From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Volunteer instructions

Are you in the right place? Click in the corresponding box if you want to report:
3RR or edit warring	Ongoing vandalism	Requests for Page protection	Sock- puppetry	Biographical article issues (BLP)	Content issues	Requests for Arbcom ruling enforcement	Other incidents that need administrator intervention
For difficult communications and civility problems, use this page.

This noticeboard is an early step in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. It is an informal non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors. Uninvolved editors are encouraged to give their perspective, advice, offer informal mediation, or refer a report to an appropriate noticeboard. IMPORTANT: Read the overview and instructions before posting your alert.

Shortcut: WP:WQA

[edit] Overview

• Generally, see the dispute resolution process and the helpful advice found here.
• If you would like to get one-to-one advice, feedback or counseling from another editor, then you should consider editor assistance.
• If two or more editors have warned another editor about his/her behavior, and the problem has continued, then an alternative to posting here is to make a request at WP:Requests for comment/User conduct.

[edit] Instructions for posting an alert

This page is not formally monitored; all helpers are volunteers and therefore it may take some time to receive a response. If the circumstances change since your original posting then please update your alert.

If you have not received help and the problem escalates, then please refer to the list above and post your alert to a relevant noticeboard. Please edit your alert to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere.

Before posting an alert:

• Ensure that you have followed the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes. Politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor; emphasise the desire to move forward constructively; and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues whilst assuming good faith.
• If the issue is a one-off episode (tempers can run high!), or only a mild breach of etiquette guidelines, then consider whether it would actually be helpful to post here.
• If you are sure making a report here is really necessary, then please try to phrase it in neutral and non-judgemental language. Posting in haste and anger could add fuel to the fire, rather than helping to improve matters, thus try to avoid posting while upset.
• Always keep in mind that the aim of this page is to solve ongoing problems, not to punish misbehaviour. There are relevant noticeboards for that.

How to post your alert:

• Be sure to post your alert at the bottom of the page — Click here to start a new section
• A single posting per alert is sufficient. Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page, instead supply a simple explanation of the problem, along with the involved parties and a link to the page(s) where the problem is happening. A concise way to do this is to include diffs that show the problem. (A guide to creating diffs is here).
• Remember to describe the problem or issue as neutrally as possible. Avoid emotional content that could lead to unnecessary escalation or continuance of the dispute on this page, both of which are to be avoided.
• Be sure to sign your report by using ~~~~ or the signature button in the edit bar.
• Notify the reported user(s). Place a short and polite statement on their talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved. You may wish to use the template {{subst:WQA-notice}} on a user's talk page.
• Do not continue your discussion in detail here. Instead, continue discussing it at its original location. As long as your alert contains a link to the relevant discussions it will be seen.

When to avoid filing an alert:

• When your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere.
• If you're filing a report to complain about the same issue that was already closed here. If this is the case, then please read why that report was closed and if appropriate consider taking your issue to a relevant noticeboard.
• If you're filing a report to complain about an editor who responded to and possibly closed your previous WQA alert. You must realise that people action alerts voluntarily, and are unlikely to have a personal connection or involvement in the issue. You should talk with them to get their reasoning on why your alert was closed.

[edit] Active alerts

[edit] Inflamatory Comments

Nifboy is making inflammatory edit summaries:

• [1]
• [2]174.3.111.148 (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are not inflammatory edit summaries. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

To give a bit of background on this dispute:

• User:174.3.111.148 (henceforth 174.xx) edits Touhou Project, converting it to table format and making a few other edits. I revert him; he reverts back.
• At some point during the discussion (see his talk and mine) I point him towards Wikipedia:When to use tables, a guideline page: 174.xx edits it to his liking without any discussion. I revert him; he reverts back.
• I head to WT:VG#Series article - table or prose? for a third opinion. Other editors start reverting 174.xx's edits on both pages; he reverts back.
• At some point WP:CALM is lost between him and I; offense is taken at me referring to 174.xx as "an IP".
• 174.xx opens a AN3 thread about me and the other editor reverting him on Wikipedia:When to use tables, which is refused. 174.xx is explicitly warned against reverting against consensus, which he ignores.

I was actually thinking of opening a thread here myself, hoping to get a neutral third opinion. Nifboy (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Continue as you have been doing Nifboy, just be civil and WP:RBI - 4twenty42o (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, what do you mean by RBI?? I hope you meant WP:BRD, or something similar. 174.xx isn't a vandal, and implying that he/she is one is only going to make the situation worse. I agree Nifboy has done nothing at all wrong, and 174.xx needs to gain consensus before making big changes to that guideline. But they seem to be editing in good faith, and suggesting that they be reverted, blocked and ignored isn't going to help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps good faith edit warring. When it gets to that point there is no point in trying to talk to the editor. If you look at the edit summaries you can see that the editor is mad because their template is not being used. Therefore edit warring in an "I am right" way. RBI. Eventually they'll come around. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it's like having my own personal pair of consciouses. Nifboy (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I'm probably misreading your tone here. I'm not trying to be your conscience, nor do I see how my comments could be interpreted that way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By "conscience" I mean something akin to a Shoulder angel. That's just how the conversation played out in my head. Nifboy (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny; that's what I thought when reading it at first too, but I'm confident that it was an unintended effect too. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not the best person to listen to but I would not waste my time until the editor tries to talk instead of argue. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of the problem: He argues, but he does it fervently and not quite coherently. After repeated attempts on Talk:Touhou Project#Page Layout, I still can't discern his argument beyond 4twenty42o's interpretation of "I'm mad that my table isn't being used". Nifboy (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see this edit. He blatantly, willingly, and knowingly discriminates with intent to be unconstructive.174.3.111.148 (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Anon, when you post edit diffs, why force editors to click the link to read what is said? Post the sentence:

   "The sociological repercussions of registering vs. editing as an IP are by now well known to all parties; a kind of "namism", if you will."
   Unfortunately, posting this way is common.

