep the discussion on this page focused on that - we cannot help you with the content discussion. To discuss and resolve matters of deleted pages, please request a deletion review in the appropriate forum.

Art4em: The above comments include several diffs of statements made by you that (a) blatantly assume bad faith and (b) are personal attacks against other editors. You have been asked to apologize for those specific statements, not necessarily any related content issues. Please go read WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and make sure you are familiar with them - there are plenty of ways to conduct a content discussion without resorting to personal attacks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this comment documents Art4em's uncivil response to content discussion, the issue at hand. Art4em: Please read carefully. Debate 's concerns were specific, that "Art Issues, San Francisco e-Mail, Mark Van Proyen, Sept - Oct 1999, Vol. 59, Los Angeles, CA" was not found, and that a "received email" section in any paper would be "unlikely to contain a particularly rigorous independent overview"; and that "Kenneth Baker, San Francisco Chronicle, "LG Williams at Wirtz", July 17, 1999", in its entirety was neither "a particularly rigorous independent overview". Just because a name appears in a notable media outlet does not mean that such constitutes significant (nontrivial) coverage, per WP:NOTE#General_notability_guideline. That is Debate 's argument, not the notability or reliability of the source. You really need to review carefully his objections and ask questions before lashing out. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Tony, I appreciate your time. You just do not know the facts, I am sorry. I don't blame you, Debate speedily deleted the commentary from the article, too. For your information, the primary Party Down Scandal citation was not deemed a credible print source offhand by Debate, despite its being on the front page of Daily Californian. That important and vital resource to the East Bay was deemed 'ridiculous' off hand by said editor -- despite it being in Wiki-pedia's Top 5 ranking of journalism schools in the country. Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I fully appreciate your time. After many attempts to get my case and grievance understood and addressed, I will concede that consideration a total loss. Now then, I must admit, that I am at a total loss as to what you are referring to? The Party Down Scandal primary content consisted in a front-page article and review of the Party Down incident. There may have been additional/supplemental material to support the primary citation, therefore, am I to assume you want me to defend the secondary supplemental sources first?

Please let me know how you want to address Party Down Scandal, Respectfully, --Art4em (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think some of Art4em's WP:CIVIL] and WP:NPA violations have already extended to the point where a block might be in order. Forget about whether these articles belong or not, you can't go around calling other good-faith editors "morons" and "ignorant". --Jaysweet (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet...at least everyone is consistent. --Art4em (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art4em, you seem to be missing the point. Let me put it plainly and simply: The WAY you responded to having your articles deleted was out of line. It broke several policies stemming from WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Your request to have the deletions reviewed, and your complaints about the way in which the articles were deleted - those are fine, and nobody has an issue with you voicing your concerns about them. But the fact that you basically called other editors "philistines" and "morons", and accused them of "ignorance and errors beyond belief", is not acceptable behavior. It will get you blocked for being disruptive. You need to separate your behavior from the content issue - they are two separate problems. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User User:Wnt made the following comment in the Jeremiah Wright controversy discussion page: "(I'd like to suggest that they go edit suicide methods; maybe they could get an idea for something to cut that could improve their editing style)" [48]. His is the most egregious, but demonstrates a general lack of respect shown by several editors toward those who disagree with them. Trilemma (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User User:Notthere wrote a speculative paragraph, basically soft-core fetishist fiction , on the talk page for Peter Abelard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Abelard#Was_Heloise_whipped_by_Abelard_for_not_doing_homework

I treated it as vandalism, and deleted it. User:Notthere's user page seemed to be a few paragraphs of more fetishist creative writing.

Notthere re-inserted the comment, and added a paragraph of personal attacks, onto the talk page. On my own user page User:geeklizzard Notthere continued his personal attacks. The tone of Notthere's is that of hate speech towards women. A closer look at Notthere may show some sock puppetry. How should I proceed and can an Admin or arbitrator help out? I'll report any further harassment by this user.--Lizzard (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

An administrator User:Omegatron, who has been active on MOSNUM and Talk:MOSNUM, has been particularly active since mid March on an issue over the binary prefixes (archives: B8, B9, B10, and B11).

