Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive47 

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Contents

User:Orangemarlin

Stuck. and closed as unresolved - both parties fail to recognize each other's concerns, or the problems in conduct. In future, another step in WP:DR such as RFC on user conduct is more appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Over the past day or so, Orangemarlin has exhibited extremely belligerent, uncivil behavior towards myself and others. The situation began with my removal of a blatantly false quote from a few articles. (See here, here and here.) I provided sources in the edit summaries proving the quote to be phony. I recall reading how such obviously false information can be removed from Wikipedia with prejudice and without discussion (from my understanding of what BLP says here, which would cover Phillip E. Johnson's article and any instance of this phony quote attributed to him in other articles). As expected, these proper and source-backed deletions were reverted and Orangemarlin falsely labeled my edits as "disruptive" here.

I attempted to politely ask Orangemarlin about the removal here, but he ignored the inquiry and deleted it while falsely labeling it "uncivil" here. I tried again here with the same result here.

Orangemarlin subsequently fabricated a sockpuppet accusation against me here and here based on EXTREMELY flimsy evidence which included blatantly false and easily disproven information (i.e. where my IP address tracks back to). I feel this accusation was made solely as an intimidation tactic. Orangemarlin was asked about this accusation by another editor here, in response to which he further accused me of vandalizing the article(s) here. I responded to the new accusation here, which Orangemarlin deleted again with the false claim that I was being "uncivil" here.

I approached another editor for help and he asked Orangemarlin about the situation here, with Orangemarlin responding unequivocally that I was a sock, "case closed," and with the edit summary of "we don't give AGF to socks" here. (I didn't realize WP policies and guidelines were subject to Orangemarlin's whims.) Orangemarlin went further on to describe his feelings about anonymous IP users here, which do not assume good faith (at least when they involve edits that runs contrary to his agenda).

During the sockpuppet accusation, I removed Orangemarlin's notice from this IP addresses talk page as I had read it. Orangemarlin reverted my removal with false claim here and here that they could not be removed until the case had been decided (which is completely unsupported by the WP pages about this process).

Finally, yet another editor (an admin, in fact) politely asked Orangemarlin to answer some questions regarding his accusation against me. The questions were here and the request is here. Orangemarlin once again took the uncivil route, bizarrely calling the polite, proper questions "rude and insulting" here.

The accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism have all been dismissed and abandoned, but Orangemarlin's policy-violating uncivil and non-AGF behavior remains unchecked and continues even now here, here and here (which includes his added desire for me to be blocked for no good reason), and I really doubt it will cease. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The userpage of User:Jinxmchue is relevant. (Not saying that means we should ignore the IP, but it's relevant)
I am not entirely pleased with how OrangeMarlin handled this entire thing. His conversation with HiDrNick is worth a read. Also, I would hate for OM's recent edits to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kdbuffalo to become a trend... Yeah, he was right that the IP was someone he'd interacted with before, but chucking out names of possible sockmasters with little to no evidence is a little sketchy.
That said, I don't think I could be entirely objective here -- I have too much admiration for the work OM does in combating fringe pov-pushers on Wikipedia. Someone else should take a look at this, though. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I have had similar experiences with OrangeMarlin (and other editors in his clique of friends). it seems to be an intimidation tacit used to forestall criticism of their perspectives, but unfortunately they seem to be immune from any form of administrative action regarding it. C'est la vie... my suggestion to you is to be polite, firm, and reasonable in your dealings with them, and to keep in mind that it's mostly bluster. I'll take a look at the pages you noted, and if there's anything I can do to help content-wise, I will. but I fear you're just going to have to put up with their attitude. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a personal attack, Ludwigs2. And on the Wikiquette Alerts page no less. Very considerate since you're saving OM a trip. Odd nature (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of writing an essay: Wikipedia:Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack for accusing... The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
sounds interesting. let me know when you finish typing the title. =D --Ludwigs2 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
if you say so. for me, it's simply a statement of experience, one which I can back up through diffs. and frankly, I'd love the chance to take up the matter here, since when I filed my own wikiquette grievance against OM, it was quashed before I even had a chance to participate. as you choose, odd nature... --Ludwigs2 00:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a minor, several months old mistake which I admitted to and apologized for is relevant beyond how the incident was and continues to be blown completely out of proportion by Orangemarlin and others on his side. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Your sockpuppeting evading a block is relevant. If it was an honest mistake why have you been trying repeatedly to delete evidence of it for months? You seriously don't expect the community to just ignore that, do you? OM's guess that you were Kdbuffalo sockpuppets seems well-founded, if factually mistaken, now that you've admitted you are a sockpuppet of Jinxmchue. He dropped the claim as soon as you admitted that, so there's nothing to this filing. Now move along. There's nothing here for you. Odd nature (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You see the tactic here? Instead of addressing OM's behavior, they are trying to turn the alert back upon me. (And incidentally, if there were anything to this months-old "evidence," why has nothing come of it? Either advance the accusation or retract it.) 67.135.49.116 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Jinx, you've admitted [1] are using an anon IP to sockpuppet. You used this sock to edit war to insert pov content over the last 3 days. Now you're raising a stink when you're rightly identified as sockpuppet? Your using victim bully tactics here. It's not going to work; OM was right that you are a sockpuppet, he was just wrong on who's sockpuppet you are, that's all. Identifying a edit warring sockpuppet as a sockpuppet is no insult. Now please move along. Odd nature (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to dignify your smear tactics with any further responses. Address OM's uncivil behavior, not your personal chip on your shoulder against me. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I will. Odd nature, will you please cite diffs where this editor has "inserted pov content over the last 3 days", or strike your statement? ➪HiDrNick! 01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
And now we have Oddnature reverting several editors' contributions simply based on his personal bias against me.[2] Wow. Just wow. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, this is not resolved. This is about OM's incivility, not his claim against me. And I would really like someone other than OddNature or any other friend of OM to handle this. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? How about starting to assume good faith, Jinx. I don't even know OM. He's been no friend of mine, though I do trust him more than some others. Odd nature (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
well, I have nothing against you or any other editor here, but I myself would like to see someone other that the same-old-faces have a chance to comment on this, before it to gets quashed. --Ludwigs2 00:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess that will be me, although I have commented on OM in the past due to his (repeated) appearances at Wikiquette alerts -- most without merit. That said, I don't see any personal attacks. It may be heated, but it was warranted given the situation and was met with an equal amount of hostility, in addition to POV-pushing. 67.135.49.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was using Jinxmchue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to POV-push and edit war and that takes an increased weight when dealing with the situation.

My point is, back away and go find something else to do. You aren't helping yourself in this situation by complaining about Orangemarlin, when you have committed infractions that could warrant sanctions if it is not curbed. seicer | talk | contribs 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Your comment was two-thirds about me and one-third about OM - and that one-third didn't even have anything to do with issues I raised. I never accused him of making personal attacks. I accused him of being uncivil or, as you so cutely put it, "heated." (Hey, can I use that word, too, and get away with behavior contrary to WP guidelines and policies? "I wasn't edit warring. I was engaging in heated editing.") Anyway, let's look at what the WP:Civility page has to say:
"This page in a nutshell: Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors whenever possible."
I don't see any "excepts" in there. No "except when someone is editing under an IP address." No "except when you consider someone a sock puppet." OM apparently sees many "excepts" on that page and feels perfectly justified behaving the way he does. I wonder if the WP community at large would agree with that.
I'll back away when I feel I've exhausted my options. And I'm not trying to help myself. How would opening myself up to further harassment by these people help me?
Finally, I've faced and accepted the consequences for my actions. If I had been the one behaving like OM did during the past couple days, there's no way we'd be having this conversation now. I'd have been properly warned and probably even blocked mighty quickly. All editors are equal, but I guess some are more equal than others. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll add in my agreement. I don't like being told to back away and do something else for the sake of peace, as though OrangeMarlin were a tantrum-bound four year old who couldn't be held accountable for his own actions. so far as I know he's an adult, perfectly capable of balancing his emotions and acting in calm, deliberate, good faith civility. the fact that he doesn't (and you yourself have noted how often his name ends up in alerts here, so that is not a personal attack but rather a demonstrable fact) is a poor reflection on his character, not ours, and I for one am not interested in coddling him.
if it were me, I'd make him sit in a corner and read wp:Please do not bite the newcomers till he could recite it back to me verbatim, and then I'd quizz him on it, just to make sure. --Ludwigs2 05:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
"Tantrum-bound four year old?" Thanks.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll use that out-of-context analogous phrase well, OM. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Orangemarlin has stepped up the incivility and ventured into personal attack territory. Check out this edit summary for his reversion of my (and lots of other people's) edits:

Reverting anti-semitic whitewashing

So now I'm being accused of being an anti-Semite. If OM does not face any consequences for these behaviors, they will only continue to escalate. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice try dude. I reverted whitewashing of Wildmon's anti-semitism. And of course, added references. But of course, it's a personal attack to state that I'm making a personal attack. Oh, this is too confusing. Enjoy your evening. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Let's see, OM. You obviously are referring to my edits (though you've carelessly reverted others' edits as well) as "whitewashing" even though all I did was move one section to a more appropriate spot in the article - something that I mentioned in the article's talk page and which went unchallenged. And adding "anti-semitic" in front of "whitewashing" is your attempt to describe my alleged motivations for making the edits I did. The only confusing thing is how you are allowed to continue your uncivil behavior and personal attacks. As I said before, if I were the one making the comments you are, I'd have been quickly warned and most likely blocked. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This thread is going nowhere but a flame war. Think maybe everyone could stop posting long enough for an admin to actually look at the thread? The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Y Done --Ludwigs2 07:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
ah, sorry. I hadn't realized when I posted the above that that this alert had been quashed as well. since I can't expect an admin to look at a thread that has somehow been resolved (even over the objections of the person who started it), I feel no compunctions about continuing to post
This is unconditionally despicable behavior, though on the positive side I suppose it's good that OM has friends who take care of him. people, I swear... --Ludwigs2 18:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

  1. Jinxmchue (talk · contribs), who has had three brief blocks the last of which expired in December 2007, announced at that time "Username retired", stating that "My IP address is not static and the last three digits change from time to time. I DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT. If they change, they change. In the future, when I notice that the IP has changed, I will post a note about my identity on the new IP user page."[3]
  2. Since 15:25, 19 May 2008, he has been editing as 67.135.49.116 (talk · contribs), whose talk page was started by another editor at 05:56, 26 May 2008, with "Warning: Censorship of material on American Family Association". After a series of warnings, 67.135.49.116 made his first edit to his IP user page talk page at 05:13, 17 June 2008,[4] but failed to post the promised note about his identity.
  3. He was blocked for edit warring, not vandalism,[5] and on his talk page was advised that his edit summaries using "conspiracy-theorist language" and "hitting out in an aggrieved tone" were not a good way to build consensus.[6]
  4. Subsequently, his editing patterns aroused suspicions of sockpuppetry which would have been resolved had he revealed his identity as promised. He only revealed his identity at Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Kdbuffalo at 19:20, 18 June 2008, in response to a direct question asking if the IP was Jinxmchue.
  • This gives some background in relation to civility issues, the content dispute issues should appropriately be dealt with elsewhere. . dave souza, talk 09:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Drama is alive and well. Sigh. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed

This is not ANI that only deals with strong personal attacks - it deals with incivility and other problematic communications between editors, regardless of how egregious it is, or how many times it ihas occurred. There are clear problems with (and concerns about) the way in which OrangeMarlin conducts himself, and problems also exist among some users who have commented here so far. In any case, it's clear that WQA is an ineffective step in attempting to resolve this dispute. No amount of additional discussion here is going to help the situation so I'm closing this. In the future, please file an RFC on user conduct or pursue some other step in dispute resolution as this will not be effective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