2. While this edit diff is an unnecessary personal comment, I don't think it rises to the personal attack level. The edit diffs at the beginning (After I was forced to click them) do not appear to be personal attacks either.
3. As an anon editor with few supporters to back you up, you will get little relief here, especially for something that is so borderline.
4. Writing: "He blatantly, willingly, and knowingly discriminates with intent to be unconstructive" does not help your case, silently let the copy and pasted edit difference speak for itself. As much as you want it too, making sweeping generalizations like this does not strengthen the edit difference.
   Anon, to assure that the debate you are having with nifboy does not become personal and expands, I strongly suggest you keep the conversation strictly on the talk page of the article.
   Delete all conversations between the two of you on your talk page (which is allowed). In the future, if nifboy posts on your talk page, remove the comment and politely tell nifboy in your edit summary to discuss it on the article talk page. Ikip (talk) 06:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You do understand this is the same has racism?174.3.111.148 (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is patent nonsense. The anon IP is in the wrong, this WQA filing is frivolous, and the editor should be taken to AN/I & blocked if s/he keeps this up. Eusebeus (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, it is becoming sillier the more it drags out; comparing Nifboy's comments to "racism" is only one step removed from Godwin's Law]. I've seen no comments or edits from Nifboy of any significant concern. 174.x needs to drop his complaints about Nifboy, and focus on making a better, more understandable case for his edits, on the policy and article talk pages. If he cannot convince others, he needs to accept that and move on. We're to the point now where further edit warring or disruption should be met with a block; you need to be able to accept multiple, unanimous neutral parties telling you you're wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't see the discrimination.174.3.111.148 (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no discrimination here. I see no racism here. I I haven't the foggiest what your or Nifboy's nationality is. I haven't any impression of what race person is discriminating against what race person. I don't see that colour of skin has come into this at all. I see no basis for any such allegation. I believe that Nifboy has acted appropriatly. I don't believe this complaint has any good basis. Dmcq (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying he is being racist. I am saying he is discriminating. Racism is a form of discrimination.174.3.111.148 (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any discrimination here either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please PLEASE explain to me why he continues to edit guidelines where he's been continually rebuked? I'm at my wit's end, and utterly incapable of calmly continuing to revert him and explain why. Nifboy (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vaughan_Pratt

Could someone look into this, I fear this is getting out of control. In mostly chronological order:

• Talk:Solar greenhouse#Smell test: "Village constable": [3] and [4]. "Troll": [5]. Then it gets out of control (scroll down to end of comment): [6]
• Talk:Low-emissivity#Radiation and greenhouses: Spreading to another talk page: [7].
• User_talk:David Eppstein#Yet another self-styled expert: And another users talk page: [8].

Hopefully I don't have to point out that the accusations are untrue and that someone has time to help out here before this escalates further.
—Apis (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like at base it it a content dispute which is getting a little heated. Perhaps they should ask a few questions at the Science reference desk and they might be able to get an informed third opinion on the dispute which might help resolve it. Personally I feel the article has problems so I think I better stay out of anything further on COI grounds. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, here we go again: "William, I appreciate your openness and blunt style, which is more to my taste than that of Apis, who conducts his aggressive reverts behind a mask of anonymity [...]" [9] and on it goes. Now William seems to be the main target again though.

Yes there is a content dispute but that is not solvable as long as this goes on. I don't like the idea that some people solve disputes by bullying away other editors they don't agree with. If everyone mange to stay civil a rfc of some sort might be a solution.
—Apis (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to put a notice on Vaughan_Pratt's talk page as far as I can see so I've done so. Dmcq (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this dispute to my attention, Dmcq. So what exactly is Apis's complaint here? That my language is overly sharp for his taste? It's a fair request, and I have no objection to softening my tone to suit his taste.

I encounter a wide range of editors, many operating under their real names, many under pseudonyms. The very few that I end up in long arguments with (I won't try to allocate blame for those debates) have invariably been ones operating under pseudonyms (the dispute Connolley and I have been having concerning his recent aggressively argued revert hasn't yet become long and I certainly hope it doesn't). Every such argumentative anonymous editor has struck me as appallingly ignorant of the material they pretend expertise in.

I recognize that Wikipedia feels it encourages greater quantity of content by permitting editors the luxury of anonymity, but it does so at the expense both of quality and of the time of editors who have to deal with those who have no obvious qualifications yet dig their heels in when approached and who indulge in aggressive reverting behavior such as Apis. Not only does Apis have no visible technical presence in the real world, he has virtually no presence on Wikipedia either according to his talk page. While not wishing to discourage new recruits (my advisor Don Knuth tried correcting some egregious errors in Wikipedia articles in his area and threw in the towel after being repeatedly reverted), one does need to consider the possibility that badly behaved editors can redeem themselves simply by starting afresh under a new pseudonym. This option is not available to those operating under their true name.

I am sorry to see your time being taken up in this way by Apis, who seems to be under the impression that when he finds himself unable to defend his position on his own he has to go to you to get himself heard. What he doesn't realize is that you are no more fair-minded than me in that regard (just my opinion) and that he is unlikely to strengthen the technical content of his arguments by coming running to you in this way. Nor will it help in toning down my stridency, since he can accomplish that on his own simply by being more polite to me than me to him (which he does, at least superficially) and behaving himself in more substantive matters such as reverting, which currently he doesn't. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I did put up a notice I think? [10].

I can take heated arguments and even insults directed to my face, but the spreading of lies and slander to other editors is not something I'm going to accept. One has to draw the line somewhere. Apparently the idea is to bully other editors away from Wikipedia that doesn't agree with Pratt. I can't begin to imagine how many he has successfully made leave Wikipedia. :(

I Posted here so that someone uninvolved could take a look at the situation. I don't feel there is much I can do to solve it myself without making things worse.
—Apis (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

the spreading of lies and slander to other editors is not something I'm going to accept. One has to draw the line somewhere. Apparently the idea is to bully other editors away from Wikipedia that doesn't agree with Pratt. I can't begin to imagine how many he has successfully made leave Wikipedia. Those who haven't yet seen Maxwell's delightful poem at [11] may appreciate having their attention drawn to it. Its allusion to reflected radiation is particularly apropos of the subject matter in dispute (if that's what's being disputed here). --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice your message on the page, I think the standard message needs to be designed to stand out more if both I and Vaughan Pratt missed it. The remarks on both sides have become less than courteous about each other but haven't descended into the depths that are the norm for blocks or whatever. You feel you are being bullied and I am sorry about that. What is it that would convince you that you were being treated fairly even when all your edits are rejected? Both sides have to accept the possibility that they may not be totally correct in content disputes. The easiest way of doing that is to find more facts or a better expert. Slogging it out and traking it to WQA without the willingness to check the facts sounds like arguments about the number of teeth in a horses mouth. Dmcq (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I probably should point out that the above accusations and insinuations (such as "aggressive reverting behaviour" etc) are lies as well, (so that no one mistakes silence with agreement).
—Apis (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I should have also pointed out that I have never reverted or rejected an edit to an article made by Apis, I have merely challenged him on talk pages about them. His complaint here is not with any interference with his edits but with what he feels are inappropriately strong challenges to his edits in talk pages aimed at driving him away from Wikipedia. Like Dmcq I'm sorry he feels that way. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also at the end of the day even with expert knowledge wikipedia insists on verifiability not truth. If there is a dispute in the reliable sources and you can't come to some agreement that one lot are fringe then the dispute should be reported. You will of course have weight problems so that's why you want some other opinion or facts as well. Dmcq (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I and Connolley are trying to keep unsourced bogus statements about the greenhouse effect out of the article. And I tried to keep similar statements out of the low-e article (GE is a high-e effect). We are not the ones who want to include anything. There is already plenty of sources supporting this view in the article and on the global warming article. Sternly referring to sources always leads to endless debate about the validity of the source, bogus sources, misinterpretation of sources, synthesis and so on. This is a common tactic by cranks, something you unfortunately get experience with on the global warming related pages. It's always better if you can agree by explaining the issue better, thereby everyone wins by gaining a better understanding. Of course, if that fails, you have to start arguing about sources. But again, this is not about the content issue and I don't want to start this argument here, that is what the article talk page is about.
—Apis (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