Other, uninvolved editors had weighed in to state that it seemed clear that a rough consensus had formed and the policy should simply be adopted. Even after that (and help from uninvolved administrators), yet another round of work took place in order to arrive at a better consensus (Fourth draft). After extensive discussion by well over a dozen participating editors, a compromise solution was arrived at by an 8:3 vote with no new “oppose” votes in over two days.

Omegatron, as an involved administrator placed a {{disputed}} tag on MOSNUM. In my opinion, this amounts to nothing less than a simple rejection of the consensus view and taking sides in the dispute. As an involved administrator, I think this action is improper. I ask for help on this. Greg L (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no failure by Omegatron to accept consensus since there has never been any consensus. Omegatron simply replaced tags which have been repeatedly removed by Greg inspite of the fact that they are an accurate reflexion in the state of affairs with respect to this proposal of his. JIMp _talk·cont 03:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The above post can fairly be considered as properly representing the views of the minority “oppose” element. The larger majority believes that the truth of the matter is clear: that a more-than-full and fair hearing has been conducted, wide input solicited, and that a consensus has been achieved. It also seems that under such circumstances, an administrator who has been outspoken in his opposition to this guideline has no business placing a {disputed} tag on the very policy he opposes; it amounts to being an involved administrator in a dispute, which is prohibited, is it not? Greg L (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S.: Upon further examination of Jimp’s above post, he completely mischaracterized my “removal” of tags. There are two tags (see here). The upper one was placed there earlier by an uninvolved editor (here) (leading to the entire 26–36 sections on Talk:MOSNUM). I removed that tag after we decided that a consensus had been achieved and the policy had rightfully been formally adopted. My problem is with the newly placed lower tag, which Omegatron, as an involved administrator placed on the “Follow current literature”-portion itself. As I understand Wikipedia policy on conduct of admins, it is wrong for an active admin to take sides on such an issue.

  I now see that a “support” editor just deleted the tag. I have little doubt that this will be restored by another editor (not Omegatron), thus clouding an already really messy situation that shouldn’t have occurred in the first place had Omegatron not done what he did. Greg L (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What policy says that administrators are not allowed to have opinions? I am not remotely clear on what policy you believe has been violated here. Literally any user may add a template to a page. Literally any user may argue that a policy is disputed (and it seems several people are willing to do so in this case). There are rules against administrators using their special rights in disputes they are involved in (such as blocking an editor that disagrees with them, or locking a disputed page), but from what you have described nothing like that has happened here. It is not clear from your description that Omegatron has done anything inappropriate. — Aluvus t/c 00:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read the history of the talk it will then become clear that there is good consensus. The changes by Omegatron and others do not have consensus.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I’ve seen many unjustified accusations made against Omegatron, but this one takes the biscuit. The discussion is connected to a new piece of text (known as Follow current literature) added to MOSNUM. The following 9 editors have all argued against its inclusion: Gene Nygaard, Gerry Ashton, Jeh, Jim77742, Jimp, LeadSongDog, Lightmouse, Thunderbird2 and Tony. A ‘disputed tag’ was added to the text, which Greg L and others have repeatedly tried to remove. (I have recently put it back because I think there is ample evidence of a dispute on the talk page)

Instead of listening to the arguments, Greg L responds with accusations of bad faith and rudely dismisses the need for consensus.

In a nutshell, there is no consensus for the new text. Thunderbird2 (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the above listed editors have not voted against the text. What did happen is that some voted oppose but did not make valid points so in a nutshell there is consensus because the oppose minority ignored the better reasons from the larger supporting majority.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• After extensive discussion by well over a dozen participating editors, a compromise solution was arrived at by an 8:3 vote with no new “oppose” votes in over two days. All the above responses are debating the point of whether or not that compromise version properly constituted a consensus or not. The point is that Omegatron, as an involved administrator, took sides in this issue and placed a {{disputed}} tag on the page (the lower one here). For proof that Omegatron was actively involved in this issue, please see archives B8, B9, B10, and B11. Just search on “Omegatron”. Will someone please help me on this? Greg L (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's become apparent to me that User:Greg L has some kind of obsession with me. I have no idea what initiated this.

