This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum. For incidents requiring administrator attention, refer to this link in the introductory text below. For mediation or other formal procedures, refer to the dispute resolution info-box on this page. Wikiquette Alerts depends on the help of interested editors to provide neutral viewpoints. Everyone is invited to participate in responding to alerts.

Shortcut: WP:WQA

Dispute resolution
Negotiation
Article talk pages Editor assistance Third opinion Requests for comment Wikiquette alerts
Mediation
Mediation Cabal Mediation Committee Requests for mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee Requests for arbitration Completed requests Arbitration clarifications Request Arbitration enforcement
Remedies
Editing restrictions General sanctions Mentorship

Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate. That's usually the best solution for everyone involved. If problems continue, then there are further options as described in this dispute resolution process link and the info-box to the right. For more information, click any of those links, or start with this article: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

IMPORTANT: Read the instructions before posting your alert. Review the section titled Procedure for this page, immediately following the table of contents below.

Please help to respond to Wikiquette alerts. This page is run by regular editors just like you, and needs more editors to help with the alerts. Anyone is welcome to help out, and in particular if you have been helped by this page, please return the favor by offering your advice on other incident reports. That's not a requirement for posting your report, but it's a good idea, and your help would be much appreciated. Responding to alerts is also a good way to learn more about Wikipedia policies and even more, about how to work with other users to calm situations without resorting to formal procedures. Wikiquette in a way is the basis of what allows the community to work smoothly together, so those are valuable skills to develop for those who like to edit Wikipedia. Thanks!

Are you in the right place?

• To report obvious vandalism please use administrator intervention against vandalism.
• Violations of the three revert rule should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
• If you feel an article needs protecting against rampant vandalism or a persistent edit war, please use requests for page protection.
• If you believe that one or more editors are sock puppets, please use Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.
• See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and helpful advice is at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors
• For all other incidents that may require administrator intervention, please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If two or more editors have warned another editor about his/her behavior, and the problem has continued, an alternative to posting to this page is to post at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
• If you would like to get one-to-one advice, feedback, and counseling from another editor, you can use Wikipedia:Editor assistance.

Procedure for this page

Instructions for users posting alerts

This page is not formally monitored; all helpers here are volunteers. It may take some time to receive a response. If the problem is continuing and you have not received any results from your posting here, return to this page and post an update to your original statement of the problem.

If you have not received help and the problem becomes urgent or is escalating, refer to the list above and post your report to one of the Administrator Notice boards instead. In that case, please edit your post on this page to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere.

• Post your alert to the bottom of the page — add a new sub-heading with a short description of the issue (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 and instead supply a simple direct explanation of the problem, along with the user-ids of the Users involved and a link or two to the page where the problem is happening. A concise way to do this is to include diff's that show the problem. (A guide to creating diff's is here).
• Describe the problem or issues as neutrally as possible. Avoid emotional content that could cause the problem to escalate.
• Sign your report by using ~~~~ or the signature button in the edit bar.
• Notify the reported user(s). Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here.
• Do not continue your discussion in detail here. Instead, continue discussing it wherever you originally were—editors responding to posts here will review the discussions where they are occuring. They may post notes there, however in situations that involve mulitple pages, reviewing editors will post their comments here, so watch this page and refer back to your entry when you notice that a comment has been posted.

If your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere, please do not file a WQA. It is much easier for other users to help you when your dispute is being handled in one forum, not ten. If an issue is already serious enough to have gone to WP:ANI or WP:RFC, there's not much we can do to help.

If you're filing a report to complain about a WQA editor who responded to a previous WQA alert, please stop now, and think. If you were contacted by a WQA volunteer based on a previously filed alert, they were acting as a neutral third party and probably have no interest in personally entering into a dispute with you. Asking you to respect WP:CIVIL or telling you not to make personal attacks does not itself constitute any sort of incivility or personal attack.

Instructions for editors responding to alerts

All editors are invited to assist resolving reports entered on this page. Please strive for neutrality and focus first on calming tempers where discussions have become heated.

To help with this page, place it on your watchlist so you can see when new alerts are posted. Or you quickly scan the page for items here that are either marked with the WQA "Work in progress" message-box or have no status indicator at all. If an alert does not have any kind of response yet, it is open and needs attention.

Work in Progress - comments welcome(Optional comment and/or signature)

• Review open items and when you find one that you feel you can help with, visit the relevant pages and observe the situation. When you are ready, enter your helpful comments and strive to improve the situation, at the disputed page if appropriate, or on this page if that seems better.
• Enter a note on this page in the relevant section to indicate that you have joined the process. Add the {{WQA in progress}} template (as displayed above) to the top of the report item's sub-section.
• If there is no action needed, or after action has produced results, enter a note on this page to describe the results, including constructive comments on about any Wikiquette breaches you may have seen.
• When the issue is ready to be closed, follow the steps below.