All my edits are not being rejected! What makes you think that? One edit I have made on low-e has been reverted and it's being discussed, which went fine until Pratt started spreading lies and insinuating that I am an "anti-global-warming crank". He is also saying I revert other peoples edits all the time (maybe it is socks and vandals he means?). And he insinuates that I don't understand fundamental physics by making up things he then says I have claimed. (see poisoning the well).

This is what I am bothered by. I don't want people to believe these things. I don't think most people will take the trouble to read through the discussions, history and archives, it's too much work. And it obviously worked in his first attempt.

People seems to be very impressed by Pratts achievements in computer science, which indeed seems impressive. But that does not make him an expert on meteorology or thermodynamics, nor does it make what he claims about other editors (anonymous or not) true.

On the solar greenhouse page, where this started, I happened to agree with Connolley who has a lot of experience in this field. I also commented that if Pratt had issues with Connolleys editing (which he was making personal attacks against as well) he should take it to his talkpage instead. I know Connolley is experienced in dealing with that kind of nonsense. Then things went gradually overboard.

It is difficult to stay courteous when you are being called crank, self-styled expert, having no technical expertise, anonymous coward, time sink, that all anonymous editors are an encumbrance to Wikipedia, only there to fill in "unimportant subjects", or that I claim things I do not, and so on.

Once again, that is why I brought the issue here, so that someone uninvolved could help out, because I am not perfect, and can only take a limited amount of abuse before giving up. Or is this supposed to end in a shouting match so that one or both of us can be blocked? I don't see how we can continue constructively while that goes on.

This is not about the content issue which likely will be easy to solve, but rather wp:npa and wp:civ, and the problems of working constructively when editors fail to follow these basic guidelines.
—Apis (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed most of his concerns previously and should not need to repeat them here. If my tone was more uncivil than his then I'm appalled and am truly very sorry! Clearly I've hurt his feelings and would be happy to make amends as appropriate.

Regarding But that does not make [Pratt] an expert on meteorology or thermodynamics, where to begin? Neither the current content of the Solar greenhouse article nor my exploration of the physics of greenhouses at the article's talk page brings up either subject beyond the very elementary climate-control role of greenhouses. In the case of thermodynamics, its irrelevance to anything written so far should be immediately apparent to those acquainted with its scope; does this include Apis? Apis further seems to assume that a scientist trained in area T who has also contributed to areas U, V, W, and X must therefore have no expertise in area T, a line of reasoning I don't follow.

I'll be happy to respond to new (i.e. other) complaints lodged here about my behavior but not to old ones, otherwise I'd never get any editing done. (Who's being driven away from what, exactly?) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as it stops (as it seems to have done now), and doesn't happen again, I'm happy. Thanks.
—Apis (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And I shall try to be more courteous in the future as well.
—Apis (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My reading is that both of you are right but talk about different things and don't understand each other. It is permissible to change whole paragraphs if it is felt that would appreciably improve content but then it is reasonable to revert and then discussion should start on the talk page. I have now read through the talk pages and article and my feelings are that there is very little talk about the purpose of a solar greenhouse or what it is supposed to do. Looking on the web about them the ones I saw seemed to be straightfoward greenhouses with heat storage for the night and nothing like the cloche in the picture. The whole article seemed to be some spin off about the difference between greenhouse warming and how greenhouses work and not about the title. The references at the end seem unintegrated and there is a reference to a spreadsheet within the article that doesn't show its provinance or reliability. Personally I feel the whole article should be deleted, there might be a small amount plus some references that can go into greenhouse, which incidentally I saw no link to. How would you feel about my proposing it for deletion and that would remove the argument? Dmcq (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a radical suggestion, I'm not sure what I think of it, but it might be for the best. The article is not very good and the fork seems unfortunate and appears to have been meant to separate the technical description from the greenhouse article itself. It would be better to suggest this on the article talk page itself. But I suppose nominating for deletion directly is ok, since that will lead to subsequent discussion as well.
—Apis (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after reading the article again, I think you are right.
—Apis (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly for that, which is what I was trying to hint delicately at with my question wondering why Wikipedia needed two articles, Greenhouse and Solar greenhouse. The only rationale that made any sense to me at all was that the latter was about how they worked. Now that I've finally (after how many years?) been able to reconcile, at least to my own satisfaction if no one else's, the "obvious" theoretical prediction with Wood's empirical observation (see my current view), what needs to be said about how greenhouses stay warm involves no arcane radiation theory and should fit in at most two or three sentences and therefore have no need to be spun off from the Greenhouse article.

Well that seems to be consensus - I'll do that then. I wondered if you'd both turn on me but I considered that possibility as having you both agreeing with each other and working together as well :) Dmcq (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What, you'd give away a trick of the trade, just like that? :) The sacrifice method of aligning sparring parties. Well, now that that cat's out of the bag I guess it's ok to write a Wikipedia article about it then. :) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:FkpCascais

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereCase handled and resolved at ANI. --Taelus (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1964 Cumberland B-52 crash

Please could an admin take a look at 74.5.112.42 (talk · contribs) whose very first edit to this article has been to start a naming dispute and content fork. His edit summaries include disparaging remarks about other editors who have worked on the article. Kindly note too that he did not at any point attempt to engage in any discussion before replacing the article with a redirect to a new article that he created. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is not for requests for admin intervention, it is an early and voluntary step in dispute resolution. If you need an admin, WP:ANI is the place to ask. In either case, it is obligatory to notify the editor that you have filed a complaint about them. Looie496 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I landed here at the suggestion of another administrator. Have posted the notification to the other editor - sorry I missed this. Would like to pursue voluntary co-operation from the other party before going to WP:ANI. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gamaliel