User:Totophi

Resolved. User warned, and blocked for sockpuppetry. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User repeatedly uses personal attacks against editor nrswanson on Talk:C (musical note)#C4 etc. page simply because the editor disagrees with his viewpoint. For example, user insinuates intellectual inferiority of nrswanson based solely on that editor's religious background. When asked to stop personal attacks, user still persists. It is also possible this editor may be using sock puppets and a separate report has been filed for that violation at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Totophi. Nrswanson (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a rather long comment on the content dispute (for once, this is in an area where I have some experience and knowledge), and IMO the evidence falls in your favor, Nrswanson. But the problem, as you stated, is that personal attacks are now going both directions - more so from Totophi and the anonymous IP toward you than the other way, but I see evidence that you're both getting heated up about this. So I recommend you all step back and cool down a bit. Remember, attack the content, not the editor.
If this continues past the latest parts of the discussion (including my comments there), let me know and I'll take a closer look and/or issue warnings as appropriate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments such as this are completely unacceptable:
  • Totophi wrote at 10:17 on 12 June: "My respect for you and your accomplishments has come to an end. Do you realize how deluded your own statement is? The issue of contention does NOT concern finer points of music theory! In addition, you pompously accuse me of insults where I have stated none. You, on the other hand, are revealing more and more the fine talent of talking a lot while saying little. Do you still claim to uphold the values on which Wikipedia is based? Give it up, you miserable hypocrite. Oh, and that's not an insult, by the way." Et cetera.
That should earn him a block for incivility. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that it's grounds for an instant block, which is what seems to be requested here. Yes, it is uncivil, and yes it is overstepping the line, but Totophi later showed some signs that he was willing to calm down and stop being disruptive, and the purpose of a block is to reduce or prevent disruption. If a warning has been given, it would be in bad form to then block him without a continuation of the behavior that got him the warning. Remember, blocks are preventative, not punitive. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that Totophi has made any serious attempt at calming down or working constructively. He has made no apology for personal attacks and has said my accusations of sock puppetry deserved no response since they were "obviously frivolous". It is apparent that he sees nothing wrong with uncivil behavior and, since the sock puppetry case has now been proven, it shows deliberate deceit with the intention of doing harm. I believe a block in this case is warranted as Totophi's actions prove his continued contempt for wikipedia's guidelines.Nrswanson (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I echo what KieferSkunk has said. This matter is resolved - if the incivility/personal attacks do continue, then please leave a note here with recent evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record. The sockpuppet case has ruled to block him for abusive socking for one week and an administrator has gone ahead with the block.Nrswanson (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:w2bh

Resolved. User advised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In my Talk page, I got a message from user w2bh which contains the statement "I'd say you have some personal issues regarding your ethnicity and your ancestry". I feel this is a personal attack against me and my heritage. This is a violation of wikipedia's policy. No one should attack someone's ethnicity and ancestry. Thank you for reading. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello out there, user w2bh is still insulting me. He posted in my Talk page, "Or maybe you have something against unpure blood?" Now he is implying that I am racist. Is anyone out there? Why is no administrator speaking against this harassment I am receiving for User w2bh. Lehoiberri (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you have misinterpreted w2bh's remarks. The "personal issues regarding your ethnicity" comment, while it was getting a bit personal and I will advise w2bh to refrain from those sorts of comments, was not meant to "doubt your ancestry," as you interpreted it. w2bh was trying to understand why it was so disturbing to you to include a reliable source that classified the ethnic makeup of the majority of Argentinians as non-white. w2bh apparently interpreted you to have taken offense at the implication, which w2bh found confusing because he didn't see white vs. non-white as a positive or negative. Of course, I have no idea of knowing what is in your hand, so I want comment on that; I'm just saying it's clear that's what w2bh thought. He wasn't "doubting your ancestry" or anything.
I will advise w2bh to try to keep it more professional and less personal. In the meantime, I would also encourage you to try to be less sensitive about these issues. w2bh is not "harassing" you; the worst he did was make some improper speculation about your motives in reply to something you said. That's inappropriate, but it's not harassment. You could have made the whole thing go away by ending the conversation, heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, for future reference, you are likely to get a faster response here and at other noticeboards if you provide diffs of the comments in question. Also, I think the slow response was due to it being the weekend. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Slow response also because of "busy-ness" lately :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Yolgnu