Closing the reports:

Resolved. (Optional comment and/or signature)

• If you believe the situation is resolved with consensus or at very least grudging acceptance of the involved parties, close the item by entering the {{resolved}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

Stuck. (Optional comment and/or signature)

• If on the other hand, after you have done your best you find that the problems are continuing and you feel there is nothing further that you can do, then consider what the best next step for the parties would be. State your suggestions on the relevant talk page, and also in a comment here, what dispute resolution process you recommend, and include a link for them to follow. To close the item here, enter the {{stuck}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

Stale. (Optional comment and/or signature)

• For items that remain open but have no additional comments added after several days to a week, close the item by entering the {{stale}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere(Optional comment and/or signature)

• For items that should not have been posted to WQA at all -- blatant vandalism, accusations of sock puppetry, a request for adminship, etc., please refer the original poster to the proper forum, and place the {{NWQA}} template under the section heading.

The five templates may optionally include your signature and additional summary comments by including them after a pipe, for example, {{resolved|User has been reminded about [[WP:NPA]] ~~~~}}, or {{stuck|Referred to [[WP:ANI]].}} This automatically formats the included text as small text displayed next to the template. For detailed instructions on using the templates, click any of the template name links above. Please note that using a timestamped signature with one of these templates will delay the automatic bot archival of that alert to 14 days from when you sign the template.

Archiving alerts

Reports are considered closed and automatically archived by bot (whether tagged or not using any of the templates described above) one week after the last timestamped signature in the discussion. Reports marked resolved, stuck, or NWQA (as above) may be manually archived sooner than this. Links to the archive pages can be found in the Archive Box next to the Table of Contents above.

Active alerts

User:Aradic-es

Resolved. Original complainant is satisfied with results

This user has recently made some post which I considered incivil, but I could not be completely sure. Any accusation always appeared to be hidden. I think, however, that with this post:

• Diff

the user has crossed the line for civil behavior. I have tried reponding to his/her previous posts as best I could, but I have never called the user an "amateur" and/or declared myself a "universal expert". I don't think I deserve to be labeled "member of anti-diacritics squad" or part of some "hidden illegal attempt". There is a user called User:Aradic-en which has shown similar behavior, but I don't know if it is the same person.--HJensen, talk 12:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing an issue, based on the diff's provided. The user seems to feel his or her edits/opinions are not being heard. On top of that, is it possible that someone has been reverting their edits when they are related to accents on people's names (aka diacritical marks)? For example, we anglos tend not to type "Nenad Zimonjić", and instead use "Zimonjic". His real name includes the diacritical mark above the "c". If you go to Nenad Zimonjić you will see the diacritical mark is there on his main article page. BMW(drive) 13:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I may just be too sensitive. I just think the tone and all the unreferenced accusations and namecalling were incivil. And the whole idea of presenting my "rhetorics" in such a grossly misleading and insulting way stroke me as being in poor taste.--HJensen, talk 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• As I have mentioned:I just use the same rhetorics as other poeple do. Take a look at the following discussion [1] [2] [3] and at talk pages about Novak Đoković, Franjo Tuđman, Goran Ivanišević and so on... --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I won't try the diacritics (except for in French, because I know those :) ). Policy is here: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(standard_letters_with_diacritics). Have a look for example at this NHL player's page: Dick_Tarnstrom Oh look, diacritics throughout! Oh look, a redirect from the English spelling to the Swedish spelling. However, this is the English Wikipedia, and if I read the naming conventions properly, I think that his name should have only included the diacritics in the title, and not in the rest of the article. The issue overall may involve specific uses inside articles that mention a player whose name includes a diacritic, things might become...interesting. Do we follow the standard policy for Wikilinks says that you only include a Wikilink the FIRST time you use the term, and thus would only include diacritics the first time the person's name is mentioned in the article? I would expect not, again, this is the English Wikipedia and the English eye more commonly sees the anglicized version of the name. The player's article should include diacritics, and a redirect created using the anglicized version. Anywhere else, you use the English spelling. I can completely understand the frustration when you try and use diacritics and others revert your changes. I do not believe it is "anti-diacritics", it is more "using policy". It may seem confusing to those whose first language uses diacritics, but if the rest of us edited in say ... the French Wikipedia, we would be expected to use accents! BMW(drive) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Let me add the short version: reverting someone's edits is unfortunate. I don't blame the editor for becoming a bit cheesed for having accents reverted. Quoting Wikiscripture can help, but make sure we quote the right ones. If we politely explain/point to policy and do not belittle someone's original language, it's a smoother process. Wikiquette is a 2 way street. Hopefully, by understanding where diacriticals fit now will make it easy for everyone. BMW(drive) 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me add an even shorter version: This was about incivil behavior of an editor. Not an issue of diacritics. I have not reverted accents except for the page on Djokovic whenever I thought it was consensus. Not anywhere else! So where is my side of this so-called "two way" street of Wikiquette? I am not the one adressing others with unreferenced accusations, name`calling, misleading presentations of my behavior and other insults --HJensen, talk 21:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