I have repeatedly asked this editor to explain and support his side of the argument regarding the Mark Levin article. He has become increasingly hostile and despite repeated requests to explain his position regarding a particular edit he has refused to do so and instead repeatedly violated WP:EQ, becoming more sarcastic and hostile as time has gone on. He has rejected repeated attempts at compromise *[12] and simply resorted to repeated attacks on other editors' good faith reasonings and understandings of WP policy. If you take a look at Talk it should become immediately apparent however if you wish specific examples please take a look at *[13], *[14], *[15], *[16], *[17], *[18], *[19], and particularly *[20]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malvenue (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I have repeatedly explained my edits and positions to all editors on that article, no one else has a similar complaint or is mystified about what my position or reasoning is. Malvenue neglects that he has given far more than he has gotten from me and has committed egregious violations of BLP and 3RR on this article while condescendingly lecturing others to follow policy. All I have done is failed to turn the other cheek in response to his behavior. I would love for someone else to argue with him for a while to give me a break - my report about him at BLPN has been largely ignored - so if some other kind hearted editor with more tolerance for this would be willing to get between us I would be grateful. Gamaliel (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a basic edit war to me. Malvenue, as a practical matter, if you'd quit deleting the sourced criticisms of this "right-wing talk show host", then there would be no edit war. It takes (at least) two to have an edit war. If you would stop, then the edit war would automatically stop.

It is my recollection of the timing on this event that after observing the discussion page and seeing a rather obvious concensus regarding criticism of the subject, I removed the criticism in question, citing my reasoning. From my point of view I was removing a quote that defied the consensus on the discussion page. Gamaliel immediately reverted it claiming vandalism. This went back and forth several times until I left the criticism in place and added a Levin reference to Frum to balance the criticism attempting to satisfy Gamaliel while balancing the criticism. Again Gamaliel removed it in its entirety. A third party attempted some compromise wording on the Levin quote which I found satisfactory but once again Gamaliel removed it in its entirety. It seemed obvious to everyone that the only thing that would satisfy Gamaliel was to have it his way and only his way. An attempt at mediation resulted in no participation by Gamaliel at all, while I repeatedly stated my basis for the removal of the quotation and requested his reasoning for including it. His only response was a series of sarcastic insults, complaints that I was WP:SIA, questions about my judgement, pretty blatant violations of WP:AGF and a basic refusal to attempt to reach any sort of consensus. If you review the discussion that occurred after the initial edit war I believe you will see the majority of the issues I am referring to. It is not my intent to continue a fight replying here, I want to explain why I did what I did, that I did not simply delete content for no reason. Regardless, the extended antagonistic responses from Gamaliel were uncalled for. Malvenue (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't pretend the insertion of a two paragraph screed against Frum was any kind of "balance", given that a mere sentence of the Levin article is devoted to Frum. It was a retaliatory edit, pure and simple. More editors, myself included, would take your position seriously if you gave up that charade, but instead you pile justifications and fabrications upon this initial misstep. There's no reason to persist in insisting that it was a reasonable edit beyond the fact that you cannot or do not want to admit that this edit was a mistake. Gamaliel (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The response which you claim as a "screed" was anything but. Frankly for Mr. Levin it was rather mild, explaining his history with Frum and detailing some of the bizarre behaviour he's exhibited towards Levin (which makes him an unreliable source regarding Levin). If you felt the quote I selected was too long, why did you then unilaterally delete the compromise edit done by Ericsean*[21]? Herein lies the root cause of our disagreement. YOU assume anything that disagrees with your interpretation is a violation of policy or bad faith editing, whereas I put forth reasons justified by policy which you fail to adequately dispute. "You're wrong, you're a noob, you're policy-shopping, you're a single issue advocate, my points don't need to be backed up since they're so obvious", to paraphrase you, does not qualify as arguing your points or attempting to reach consensus. Just because you disagree with my points (which others have backed up by the way) doesn't make them "fabrications" or "a mistake". I (and others) feel the Frum quote was inappropriate and gave justified reasons for it. You disagreed and merely reverted the change refusing to give any justifications for weeks! Your only responses consisted of insults and sarcasm. When any attempts were made at compromise you unilaterally deleted them and again refused to give any justification. For someone so "experienced" here, I'm pretty shocked at your conduct to be honest. Malvenue (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, who are these people who have "backed up" your points? No one on Wikipedia could possibly think inserting a two paragraph attack is an appropriate response to a single sentence noting a critic. You compound that nonsense by insisting I haven't been responding on a page I've been posting to daily, and you insist I'm acting unilaterally when no one thinks your actions are appropriate. Seriously, you've dug yourself quite a hole here, and people would take you a lot more seriously if you could admit that your actions were in error and move on instead of insisting that they were appropriate and compounding them with attacks on others. Gamaliel (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"No one on Wikipedia could possibly think" "nonsense" "no one thinks your actions are appropriate" "people would take you seriously" "attacks on others". Thank you for proving my points about your comments so succinctly. This isn't about the Levin article here, it's about your behaviour. I won't even get into your misleading statements above, the point is you have rejected any attempts at compromise and simply attack me and others who disagree with you instead of working towards a consensus. Your behaviour in this complaint demonstrates my point. Stop attacking people! It's intuitively obvious to the least casual observer your behaviour is a flagrant violation of WP:EQ. Malvenue (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you haven't addressed the point at all and you are trying to make this all about me. Even if I meekly accepted your behavior and your abuse, the underling problem remains - that your conception of appropriate editing and behavior is out of bounds of Wikipedia norms and policy. Attack me all you want, make all the false claims about me you want, that point remains true and unaddressed, and I and I'm sure the all spectators here would appreciate you addressing it. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of this section is your violation of WP:EQ, not the basis for our disagreement. Even if you were on the side of the angels your behaviour would not be excused. Malvenue (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And of course, we should ignore yours. There's no point in prolonging this if you are unwilling to address the underlying problem. Good luck forum shopping for someone to endorse your behavior and policy violations. Gamaliel (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd be hard pressed to show anywhere I've been nasty or insulting to you, certainly not on the scale of your behaviour which has been unfailingly hostile for the past few weeks. I even apologized to you if you felt I had offended you in some way last week. You haven't even made anything close to that sort of attempt. The bottom line is I have sourced your violations of WP:EQ and pointed to just a handful of your violations. You continue to accuse me but continue to fail to source any of your claims (because you can't source what doesn't exist). Either way I have proven my point that you are in violation of WP:EQ. I suggest as always you cease your endless attacks and insults and work within the policies of WP. After all, as an "administrator" you should know better, right? Malvenue (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither of you are winning friends and influencing people, but I think that this dispute has substantially exceeded the scope of this board. I suggest that all involved editors answer the six points raised by User:Ericsean at #Mediation, and quit talking about each other. "Focus on the content, not the contributor" means "Answer those six questions, and stop complaining about what the other guy is, or isn't, saying". You need to talk about the content, not about the behavior of editors in the dispute.