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereUsers warned that future violations of 3RR will lead to blocks - referred to WP:AN/3RR Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This user has been making repeated edits to Malta related articles (specifically Maltese People) for some time now with an agenda I believe borders on xenophobia/racism. Any assistance in sorting out this issue would be appreciated. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Which edits are you referring to? Please provide a link.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to the Maltese People article, re: Talk:Maltese people specifically the 'Language section of infobox'. You have made edits in a similar vein to the Egyptians article. Also, you've removed my legitimate criticism of your questionable edits from your talkpage. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I definitely see that there is some edit-warring going on at that article, and I would caution everyone involved to be careful about the WP:3RR rule. However, I don't see any xenophobia or racism... The dispute appears to be over whether an infobox should include only official languages, or if it should also include languages spoken by a sizeable minority...? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I felt that Yolgnu's targeting of Malta related articles (making no constructive edits) borders on racial discrimination, similarly, the edits to do with Egyptians. Hopefully the issue on Maltese People has been/will soon be resolved. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, Yolgnu (talk · contribs) and Gibmetal77 (talk · contribs) are both already in violation of WP:3RR. I have warned each of them on their talk page. Further reversions by these users could result in a block without further notice. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


User:MSJapan

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewherereferred to Article RFC or mediation for content issues, or WP:AN/I for conduct issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The above user is ignoring WP:V here. The source used is credible. Furthermore, the person who keeps removing the entry knows for a fact that the two major biographies of Christopher Smart document him as a Freemason, that he was part of the Freemason circle of Vauxhall, that there are over 20 academic articles that discuss his "A Song to David" based on interpreting the knowledge he learned as a Freemason, and the notable A Defence of Freemasonry has been attributed to him by himself, his peers, and others who contributed to the poetic appendix to the work. There is no purpose for the user to constantly revert except for WP:OWN purposes and a lack of respect to WP:V. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

More actions by MSJapan, which the talk page proves as completely inaccurate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I cannot comment on the merits of the complaint, although my personal experience with MSJapan suggests he is a strong editor. However, this venue is for breaches of civility or for instances of personal interaction which raise questions about good conduct. You have referenced a content dispute and I suggest you try either an RfC or Mediation. This is not the correct place for your concerns. Eusebeus (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note previously filed ANI complaint here which illustrates much more serious issues with the complainant than he would have one believe. These sources the user claims exist did not exist when the initial discussion was pursued, and they still have yet to be produced. The ANI complaint will also show blatant misrepresentation of a source by Ottava. My own research shows no consensus for Ottava's claim, as the sources that state definite proof of membership are all by one author. A more contemporaneous author posits other sources of smart's knowledge than Masonic membership, and no major Masonic writer has listed A Defence of Freemasonry as a work of the caliber that Ottava posits; that is entirely his own fabrication, as he has produced nothing reliable or verifiable to illustrate that particular position.
If we're going to talk Wikiquette, this thread should show pretty plainly who has the problem with Wikiquette. I would suggest, therefore, that the ANI issue be dealt with in lieu of this Wikiquette complaint, unless further punitive action is to be taken against the complainant for filing a spurious claim. I have shown the inaccurate claimant on A song to David to be Ottava. MSJapan (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1. You really know how to completely misconstrue statements and hide that fact by not actually quoting them 2. Since when would Wikipedia require all verifiable information at the very beginning? 3. Do you really think you can justify your constantly moving between pages deleting verified claims in a manner that boarders WP:STALK? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a place for WQAs - not content dispute - please refer to WP:MEDIATION or Article RFC for help to resolve it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, if you noticed, this isn't a content dispute. This is a borderline stalking problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
If that is the case, take it to WP:AN/I. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:ThuranX