HJensen is absolutely correct. This is not about diacritics. This is about the incivil behavior of Aradic-es. Tennis expert (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Same rhetorics again. "My behaviour is correct and others' are uncivil". --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is because there is a bit of truth to it. You appear to be around here just to make sour comments about others' edits. See this recent diff. It does not appear very productive, and your (singular) rhetorics often appear very mean spirited. --HJensen, talk 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In order to understand the behaviour you have to acknowledge and admit to the source. From the posts I've seen, there were a whole whack of incivilities in both directions, whether intentional or not. The user is rightly saying so above. Personally, I hope that if the biggest issue was ABOUT diacritics, which then caused ire in both directions, the explanation way up above addresses that issue. It's now up to Aradic-es to say "thank you, that was the cause" or "no, it was not", and for both sides to admit they went a bit out of control on this one. Hinting that someone is less intelligent, or less qualified to edit because their first language is not English will cheese them off. The more that the all parties refuse to acknowledge they participated in this conflagration, the longer it will take to solve. BMW(drive) 12:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So, please show where I said or hinted that anyone was less intelligent, less qualified. You seem to be saying that because a lot of people are engaged in a heated debate, then it is permissable that I should be personally attacked at length as shown by the posted diff? Am I correct?--HJensen, talk 14:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What I said was this: if you look back at your comments, or even the comments of your group, do you see anything that might have pissed off this editor, causing him to get angry? None of his comments were crude towards you, it was obviously an angry expression of frustration at what appeared to be a group of people who were taking action against him, some of whom were being in appropriate towards him. BMW(drive) 16:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

a) I don't belong to any group (not that I know of) b) His comments in the diff above are grossly incivil and directed at my personally; i.e., crude towards me.--HJensen, talk 17:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Have you read the diff that you first provided? Take a look at it as an outsider. It's very clear to me that he uses the word "you" as a plural, and he responds exactly to the question you asked him. He identifies HOW he's being treated, and by WHOM. He very obviously sees that a group of editors (unfortunately including yourself) are taking his contributions lightly. I see no direct attack at the singular "you" except "our dear Norse PhD HJensen", if you call that an attack. He links to a discussion about diacritics that you apparantly sided against the use of them, so you are a member of the "anti-diacritics squad" ... is that an uncivil attack? Um, no ... you are a one of a group of editors that spoke out against using diacritics. BMW(drive) 18:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never, ever, spoken against diacritics. So member of "anti-diacritics squad" (a very nasty term, imo); absolutely not! (And I do not read the "you" as in plural; if it is meant as plural, it is of course a different matter.)--HJensen, talk 22:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment: Yes, I think "our dear Norse PhD HJensen" is an attack as it is obviously sarcastic in tone, and tries to make fun of my etnical background and education. Gee, had I dared to say just anything about his/her ethnic background, I would have been blocked forever.--HJensen, talk 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that this person acted without any provocation whatsoever? Are you sure that absolutely nothing you said (or the way it could have been interpreted) made him respond to your DIRECT question in an angry, matter-of-fact manner? Is there no justification for his state of mind? Were you actually a subject of attack, or were you the proverbial "messenger" that got a little shot up? Have any of you even told the user that you opened this Wikiquette file on him so that he could respond in some way by explaining OR apologizing? BMW(drive) 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My honest belief is that the person responds because the person cannot get things precisely as desired. I can of course not be sure (as in certain) that I have said "absolutely nothing" that made the person respond as reported. As for justification for another persons state of mind, I cannot come up with much. The user seems particularly angry with the fact that I cite Wikipedia policies when making arguments (I thought that was ok to do). I have been enganged in a long, and heated debate on the Novak Djokovic page about the name of that article. Maybe what made the person angry, was the fact that I argued for the name "Novak Djokovic" citing WP:UE (as mentioned, citing a policy seems to be viewed as a provocation—but I think it should not), while others argued for the native Serbian spelling, Novak Đoković, as this is viewed as correct. It has been a long discussion, but this user has not really contributed productively to the dicussion, just every once in a while made some angry outbursts. And some of them, for reasons I cannot tell, have been directed towards me. I cannot know why. Following policy, I alerted the user on the user's talk page that this Wikiquette file was opened (mentioning even before that I would do it if he/she continued with these angry condescending and borderline racist remarks, which I asked for a direct clarification of. When I got it, I filed it here).--HJensen, talk 10:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I have read the entire section of the discussion page where the comments took place. Early in the process, the "anticipated responses" to standardizing the non-use of diacritics was brought out early. You did appear to be, based on reading, against the use of "diacritics". This would put you as part of the "anti diacritics squad" - this does not appear to be an insulting term - none of those words are considered swearing. Just before his outburst, you appear to have (hopefully) accidentally egged him on by saying "I can't make head or tails of what you are writing. I am sorry. If your post was coherent...." (emphasis added) ... phew, talk about appearing a little uncivil. I do not blame him whatsoever for being a little p'd off. You then asked him point blank questions, and when he replied, you brought him to a Wikiquette complaint. Rather than do that, I personally would have expected you to respond to his concerns. IMHO that's like asking someone "hey, can you show me how to strangle a chicken", and then calling the SPCA after they show you how. I think you would be better off answering his concerns, showing him that you take their concerns into account, yes, use policy in the right way (i.e don't cut off arguments simply by writing WP:WHATEVER, show them how they apply to the situation. Work WITH the editor to make them a BETTER editor - it's obvious they have some knowledge about the subject, use it. You know, a Flies/Honey/Vinegar kind of thing. BMW(drive) 12:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for those seeing this, here is the full post of what the citation above was taken from (i.e., out of context): "You are putting up a lot of straw men here for something I really do not understand. I can't make head or tails of what you are writing. I am sorry. If your post was coherent, it could be reported as a breach of Wikiquette, as you seem to be implying that some editors are racists by proxy. But I hope I misunderstand". I am reaching out here but trying to warn that the editor is about to cross a line, but that I give him the benefit of the doubt. The next post shows he means it. "Anti diacritics squad" not an insulting term? Well, first of all, it is untrue, as I have never spoken against diacritics. I have argued in favor of WP:UE. This editor apparently want to ignore that policy. So you think I can call this editor a part of "The Balkan Army For the Annihilation of the English Laguage on the English Wikipedia" without it being incivil (none of the words are swearing)? Again, all other editors involved in the various discussions have been productive (also in discussions on the adequacy of policies or not). This editor just throws stange and angry accusations around.--HJensen, talk 13:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I snipped out something that to you appeared "out of context" is because that's the portion that someone will immediately see, especially by someone for whom English is a second language. I'm not saying that they were not slightly inappropriate, but if you fail to see that they were actively spurred into that response, then I'm not sure what else can be done for you. What they said to you was (from this 3rd party perspective) not that bad to begin with, especially considering what caused them to say it. I've tried to show you the common sense approach here, but it doesn't seem to be working for you. From your original post, you were not even sure if it was uncivil. Sorry if I'm not wailing away on the other editor as it appears that you would like, but from my perspective, this is not an issue...yet. If someone else thinks otherwise, that's all well and good, and they can take over from now, if not then you've got your answer. BMW(drive) 15:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for looking at these things with fresh eyes. As indicated above, I may be overly sensitive as the namecalling has been going on for a while. But if you as a third party do not think "anti diacritics squad" is offensive, then I respect your opinion. To me it just has very unpleasant militaristic connotations. And the "Dear Norse" stuff I also found offensive in the condescending context. Does it really take a four-letter word to be incivil?--HJensen, talk 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this :