BTW, I don't think that BLP requires that criticism of a talk show host be sourced to someone that is writing about the critic's writings; I believe that the existence of multiple instances of criticism is generally accepted as proof that the criticism exists. (Yes, even in biographies of living people.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Polargeo and Atmoz

Stuck. Atmoz refused to participate.

Resolved. Polargeo apologised and promised not to poke again. ScienceApologist withdrew from the area.

[edit] User:Wuhwuzdat

Stuck. User:Wuhwuzdat requested close, implying that attempts to resolve this dispute have halted. Seems to be outside the scope of WQA to do any more than it has. --Taelus (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wuhwuzdat first posted an improper CSD tag (G1) on the article Jamesin. I then removed the notice and nominated the article for PROD instead. I then went to User:Wuhwuzdat'a talk page where it says "IF YOU ARE HERE TO TELL ME THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH ONE OF MY CSD'S DO NOT FEEL FREE TO POST HERE", which I ignored and posted a friendly notification about improper CSD nominations, supplying a link to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion instead. This user has now removed my notice (which, yes, I understand they have the right to do, however, I posted the notice as a help to them). And just a few seconds ago User:Wuhwuzdat re-CSD'd the article Jamesin... again. I feel that this user is quite a bit BITEY. IShadowed ✰ 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The correct quote (copied and pasted directly from my talk page) is If you are here to tell me you changed or declined a speedy delete tag that you disagreed with, feel free to NOT leave me a note. I respect your opinion, experience, and judgment on this matter.. The misquote above is quite different in tone, and I would STRONGLY suggest that the user above refrain from such loose paraphrasing when quoting other users. WuhWuzDat 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this WQA. --Taelus (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ishadowed followed this by issuing an entirely inappropriate warning template to my talk page. Perhaps it would be best if he respected the judgement of other editors, in the matter of totally inappropriate pages and their CSD tagging. WuhWuzDat

User:Wuhwuzdat, Yes, I am not afraid to acknowledge that I accidentally posted an incorrect warning on your talk pager, and I do apologize for that. However, marking a perfectly coherent article as CSD criteria G1 for patent nonsense and gibberish is not correct, nor is writing "Dear new page patroller get a clue" as you did on User talk:Wuhwuzdat. Thank you IShadowed ✰ 18:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

When the articles subject is based on defining a non-word, the article is based on gibberish, and I will tag it as such. As for "Get a clue", your incorrect warning clearly indicated to me, that in this case, you needed one. The comment I included with the talkback template on your page only barely scratched the surface of the confusion, outrage, and raised blood pressure that templating caused here. Please check the content of any template, before using it. The continual (3x? 4x?) edit conflicts on my talk page, caused by your lack of previewing and proofreading your edits, did nothing to help the situation. WuhWuzDat 18:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see also WP:Don't template the regulars. WuhWuzDat 18:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not policy. See also, WP:Do template the regulars. As well, users really aren't permitted to set rules beyond Wikipedia standard on their talkpages. Perhaps your caveat of CSD infallibility should instead link to WP:Why was my page deleted?- but it certainly shouldn't preclude the possibility of being called out on mistakes. --King Öomie 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Those essays are not policy either. My talk page contains no "caveat of CSD infallibility", only a notice that, if you happen to disagree with one of my taggings,, I don't necessarily need to hear about it. If you actually read the rules on my talk page, you will see that I am only enforcing the talk page guidelines, and good talk page formatting etiquette. This came about after quite a few editors spliced comments on new subjects into discussions on unrelated topics (causing much refactoring to move them to new headings), and many unsigned comments, resulting in having to search through the history to find out who said what, and topics that the archiving bot would refuse to archive. My talk page WILL remain in a logical, chronological order, and it will remain in bot-archivable form, with all post signed by their contributors. Is it too much to ask visitors to my talk page to not leave the place a shambles when they leave? WuhWuzDat 19:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility#Dispute resolution states that the first step to take when in disagreement with a user is to take the matter to their talk page, the comment at the top of your talk page could therefore be said to be hindering dispute resolution, furthermore the comment seems to show that you are unwillingly to receive constructive criticism, and improve from it. Please forgive me if I am wrong in this interpretation.

You seem to be saying above that the main reason for the comment at the top of your page is to prevent people messing up the formatting of your page, may I suggest that if that is the case then you could remove the comment and replace it with a short tutorial on how to use user talk pages? Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re your first comment: More WP:OR on your part.

Re your second comment: It works well as is (It works, Don't fix it!), with one recent exception of an admin impersonating a newbie, and deliberately violating good talk page etiquette and my posted page rules to make a point. Gee there's a bear trap, what happens if I put my foot in it?. WuhWuzDat 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wuhwuzdat, I hold my opinion that you tagged incorrectly. Also, there are less bitey ways of dealing with users than saying Get a clue. In this situation, I never felt outrage, raised blood pressure or confusion and I am sorry if I caused you these however I still believe that your tagging, although in good faith, was incorrect. IShadowed ✰ 18:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat, I think you need to look at G1 again: Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. Note that it doesn't say that G1 applies to pages attempting to define a non-existent word, therefore IShadowed's original comment to you was completely justified. At this point you should have either let the prod go ahead or contest it, what you should not have done is tried to replace the prod with a SD template. IShadowed then made a mistake by templating you, although it is not against policy to template users, it could be construed as a lack of respect or civility, however, I beg that you take note of the fact that IShadowed has apologised for the template.
However, I digress, the issue here is not really the definition G1 or whether you were justified in removing the prod. The issue is your conduct in response to IShadowed comments, when IShadowed first contacted you the correct response would have been to thank him/her for his/her edit, take another look at G1, and move on. although by policy you were allowed to remove the section from your talk page, it really shows that you refuse to take the information on board.
IShadowed then made a mistake by templating you, IShadowed in future you should always leave a polite and personal message, templates are often construed as a slight to experienced users. Wuhwuzdat, despite this your response to the template was uncalled for, derogatory comments never solve any issue, what you should have done is listened to IShadowed's comment with an open mind and thought about whether maybe he/she had a point. Even if you still disagreed with IShadowed you should have explained your reasoning for this to them in a polite and civil way, not by making personal attacks.
Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fact: I never removed the PROD. I don't believe that anyone above has claimed that I did either. It may help in the future to check facts like this before including them in your debate. Your reasoning as to my removal of the original comment was also blatant Original Research. Only one person (myself) knows why I removed that comment, and NONE of you are him. WuhWuzDat 19:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologise sincerely, as I am not an administrator I cannot view deleted articles, I based that "fact" on what IShadowed said above: "And just a few seconds ago User:Wuhwuzdat re-CSD'd the article Jamesin... again", sorry if I was incorrect, however, it doesn't really matter, as I said previously the issue here is not over the "definition G1 or whether you were justified in removing the prod. The issue is your conduct in response to IShadowed comments" (PS, I would regard SD-tagging an article with a prod as good as replacing the prod).