As I understand Wikipedia policy on conduct of admins, it is wrong for an active admin to take sides on such an issue.

I'm pretty sure there's no policy against administrators expressing opinions. You've probably misread Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse of tools. It's prohibited for admins to abuse their tools in a dispute, just like it's prohibited for regular users to revert war in a dispute. We're just regular editors that have been entrusted with some site functions that can cause harm if misused. I'm not acting as a mediator or "superuser" in the MOSNUM discussion, and I'm not using administrative tools, either. My participation in the dispute is just like yours, minus the rudeness.

What did happen is that some voted oppose but did not make valid points so in a nutshell there is consensus

Apparently DavidPaulHamilton has the exclusive privilege of deciding who makes valid points and who does not.

I added the disputed tag because there's not even a shred of consensus for that section. Last I checked, Wikipedia:Consensus didn't mention vote stacking, sockpuppets, or majority rule as legitimate methods of generating policy. In fact, I think it said something alone the lines of "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day."

But I guess Greg L "never lets himself be hemmed in by piss-poor rules". If only we were all so unencumbered... — Omegatron (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a neutral point of view there. On the talk page several editors asked if there are any substantive reasons for the oppose and everytime nothing substantive was provided.DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from all accusations flying about, how can one seriously state that there is consensus, when someone else places a "disputed" tag? The fact of the tag proves the dispute. Stating that someone else's arguments are not substantive does not really help to discussion along. From the talk page I definitely never got the impression that consensus was building. −Woodstone (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not all editors in 100% happy agreement, and never has been. It only takes one editor, refusing to abide by consensus, to post a "disputed" tag. How, then, can such a tag prove that there is no consensus? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not all editors agreeing. On the MOSNUM talk page have a read of the village pump consensus related thread. The oppose votes do not have substantive reasons, see the comments from Francis and others on the talk page by searchmg for the word substantive. So the weak oppose votes are blocking progress. Informal mediation failed so we need to look at formal mediation now. I'm not familiar with the process of getting it started as I'm a newbie so Greg can you get it started?DavidPaulHamilton (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Omegatron. Why don’t you dig yourself a deeper hole for yourself? In my opinion, your entire argument above only demonstrates how you were totally invested in the “Follow current literature” issue and went ahead and intervened as an involved administrator anyway.

  You were the lead proponent of a policy to use the IEC prefixes (256 “kibibit” memory chip) two years ago and now Wikipedia is all alone on this. The manufacturers of computer equipment don’t advertise that way nor use such language in their owners manuals. No other general-interest computer magazine in the world nor any general-interest encyclopedia uses such terminology and that’s why the typical Wikipedia reader is unfamiliar with such terminology. Spell checkers don’t even recognize “kibibit”; mine just flagged that (again). And here you are, in the thick of it, battling a guideline that would discontinue this practice—something a clear majority of editors agree is the wise thing to do now.