I actually feel a bit sorry for people whose national identity apparently resides in letters

Does you really get hurt beeing called Norse ??

WP:UE says nothing about personal names . --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 06:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

a) I, of course, stand by my statement "I actually feel a bit sorry for people whose national identity apparently resides in letters". I made it when somebody (a user User:Aradic-en) started a tirade on the article names of various Danish writers at the Djokovic talk page. b) Hurt, no. But in context, as explained above, it felt very condescending. c) We are not discussing naming policies here.--HJensen, talk 07:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

HJensen, the diff you gave, that you consider a personal attack, clearly offends (since you are offended) but it isn't a personal attack. It is Añtó| Àntó's description of the treatment he (?) thinks he has been receiving from you. Clearly you have offended him. On the other hand, ``I actually feel a bit sorry for people whose national identity apparently resides in letters is a personal remark that IMO is inappropriate on Wikipedia. --Una Smith (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please expand a bit on differences here? I made a very general comment in a debate with a different user (who in that case attacked me - by name - out from the blue in another time), and that is considered personal? I would have thought it was as a minimum irrelevant here? But when Aradic-es directs a comment towards me (by name) then it is not? I am honestly confused here. What you seems to be saying is: it is generally impossible to make a personal attack if you are just describing your feelings about a treatment you think you have received. So, whenever I think I am being offended by someone, it is fair game? --HJensen, talk 10:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider the difference between "I feel intimidated" (complaint) and "you are a bully" (attack). --Una Smith (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I, of course, see that these differ. My problem was that I interpreted what you wrote as if you thought that the former can excuse the latter. I would, by the way, like to know whether I have been in debate with two different users or whether they are the same user operating under different accounts (The diff presented by User:Aradic-es above was something I wrote after being provoked by a User:Aradic-en. What are policies about (potential) multiple accounts?--HJensen, talk 17:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

After being made aware of this alert, I felt I had to contribute my experience of this user. After waiting for days for a translation of a post on another user's talk page that appeared to be abusive towards Greeks (calling them "Junanci" - apparently a Slavicized version of the Turkish word for Greeks), and then being mocked by the two users in question, one telling me the inflammatory language was Croatian, the other "Macedonian", I was given this botched translation, in which he appears to be calling Greeks "shameful hypocrites". He also has a history of taunting Greeks on article talk pages, for which he received a warning on his talk page. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But what I have learned from all of the above is that as long an editor has felt offended and doesn't swear when going after you (apparently under multiple account names), then it is not breach of etiquette. So, "shameful hypocrites" is probably considered a mild and understandable reaction to a provocation around here. Had the user said "asshole" there would probably be a permanent block underway. Well, laguange is a mysterious thing, as I definitely consider the latter expression milder than the former.--HJensen, talk 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What is even more interesting is that his outburst was completely unprovoked. It was simply his way of expressing an opinion on the intricacies of Greek foreign policy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Greek issue was likely unprovoked, the other was significantly provoked. However, if he wrote the Greek one moments after being provoked about something else, it could "explain" his mood... (note, I said "explain" not "excuse")BMW(drive) 17:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