In that case, could you please explain why you removed the comment? Kind regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As you seem to enjoy your own conjecture and theories as to why people do what they do, I will leave you to theorize on your own. Enjoy the Land of OR. WuhWuzDat 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So be it, if you refuse to attempt to resolve the situation then there is nothing that can be done, I don't enjoy making up theories as to why people do things, what I enjoy is seeing issues where people are upset being resolved so that all parties walk away feeling that matters have been amended as best they can, in this case you are showing no will to resolve the issue, which means that things will only get worse if the disscussion continues. And so I will leave it as it stands. I wish you the best, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the text of the deleted article was this:

Jamesin - an adjective describing an individual who is unusually kind and thoughtful. This slang term was derived in the early 21st century as a testament to the overwhelming kindness of the late James Johnson

I think this could be A1. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the subject of the article is quite clearly the word itself. If anything, I'd say G3. --King Öomie 21:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That text certainly does not meet the standards at Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. If the editor so frequently receives complaints or messages attempting to educate him (or her) on this point that s/he feels the need for a blanket disclaimer, then I think that's a sign that the editor needs to figure out what CSD G1 (e.g.) is supposed to cover. "Silly boy blue ba doop a doop fly me to the moon" is a CSD G1 candidate; sentences that are both intelligible and grammatically correct never qualify under G1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat seems to have received eight or ten essentially identical messages about incorrect CSD tags just from the CSD Helper script in the last six months or so (e.g., [53][54][55][56]), as well as other non-template/non-script messages. This failure rate seems excessive to me, but I don't actually know how it compares to the average CSD patroller. If you tagged enough articles, then even a 1% failure rate would produce many messages. I can understand not wanting to be bothered with routine messages, but he might want to find a more gracious solution. Wikipedia won't keep good editors if minor irritations (like an unwanted notice) turn into personalized disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page "rules"

Stuck. User:Wuhwuzdat requested close, implying that attempts to resolve this dispute have halted. Seems to be outside the scope of WQA to do any more than it has. --Taelus (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In a somewhat unrelated note to the main filing here, I think that it is advisable that User:Wuhwuzdat should revise the rules they have set on their own talk page, specifically if they are working in CSD and other areas that will have alot of contact with new users. Being unable to question a CSD tag without being told they are "violating rules" is a good way to drive away new contributors, as several other users have pointed out in different venues. Whilst I respect your choice to remove notices from your talk page at will, I would recommend that you at least point the users in the direction of a few policies by replying on their talk page when you do so, or direct them to another user for help. You could even simply tell them to use {{helpme}} in your edit summary when removing comments, anything which would provide help for new users and avoid biting them with accusations of "violating talk page rules". --Taelus (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do us all a favor, and actually READ THE RULES, before suggesting that I change them. There is nothing there that would prevent anyone from "questioning a CSD tag".

I am now leaving this conversation, as this discussion seems to be taking place among a group of people, many of whom post comments or conjecture, without knowing FACTS, and most of whom seem to believe in the utter fallacy of a "perfect place" where nobodys feeling ever get hurt. I'm quite sorry to inform you of the fact that sort of place only exists on the "Barney Show", with its insipid purple host and theme song. This is REALITY people! WuhWuzDat 07:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but, you are expecting a new user to get everything completely correct, otherwise you will simply ignore them and delete their comment. This is not really realistic. Additionally, whilst there is no perfect place in the world, why should that stop us from aiming towards it in the long-term as a desirable goal? --Taelus (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Example diff, fortunately another user contacted the person in question. My point is that users such as that create an article on their first day, get a speedy tag, come ask you for help, and you remove their post for "violating rules". This is not going to encourage the user to seek discussions in future with anyone, and will discourage them from editing. --Taelus (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See my mention above of "An admin impersonating a newbie". WuhWuzDat 15:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Some further examples are: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63].

Some of these are extremely worrying Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Example 1, user was blocked for spamming. Example 2, vandalism only account, BLOCKED. Example 3, COI editor. Example 4, user on rant, my only previous connection to this editor was voting "delete, per nom" at an AfD for an article he created. Example 5, POV edit warrior, blocked 3 times for various incivilities, was previously told that he was unwelcome at my talk page. Example 6, the only edit of a blocked sockpuppet, complaining about an article deleted as vandalism. <sarcasm>Gee, what an amazing bunch of charming, intelligent, polite people come to my page!</sarcasm> WuhWuzDat 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

...And the whole thing about blanking, then moving the User talk page[64], presumably to obscure the history? —Sladen (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

More WP:OR, this page seems to thrive on it. WuhWuzDat 07:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR only applies to articles. Users doing their own research into a dispute is sort of required, as otherwise how can we ever gain diffs, or an understanding of the situation? Just saying... --Taelus (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The skills needed to trawl through and clean up all the new edits and pages are probably rather a lot different from those needed to talk to a new editor. Perhaps we should have a way of directing people to a new editor help line as well as the patroller? It would also give patrollers a way of passing on what they might see sometimes as a waste of time. I guess the help line for new editors would also have to cope with all the 'BUT THE EARTH IS FLAT, TRUTH' but they might be better at doing that. Dmcq (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's the most intelligent comment anyone has posted on this topic yet. WuhWuzDat 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WWD, even beyond the original complaint, you've been rather uncivil just in this thread. I'm seeing a common thread with you only explaining yourself with harsh, condescending language. --King Öomie 16:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What does WWD stand for please? Sorry I see - User:Wuhwuzdat Dmcq (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest closure now, this is outside of WQA's scope, and User:Wuhwuzdat seems unwilling to continue to participate in the process: diff --Taelus (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mobile historian

Resolved. User:Mobile historian indef blocked. --Taelus (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been engaged in something of a minor content dispute with this user. Details here [65], a little more of it in this soon to be rejected arbitration request here [66]. User has been escalating attacks on his talk page (full discussion here [67]). After he earlier today refered to me as "fetid" "vain," a "peon" and a "little friend who started getting his hands dirty [68] I asked him to strike the comments and desist or else I'd bring the matter here [69]. He responded "Sorry can't do that 'coz I'm still too numbed by your shameful, disgusting and shocking language and behaviour."[70]. I'd like him to desist. If you look at the longer thread on his talk page and the arb page both linked above, you'll see him describing my edits as "vandalism" me as "talking faeces" and suffering from either "plain ignorance or green eyed envy." I'd just like him to be told to stop with the continuous ad hominems, and have the next step explained to him by others if he doesn't (the civility policy has been pointed out to him on a number of occasions already).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Go to ANI, an immediate block is warranted here. Looie496 (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He is indef blocked as the sock of a banned user now.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mobile_historian was the ANI link, for archiving purposes. --Taelus (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User Nmate

User:Nmate is not assuming good faith [71], accuse me to third parties of wikistalking [72], and reverted sourced info without any explanation [73]. He threatened me with ban [74] and ArbComm [75].