  Much of your above argument simply amounts to nothing more than “the people I have a dispute with are poopy heads so I was justified in breaking a rule that governs the conduct of administrators.”  That is the garbage that immature hothead editors occasionally engage in and which administrators are supposed to take care of. How did someone with your judgment and temperament become an administrator in the first place? Greg L (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of personal attacks; zero evidence of misbehavior on my part. Can you please try to relate your seething hatred to something I've actually done? For instance, you could provide a quote from a policy, and then a diff showing me breaking that policy. Or you could provide a diff that shows me being uncivil, since that's what this page is for ("impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications"). — Omegatron (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It’s not “personal attacks” to complain about an administrator abusing the power of their post. As for evidence, it’s simple: you didn’t recuse yourself from the issue on “Follow current literature” and placed a {disputed} tag on the section in question after making it clear that you opposed the measure and continued to make it clear throughout the entire debate that you opposed the measure (archives: B8, B9, B10, and B11). If that isn’t incorrect behavior that is against the rules, and if your attempts to dismiss them by falsely claiming my charges are nothing less than “personal attacks”, isn’t also improper, please do advise. Because if this is the wrong forum for addressing this sort of stuff, I’d be more than pleased to kick it up to a more suitable forum if that’s your wish. Greg L (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And your response will be much the same. seicer | talk | contribs 02:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a passage into an article and User:GHcool, who had never edited this article in the 3 years of it's existence, reverted me here - 16:54, 9 May 2008. Just 9 minutes later he reverted me again here 16:54, 9 May 2008 on an article he'd never edited in 7 years. Neither of these were for any good reason that I can see and he'd done the same, on very dubious grounds, here 18:47, 8 May 2008 less than 24 hours earlier.

I don't wish to set up a fight with this user, but he's plainly wiki-stalking me and shows other indications of reckless breach of AGF to me and other users, clearly displayed on his UserPage (they've been there at least a year).

Can anyone suggest what I should do about this? PR^talk 16:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thetruthseeker.co.uk does not appear to be a reliable source, so I think that GHcool was on extremely secure footing reverting controversial edits to controversial pages based on a pov-pushing blog. There is no question whatsoever about those reverts; if GHcool had not reverted them, somebody else would.

GHcool's revert to your edit of Hamas also seems appropriate to me. While the source is more reliable in this case, and there is little question that Olmert said that about Netanyahu, the fact made absolutely no sense in the location you placed it within the article. It was completely out of context and had no relevancy that I can see to what was being discussed.

As to the allegations of Wiki-stalking... well, listen. Your username is "PalestineRemembered," and while there's nothing inherently wrong with that, in doing so your very username becomes a comment about an extremely controversial issue which much of the world tends to get very emotional about. You combine that with the fact that you made a number of edits using highly questionable sources such as thetruthseeker.co.uk and JewsAgainstZionism.com, and well... you're going to attract attention. Fair or not, that's the way it works. I mean, if I see someone make an edit that I think is trying to advance a particular POV, and I have reason to suspect they'll do it again, I might just check up on their contribs to see if they were engaging in that type of behavior elsewhere. That's probably what GHcool did -- he said, "Oh, this guy is using an unreliable source. Let me see if he used it anywhere else. Oh, he did! Let me fix that." There's nothing wrong with that, and it is not wiki-stalking. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your concerns about GHcool's user page... Well, I wouldn't say he is breaching WP:AGF on that page, but I can see why someone might be concerned that it could come across as antagonistic. He certainly has the right to make his case, though. Is there something in particular that bothers you about it? Is it that he uses specific user's "Accusations" and credits them on his user page? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with any of my references ("truthseeker" is a convenient mirror of the content of the book). Nor is there anything wrong with my name, which has been extensively discussed and cleared by members of the ArbCom, amongst others. If there was anything wrong with the edits themselves, there is no question that the regular editors would have challenged them.

Would it be possible to stick to the purpose of this page, and the point at issue, which is that this user appears to be wiki-stalking my edits. PR^talk 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR, I explicitly said there was nothing inherently wrong with your name. I just let you know that it might attract attention to your edits, which could give the false appearance of wikistalking. I mean, you must understand that, right? It would be the same if somebody's username was "Israel4Ever", there's nothing wrong with that either, but that person's edits might just get noticed a little more frequently, don't you think?

And FWIW, I believe I am sticking to the purpose of this page: You believe the user is Wikistalking you. I believe that reverting two edits that rely on a questionable source, and a third edit that was completely out of context, does not in any way qualify as Wikistalking. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent PR an email, and hope to be able to get a resolution to this off-wiki. -- Mark Chovain 02:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]