a) No, it was not "significantly provoked". The user (or users) had not been a part of the debate, but appeared out of the blue, as I have explained, and just threw around angry remarks (many directed at me personally). And the quote by me presented above (which I stand by 100%; it represents my general sentiments, as I carefully made clear) was in a response to another user—please note that, another user b) Why is it likely that the "Greek issue" was unprovoked? The user could have read the things from the sideline without participating, and then felt extremely offended. That is in all likelihood what happened. And while that does not excuse it as you note, does it explain it sufficiently such that it is not a breach of wikiquette?--HJensen, talk 18:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* As I've said before, he was provoked by the entire argument, not by you - you bore the brunt of his "anger" because you asked him very pointed questions. From what I have read, Aradic-es' comments about Greeks appears to have come out of the blue, as noted also by Kékrōps BMW(drive) 18:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* too (yes, I find it boring also, thanks for staying put). I just wanted in the above to argue for the similarity of the user's approach in the two cases: Not to participate in a discussion, but then suddenly throwing in some harsh remarks. Sure, he was likely offended by me since I asked him/her directly to tell everybody what the purpose of the remarks actually were.--HJensen, talk 18:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, Wikipedia is never boring, min venn. :-) The sigh was merely a sign of frustration that perhaps my Engelsk was failing me BMW(drive) 19:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Amid all the above I see HJensen has two concerns. One, that Aradic-es may be a sock puppet. Two, incivility by Aradic-es toward HJensen. Re the first, there is a procedure to request admins with special powers to check IP logs, to reveal sock puppets. But without a better reason than HJensen has now, I expect a request would be denied. Wikipedia users are entitled to use multiple accounts, provided they do not abuse them. Re the second, I would say that the incivility by Aradic-es is relatively mild, about on par with HJensen's own incivility, and that HJensen seems to be taking personal offense at what HJensen perceives to be hints and insinuations. Ie, HJensen finds insults when he "reads between the lines". HJensen, don't do that; it is a fast way to make yourself crazy. I suggest both Aradic-es and HJensen allow this to be water under the bridge, and in future refrain while on Wikipedia from making any personal remarks about anyone, including general remarks about classes of people. --Una Smith (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You say: "I would say that the incivility by Aradic-es is relatively mild, about on par with HJensen's own incivility". So that means I am the more incivil? I am completely baffled. Let me get a straight answer on this: Is calling somebody a "member of the anti-diacritics squad" mild? I find it both wrong, and very offensive with its military connotations. Would you therefore think it to be mild also, if I called the user "member of the anti-English language squad"? And what about adressing him/her with deliberately misspelled user names, and making sarcastic comments on my nationality and education, is that also mild? So why don't I go all the way and next time call the user: "Dear herr Arabic-as, the member of the 'Balkan Army of anti-English language' "? Is that mild too? I have a feeling that I would ont get away with this. I sense some political correctness in play here.

Actually, adressing the user like that, would fall very much into the style of the other user Aradic-en's incivil comments towards me, as can be seen here: diff1 (where he/she deliberately misspells my username and make some suggestions for article name changes in an inappropriate place), here: diff2 (where it apparently was not understood that I supported those of the suggestions that were actual move suggestions—instead I am accused of deliberately planning to violate policy), here: diff3 (where I am called a bigger catholic than the pope; but that is not serious), and here: diff4 (where he turns my general comments about some people's strong feelings for letters into assertions about phycological help). But, of course, I am only guessing that this user "Aradic-en" is the same as "Aradic-es". Hm. I am genuinly confused, as I feel that it is me that has to defend myself, as if it was me that was accused of incivility. Weird.--HJensen, talk 22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

HJensen, don't worry ... I believe that if you had a real concern about sockpuppetry, you would have filed that elsewhere as required. Your focus has been on perceived incivility. I do not believe that anyone in their right mind would suggest that you were more uncivil, but as I have hopefully suggested all along, you may have had some small part in the other person's behaviour - or as a minimum, you bore the brunt of it because you asked him a series of direct questions. I have left a note on the other editor's page about retaliatory actions not working well, and behaviour overall. Try and be especially inclusive with this editor ... when they aregue a point, try something along the lines of "...based on current English Wikipedia policy, how would you suggest this be worded?" When he replies, don't pick it apart completely, but include as much of his suggestion as can be used, and explain why the rest just doesn't fit. You don't change policy on a talk page, but you can gain consensus .. and one person's belief is not consensus. BMW(drive) 23:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks a lot for your efforts. As I said somewhere above, I may have been way to sensitive and letting myself get too annoyed with this. Ah, strike the "may". I will try my best sticking with your, obviously preferable, suggestion of being more positive (even though it sometimes takes an extra cup of coffee :-) ). I really appreciate your inputs. For me, this can be put to rest. It is off my chest, and I have, as in all situations on Wikipedia, learned something. Not so as to get the last word, but some stuff still puzzles me, but I accept that this is part of the whole process. We can't understand everything. All the best,--HJensen, talk 08:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