I´m interested in Central European history for many years, as can be seen here [76], so we meet in some articles, and he acted with uncivility, reverted anything by me. He stalked me, as can be seen [77] (for explanation, I´m member of WikiProject Micronations and this is his only edit in article) He was banned many times [78] for disruptive editing and personal attacks. As can be seen in his talk page User_talk:Nmate, he have problems with others users for his disruptive editing. I try to settle problems on his talk page, but my post was deleted.

For his disruptive behavior, probably the best example is here [79] and compare his statement with his edits [80] and [81]. --Yopie (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yopie is a real expert on assuming good faith. Yes, what he is doing is wikihounding. He is following me and Hobartimus to the articles which he never edited before [82], [83], [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] and reverting. Plus he is calling content dispute vandalism [89] [90] and posting false vandalism warnings on Hobartimus' talk page as well as on mine which are personal attacks of course.[91] [92] --Nmate (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for finding interesting edit of your friend Hobartimus [93]. For explanation - Slovak Uprising is about uprising in 1848, redirect is to Slovak National Uprising in 1944. This can be called "deletion of article without AfD", or "vandalism".

• For his recent incivility [94] Citation: "Dear Yopie,Regardless your sources, none of Hungarian wants to accept your proposed changes". Clear nationalistic POV, no comment needed. --Yopie (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No, what I did wasn't uncivil. I just told Yopie that no consensus about his proposed changes because they are highly disputed by Hungarian editors. However, the above comment is a personal attack by Yopie.--Nmate (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have encountered Nmate several times, I do second Yopie's complaint. Nmate calls legitimate edit review and/or occasional reversions 'hounding' repeatedly, although the policy accounts for such actions and describes only activities with apparent aim to harass the user as inappropriate.

Moreover, he frequently engages in edit warring without providing any explanation at all (as epitomised here [95]).

His edits are blatantly nationalistic in nature, he openly subscribes to fringe theories [96] and edits and aims to edit articles accordingly [97], even though the information is well-sourced he resorts to repeated blanking [98]. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And of course you are the best person to decide whose edits are blatantly nationalistic in nature. [99] --Nmate (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nmate accused two innocent users about sockpupeting User talk:Oficeri and [100] and stalked these users.--Yopie (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yopie's following, hounding (formerly known as wikistalking) of other editors can be well documented. On request I can provide several examples of highly problematic edits including sudden appearance in topics he never edited before immediately reverting others as his first edit. Other problems include, false description of good faith edits as vandalism, abuse of an automated edit tool twinkle among others ([101]). But the biggest problem is following others around into articles which never before interested Yopie. In this way this thread is a good opportunity to state that this practice will need to stop sooner or later one way or another.

There is reason to suspect that Yopie's reason here is to continue his following around and causing distress. And I present as evidence the above post by Yopie in the Revision as of 17:18, 19 November 2009 in this post Yopie writes

"Nmate accused two innocent users about sockpupeting User talk:Oficeri and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Modrajedobra#Are_you_MarkBA_.3F and stalked these users.".

In reality one of the mentioned users, Modrajedobra is blocked indefinitely for not other, than sockpuppeting [102]. Presenting such obviously false information in an attempt to defame a fellow editor, really reveals a lot. The information is openly available and incredibly easy to check, for any obvious and easily verifiable falsehoods. I suggest first we verify all information first, else we could be mislead in a way like this. Hobartimus (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, to that sockpuppetry issue, the number stays, as I have been accused by him as well (although, to be fair, Baxter9 was the main accuser) [103] [104].

To the hounding, please read the corresponding policy, check Nmate's edit and/or block history and consider, if checking his edits isn't more than merited. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I not checked Modrajedobra, my fault and sorry. But accusation of Oficeri and massive reverts of his edits by Nmate is proven.--Yopie (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, I have never been stalked Oficeri. He almost exclusively edited only

one article which is on my watchlist. And that was why I accused Oficeri of sockpuppetry because he was always editing just the same article. However, this case is already very outdated.--Nmate (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:HP1740-B

User is persistently uncivil towards me, but also in completely unrelated edit summaries and talk page discussions. He has been warned about this in the past (e.g. here[105], but behaviour is, after a relatively quiet period, again moving in the wrong direction. This is a very impolite edit summary. And this is rather blatant PA against me. Fram (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This admin constantly watches my edits. Supposably because of my edits as, "the number of errors in it is much higher than with most other editors but really because this 'admin' is (arguably) overinvolved in this article where he developed a personal grudge against(great wikiquette there right?) me (he, naturally denies this, but his edits - or rather reverts- speak for themselves) and made threats (as an admin) towards me. He has been warned for similar practices by fellow admins before (seen here). The supposed 'blatant PA' is actually an adapted form of his earlier remark on my supposed intelectual capacities. A skilled, objective, reader would have long since gotten that particular message. This 'wikiquette alert' report is just the latest of his attempts to obstruct me in editing wikipedia. This is a very sad excuse for an admin, and if that's breaking 'wikiquette' then I regret that, but it's the truth.HP1740-B (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"an adapted form of his earlier remark on my supposed intelectual capacities"? Could you provide a diff for that remark? I don't recall having discussed your capacities. Fram (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A link for the admin threats I made against you would be useful as well, so people can compare it to the Jack Merridew situation. Fram (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I already did, had you read my comment (more carefully) you would have known this: "the number of errors in it is much higher than with most other editors". This will be my last comment here; I've said what I wanted to say and I for one am not going to fuel your sad attempts at provoking conflict with me any further and suggest you get your 'kicks' from something else. Real admins can check my links (and yours, which support my case as much as my own) and can make up their mind. HP1740-B (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A remark on the number of errors in your edits is not a remark on your intellectual capacities. I note that no diff is given for the admin threats. Fram (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, HP1740, it looks to me like you don't deny making personal attacks against Fram, however, you seem to think that they are excused due to Fram's bad conduct as an administrator and due to personal attacks that you believe that you have received from him/her.
Now, I'm not saying that Fram is a bad administrator, or that they have made PAs, but you should realise, HP1740, that even if Fram has made personal attacks against you, that does not under any circumstances excuse you to return them, anyone making personal attacks is breaking policy, regardless of the circumstances. Even personal attacks against vandals are against policy. If you have a problem with Fram's conduct, you can bring it up in a civil manner at an appropriate venue, what you cannot continue to do is continue to make such personal attacks against Fram. Under no circumstances are personal attacks justified.
You have also brought up some issues that you have with Frams conduct here. Although you are correct that if Fram did make threats to you or comment disparagingly on your intellect those would be personal attacks (and would be dealt with accordingly). However, what you have failed to do is provide diffs showing that Fram has indeed done what you have accused them of. If you cannot provide such diffs then the accusation of Fram becomes a further personal attack from you (From WP:NPA:"Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.").
Please either provide evidence that Fram has been abusive in a polite and civil manner and let it be dealt with by a third party, or stop making such accusations without evidence, specifically, stop following Fram around going on about what a terrible administrator Fram is.
King regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