How did I know Kekrops would spin this? Here is what actually happened. I asked Aradic if he hated Greeks as a nation, or only the hypocrites. He replied only the hypocrites. So there. And compared to the insults coming from Greek trolls in discussions related to the Republic of Macedonia, those comments were mild. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 09:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He didn't say that at all. He said the "Junanci", his deliberately provocative neologism for Greeks, the overwhelming majority of which oppose his pro-Slavic views on Macedonia, were "hypocrites" who had stooped to a "shameful" low from the level of Socrates. If that's not ethnic vilification, I don't know what is. By the way, seeing as your Croatian "sucks", by your own admission, how can we be sure that you really know what he said? Especially given that you yourself embraced his anti-Greek slur and have an obvious interest in defending him? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're so confident on what he said, why were you whining for a translation in the first place? And again, this is all pretty rich considering the ethnic vilification that we've seen from you. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 09:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I wanted it to be clear to everyone else. And your accusation is laughable considering your recent exploits. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, you're fluent in Croatian, definitely not twisting it to make it look much worse than it is (was, since that's a stale discussion). And it's more than an accusation, since you do it time and time again, and I really don't expect you to be able to stop. Laugh all you want, it doesn't change anything. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're disrupting the discussion here, which is about User:Aradic-es's incivility. Please stop. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've informed the others on what actually happened regarding his comments (rember, he was talking to me), so that they don't go off believing your fairy tale. There's really no need for you to reply and cause further disruption. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 10:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his precise words according to his own translation were "it is shameful on what did they(Yunans, btw) come". I'll let others decide if that vilifies Greeks or not. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Samuel_Webster

Stale. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As someone who works hard to resolve and mediate issues on Wikipedia, I do realize that this leaves me open for attack. However, a strange dispute with User:Samuel_Webster has escalated to a point that I actually asked for page protection on my Talk page. I am loathe to submit this, as I hate to admit that I was unable to solve what seems to be such a minor issue. In fact, I waited until this morning, hoping the other editor would have "slept on it" and reconsidered their position.

I first encountered the user during an AN/I related to the spelling of Chinese Olympic venues. The editor was accused of reverting "Centre" (the IOC standard) to "Center" (the American English version) on almost all articles. It was a contentious issue. I attempted to assist, and supported the editor by pointing out that the English version of the official Beijing games website had to be used as the official English title. I used the word "sadly" in my description, because as a Canadian journalist, we generally use British English.

Not long after, the editor posted a question on my talk page, asking why I was "sad". I replied, using the phrase "Bastardization of the English Language" in quotations (showing it was not original thought). I replied advised the user in that same post that although I would be happy to help in future issues, I would not discuss additional lingustic issues. It should be noted that our sister project, Wiktionary defines bastardization as "A degradation of a language caused by the passage of time or geographical remoteness".

Three days later, I recieved a new edit full of personal attacks. I immediately reverted this change as vandalism, as I believe that being called prejudiced and racist on my own personal talk page. Although this is an issue of no personal attacks, I wanted the to flag the edit to my talk page loudly to advise the editor that they were crossing the line. They also posted the exact same post on their talk page.

Of course, I will not remove such filth from someone else's page, but I put an angry reply to being called a racist on the user's Talk page. Yes, calling someone a racist and prejudiced in writing on a public forum is a major personal attack. The user reverted that post as vandalism, however left the offensive racism commentary on their talk page, thus leaving their "attack" visible, but my "defence" was removed.

I re-added my defence, and added additional information, responding to their original accusations, asking the user to leave me alone permanently, which the editor again reverted thereby STILL leaving his personal attacks visible, but removing any chance of me defending myself.

I used Template:uw-npa1 as the editor still did not seem to understand his incivility, which was promptly reverted, and the editor decided to reciprocate, using the same template, but stating that "Please do not make refer to dialects or other aspects of culture that differ from your own as "bastardizations". This goes against WP:CIVIL".

As this specific template and the reasoning used was not valid as per WP:CIVIL, I reverted it. I then asked for 1-day page protection on my Talk page, and re-emphasized my request for the editor to leave me alone.

At this point, an editor (User:FisherQueen) with whom I have a positive relationship from past dealings intervened, and the discussion unfortunately spilled over onto their talk page. This diff on their page, followed by this one by FisherQueen on the editor's page are, I believe, key replies.

The bottom line is this: A personal attack is defined as one directed at a specific editor. Calling someone "prejudiced" and "racist", are personal attacks. Using a term that our own sister project defines as simply "a degradation of a language" is not a personal nor "cultural" attack. Continuing to have such racist comments appear on a Talk page, plus the removal of attempts to "defend" myself from such comments is merely a continuation of those personal attacks. I have asked the editor to a) remove the offensive comments against me, b) understand WP:CIVIL (and therefore understand the use of warning templates) to no avail. FisherQueen has asked the editor to remove the offensive comments, to which the editor replied a very loud no.

This incident is very close to being an RfC, and indeed, although ideally I would like to have the accusations of racism completely struck permanently from Wikipedia, I'm not going there yet.

In short, can someone please help this user understand policy and their actions. BMW(drive) 12:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I try to fight prejudice wherever I see it. Since one person's prejudice is another person's matter of fact empirical view, any attempt to fight prejudice is likely to be at least as controversial as the prejudice itself.

Anti-Americanism (in a variety of forms) is rampant on Wikipedia. This is one of the prejudices I try to fight. It is so rampant it's not even "seen." People toss out hateful comments as if "everyone knows that X". There's more to bve said about this, but I have not the time.

I retract absolutely nothing that I say, and I doubt BWilkins will retract anything s/he says.

My recommendation is thus: let's drop the whole matter.

A further recommendation (to everyone): try not call a culture, or any aspect of a culture, a "bastardization." (Invoking what Wiktionary says about the meaning or meanings of the word to justify its use doesn't help matters much.)

Best wishes, Samuel Webster (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PS For anyone who wants to investigate this issue thoroughly, please don't assume my not commenting on BWilkins' summary above means I think it's accurate. I think it's inaccurate (mainly because it's incomplete). Please do not comment without researching the matter yourself.

• Fact 1: "Bastardization: means "A degradation of a language caused by the passage of time or geographical remoteness", no matter what dictionary you read. NO attack on any person or culture occurred.
• Fact 2: The editor continues to refer to me as prejudiced and racist on their talk page, having removed my defence twice.
• Fact 3: The above words as a direct attack on a specific editor are contrary to WP:CIVIL
• Fact 4: The editor complains about non-existent anti-Americanism, and yet is not even American (European, by their own admission). Americans can defend themselves, if required - trust me, I have been romantically involved with a good number of them, and work with others daily.
• Fact 5: The above continues, even though the editor chooses to actually ignore my family ethnic mix. BMW(drive) 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PPS A more general claim seems needed: don't assume my not commenting on any summary here, present at the time of my writing or added later, signals my agreement with it. It certainly does not. I will be extremely busy with other matters for a week or two, then will try to say more. (And a cooling off period is worthwhile, it seems to me....) Samuel Webster (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

While your disgusting claims of me being prejudiced and racist remain on your Talk page, there will not be cooling off, and I brought this to "Wikiquette" to try and resolve it peacefully. If additional actions/sanctions are required, then so be it. PS: Editors who try and help you on your talk page are not vandals, please read WP:VANDAL to better understand. BMW(drive) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

Resolved. between Matt Lewis and Sarah777 - nothing else to see here; filing party advised to move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Musicmogul09‎

Resolved. Blocked for disruptive editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Montanabw

I consider this diff by User:Montanabw to be a personal attack on me. And this revert by the same editor to reflect ownership. Those are just two examples of many. I have been ignoring this behavior for ... over a year now, but perhaps I should not continue to ignore it. What do you think? --Una Smith (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Una and I seem to chronically rub each other the wrong way. Her diff, you will note, is months old. Last time we tangled, the pronunciation of chaps went to mediation. This is an ongoing, ridiculous failure to assume good faith from an individual who keeps promoting fringe theories in numerous horse articles. I appear to be the only person in WikiProject Equine who is not intimidated by her bullying tactics. I consider this an attempt at intimidation. Montanabw^(talk) 05:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

And a revert of information so blatently incorrect as to nearly constitute a nonsense edit is not ownership. Sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 05:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note the edit summary. --Una Smith (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing uncivil about this edit summary. She asks you to take the discussion to the talk page, as opposed to you, who immediately revert her edit, and then post a slightly rude and very generic message on the talk page. Here's the difference I see: On the talk page, Montana has posted specifics about what she doesn't like and asked you to source them properly. You have posted a generic message telling people not to revert you with nothing backing up your position. Dana boomer (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, the revert and its edit summary are an example of Montanabw's ownership. Reverting a user's contribution with an "is NOT" and instruction to take it to the discussion page, as Montanabw did here, is ownership. Civil behavior on Montanabw's part would have been to leave my contribution in the article and begin a discussion herself on the talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw writes I appear to be the only person in WikiProject Equine who is not intimidated by her bullying tactics. Let's invite WikiProject Equine here. I posted the link here. --Una Smith (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I did notify Montanabw; she deleted my notice here. --Una Smith (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it is giving me high blood pressure. How about we go to our own talk pages and negotiate a truce before this thing escalates further? Montanabw^(talk) 06:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Tossing in my two cents here, after seeing the posting on the Equine project page...

I have worked with Montana quite a bit in the past on various horse-related articles. I have found her to be a knowledgable and competent editor with a good base in both writing skills and WP policy. She is the one who first welcomed me into Wikipedia, and is generally the one I go to when I have a specific question about an equine article. While she can sometimes be a little outspoken in her comments, I have never found her to be uncivil, and in fact quite the opposite. In her dealings with me, she has always been willing to change her mind when presented with solid sources that contradict her, and is always willing to help newcomers who show that they are willing to learn.