One thing he didn't do is "following Fram around": I have watched his edits for some time now, and corrected or reverted them where I felt that it was necessary, and in the interactions that followed on those talk pages and on his talk page, he made these remarks. He has, as far as I remember, not followed me to any unrelated pages. I agree with the rest of your statements. Fram (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Struck, my error. My apologises, HP1740-B. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe (but he may correct me) that the "threats" he talks about are the same post he mentions here: "Comments like the one on my talk page recently are belittling and menacing, and if you have something to say to me; you can do so directly, instead of hiding behind 'anonymous' notices on talk pages and lecturing me on supposed wikipedia policy, while you can't even hold on to the actual and moral rules of this project yourself." This was in reply to this post I made on his talk page. Whether this post was "belittling" is debatable (I don't believe it was), but I can't see how it can possibly be considered "menacing". These kinds of replies and discussions make it very hard to have a normal talk page discussion with HP-1740B. Fram (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:ObsessiveMathsFreak pattern of incivility

• Calling the AfD nominator of Elementary proof a "horse's ass": [106]
• Calling User:Arthur Rubin a fool: [107]
• A general and uncivil telling-off of every member of WP:WPM: [108]. Specifically, these line "So, to be frank, you are all appalling custodians of the mathematics articles... and you have disgraced yourselves yet again by voting for [the essay's] deletion."

Could someone uninvolved please look into this. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please notify the subject in line with the instructions at the top of the page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeliness note: First listed diff was three weeks ago; other two are current. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've come across ObsessiveMathsFreak before and I think his assumed name is a good description. However the edits don't strike me as being particularly personal but more as a colourful description of a perception about content. It is rather iffy on the civility issue but I've never felt actually insulted, I can see they're trying to communicate on the talk pages and improve things. Dmcq (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, it hardly helps the issue to refer to users involved as "freaks" Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was just using it in the way I assumed it was meant, like a real football enthusiast will know who in their team scored each goal for the last twenty years.. Dmcq (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, my mistake, apologises, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

AfDs and MfDs include Elementary Proof (closed as Keep on 1 Nov, nominated by Leon) and WP:Mathematosis (nominated 16 Nov by Dmcq) , and I assiduously looked for any pattern of incivility indeed. Dmcq is correct here. Collect (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I had hoped that at least someone would be willing to have a chat with ObsessiveMathsFreak and encourage him to be a little more civil. But apparently I don't really understand what civility is, because it is a stretch of the imagination to see how this kind of behavior passes. However, I accept the above judgement. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Civility says "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict". ObsessiveMathsFreak can be over the top but have you felt personally insulted or that ObsessiveMathsFreak has caused stress and conflict? Dmcq (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Initially I found his post very upsetting, yes. But I am often very sensitive about things like this. My goal in bringing this here wasn't to get the user blocked or anything, but just to see if there was someone around who could have a gentle discussion about this with him, since he does seem to be at least on the edge of incivility in many of his recent interactions with other users which doesn't lead to a better editing environment in my opinion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put a notice on ObsessiveMaths Freak's talk page, you should have done done that by the way, saying that to them. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left him a, hopefully friendly, note about the issue in response to Sławomir Biały's request that someone send him a message. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Likeminas

The user came to my talk page and accused me of "adding false informations" and of "tendentious editing" in article[109] Chilean people. The user removed the sourced informations I added to that article. I told him the informations are sourced, it comes from the book As Américas e a Civilização– Processo de formação e causas do desenvolvimento desigual dos povos americanos by Darcy Ribeiro and I even wrote a part of the book on the page of that article. This user did not even read the book or the talk page and accused me of adding "false informations"

He did not use the talk page until then. When he realized the informations are sourced, he changed his argument that I was adding "false informations" to the argument that the informations are "personal opinions" of the anthropologist Ribeiro. It's clear that this user is trying to find any argument to remove or hide informations from that article because he doesn't like them.

Likeminas is uncivil, because he started an edit-warring before using the talk page, removed sourced informations, accused me of faking informations and falsely warned me that I can be blocked for adding sourced informations to an article (when he is the one with a behaviour that leads to a block). I told him that if he thinks a source is not reliable, he may use the area of Wikipedia dedicated ask opinions of other users about it; but he is not able to decide if it is reliable or not by himself. Opinoso (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't address the content dispute here as it's not the appropriate place to do so. But in references to this user's claims of incivility, I find them ludicrous to say the least. A quick look at his talk page, and articles such as Brazil where he's involved in another feud explain why.

I try to assume with faith with Opinoso but his history of POV pushing in articles related to the ethnography of Chile makes that endeavor somewhat difficult. The "informations" he wants to add are polemic and contradictory at best, that's why I suggested he uses the talk page but so far has not done so. Likeminas (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. Likeminas is leaving uncivil messages on my talk, edit-warring and removing sourced informations. Opinoso (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any of the comments as uncivil and any accusations of edit-warring should be taken to the edit-warring noticeboard. Opinoso must obtain consensus for the material they wish to add. It is a content dispute. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The information was added weeks ago. The consensus should come from Likeminas asking people if he's able to remove it, and not remove it and later find a concensus. The information is sourced, and I don't need to ask permission to add sourced informations. But Likeminas does need to ask permission to remove it, what he didn't do, since here erased it before using the talk page. He said the source is POV and it is the personal opinion of the writer. So any source is POV, because any source show the opinion of the writer about the subject. Somebody please protect that article. Opinoso (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This report escaped the realm of civility issues from the very beginning. Hopefully we're able to work something out, in a civil and mature way when Opinoso gets back from today's block.Likeminas (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, wikiquette alerts is not the place to come if seeking guidance on content disputes. Please take the issue to a more appropriate noticeboard. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)