Now, on to her dealings with Una... I have watched their ongoing conflict over the past several months (although honestly I thought it had settled down recently, to my joy), but have never joined in. Honestly, the constant battling that they were doing was enough to give anyone high blood pressure, and I didn't feel like getting into the fight. In what I saw, it always seemed to me that when both sides provided solid sources, the conflict tended to de-escalate. While Montana always asked for specific sources (albiet sometimes with a few editorializing, somewhat off-topic comments), Una often countered with accusations of bad faith, incivility, and few, if any, reliable, verifiable sources to back up her commentary. This is just what I've seen from watching around the edges of this ongoing fight. Dana boomer (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Copying and pasting comment by another user from the project talk page on this subject: Dana boomer (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the appropriate place for this conversation, but I looked at the diff and I don't see anything uncivil or intimidating by User:Montanabw. Montanabw seems to be extremely knowledgeable (much more than I) in all things horse related and I have yet to see an incorrect edit in the areas I have been to. - Epousesquecido (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Struck first sentence because this probably is the correct place. Thank you Dana. - Epousesquecido (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I must say I am puzzled by Una Smith's posting on this page. The talk page post she describes as "an attack" does not, to my mind, read as such. In the course of a talk page dispute about terminology, Montanabw mentions previous conflicts and disagreements with Una, admits her own shortcomings, and points out the advantages of having a neutral party involved in discussion. ("All I want to do at this point is have neutral people babysit these articles where we are both editing because it keeps things from getting personal and we both behave better with adult supervision.") The edit summary to Fiador is not impolite, either: Montanabw merely reverts an uncited edit (with a suggestion it was discussed on talk page) , as is the approved practice on WP. Following Una's reversion, Montanabw did not engage in an edit war, but added a fact tag, so that the matter could be resolved. It is also ludicrous for Una to state that she has "been ignoring this behavior for ... over a year now": as she admits herself, she has sought mediation for disputes in the past. This is no one-sided dispute; Una has not always responded with all due "Wikiquette" to Montanabw.

I must also add my own testimony to those offered above. I have every respect for Montanabw, for her intelligent and critical editing, her hard work, and her willingness to help other editors. That may read as merely the loyal praise of a friend, but our wiki-friendship has arisen out of just those attributes of Monatanabw's: as a complete stranger, and non-expert on equine matters, I challenged her edits at Horses in warfare regarding the size of knight's horses. Far from responding with ownership, dismissal or rudeness, she engaged in discussion, read my contrary references with interest, rewrote her sections to reflect the new information, and collaborated with me on a new article which presented the matter in more depth. Moreover, Montanabw was unstinting in time and energy, guiding me (as a relative newbie) through the whole process. (Without her mentoring, I would not be the productive wikiholic I am today!) While it may be true that she, like most people, has the occasional flash of annoyance or ill-temper, I can state quite confidently that she is not one to use intimidation or to issue personal attacks, and far from pushing her own POV, actively engages in research and discussions to ensure factual accuracy in articles, backed up with good citations. Gwinva (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I sought mediation to resolve a content dispute, which was resolved. Here, I address an altogether different matter: incivility. Particularly, a pattern of making personally directed remarks on talk pages and in edit summaries. --Una Smith (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, I sent Una a message on her talk page suggesting that we just work out a truce between us. I'd prefer to work this out there. Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This belongs here. Montanabw tries to pretend this is merely a personal conflict, but her incivil behaviors affect others, as her edit summaries and diffs plainly show. She has been warned already about ownership, here. --Una Smith (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In case the problem isn't obvious to everyone, here is what it is like for me to be on the receiving end of her personally directed edits. I substituted an image with the neutral edit summary change lead image. Were I to behave like Montanabw so often does, I might have indulged myself and written an edit summary like this: Replaced presumably well intentioned but grossly inadequate (poor resolution, poor clarity, poor composition, poor lighting, poor conformation) photo with a superior one. You really shouldn't use your own photos, that is COI and OR. --Una Smith (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RECOMMENDATION: This argument has simply become a spillover from somewhere else (talk pages, project page, etc.) The idea of the Wikiqette forum is to try and get non-involved, 3rd party editors to view the situation with a fresh set of eyes and make suggestions. IMHO, by posting about this Wikiquette issue in the project forum itself, you have simply changed locales for discussion, and therefore completely obliterated the goal of the Wikiquette forum. In fact, it appears that perhaps the project page itself may have been the best place to try and resolve this issue. Always try and resolve issues at the lowest level: the article Talk page itself, directly between users, within a project, and then finally within Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution Process (like here). I have seen one editor clearly state "let's take this to our talk pages and work this out". Good idea. I recommend that you go back to square one on this and try and figure out how to work TOGETHER on these articles. Everyone has something to contribute to Wikipedia, as long as it's done within the rules. If you ignore someone's desire to try and work it out, then all you're doing is becoming the source of the issue instead.