Resolved. hopefully. Editor warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued gross incivility despite reminders for past 2 weeks. The comment for discussion entry for Talk:Captain America#Intelligence under intelligence revisited stated "sick and tired of this shit." User went on to write:

“ You know what? I don't care anymore. You don't care about the extant consensus, so why should I bother defending it on and on? You're never going to let up, or listen to fucking reason. Go add whatever you want. ThuranX (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC) ”

-66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

I have warned ThuranX to be careful in regards to civility. FWIW, it does seem like he is trying to uphold consensus -- but coming off a recent block for incivility, he needs to be far more careful to watch what he says and how he says it. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The IP in question ignored EVERYTHING that went before in favor of a split of 'ILIKEIT' and 'ISAYSO'. No amount of discussion, no amount of asking him to find external sources, had ANY effect whatsoever. AGF and Civility go only so far. I see no reason nor value in persistent civility beyond the point where it's clear an editor will not stop till he gets his way. This pushed well into gaming AGF and CIVIL, and I had had it. I'm not about to apologize, but there was probably a better way to tell the editor to go soak his head. ThuranX (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
(Further, that an IP came right here suggests this is a familiar tactic for this IP.) ThuranX (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said both here and on your user talk page, it appears you are in the right regarding the content issue. The best way to deal with someone who ignores consensus is to 1) make sure the consensus is clear on the talk page, 2) make sure their objections to consensus are reasonably addressed (i.e. tell them civilly why they are wrong), and then 3) if they continue to object on the talk page, ignore them; if they continue to revert, report them.
The worst way to deal with someone who ignores consensus is to cuss them out. Now, maybe some day, if I edit Wikipedia long enough, I'll see someone say "You won't listen to fucking reason!" and have the other person respond with, "Oh, hmmm, perhaps you are right, let me take another look at your argument..." But it hasn't happened yet ;p --Jaysweet (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
1, 2, and 3 were done, so he reported me before I reported him. Thanks for seeing all that, and still coming for me instead. Nice to know what kind of person you are. ThuranX (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I had a big rant here, but I decided it was unnecessary. This is all I need to say:
"What kind of person" I am: The kind of person who sees an editor coming off a recent block for gross incivility hurling obscentities at another editor, and rather than issue a templatized warning and/or report to WP:ANI, instead says to himself, "Perhaps there is another side to this story?"
ThuranX's definition of me "coming for" him: [7]
That's all that really needs to be said. If ThuranX has a problem with how I dealt with this, fine. In the future, when I see a report involving civility issues with ThuranX, I will go straight for the "warn" button in Twinkle, rather than investigating first. It will save me a lot of time anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That's all you did this time, so ... wow... big difference. You didn't 'handle' the problem at all, you said, 'ThuranX is right, but clearly, he should suffer forever, since IP isn't willing to change', which is ridiculous, and proves that on Wikipedia, he who cries first wins. ThuranX (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(redent) I am okay with no action, but please not this is my first Wikiquette report, as could be noted on my edit history. Providing additional sources to a discussion page rather than a contentious edit is my understanding how things are supposed to go. I made no page edits other than to get reasonable response to what I thought were new issues that addressed the previous arguement, and in the face of continued gross incivility, I did not feel so inclined to activly respond to User:ThuranX colorful remarks. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

For someone who so pointedly condemned my perceived incivility, I have to say that I am a bit taken back by ThuranX's comment "AGF and civility only go so far" and that he could have found a better way to tell a user to go soak their head. Nice to know what kind of person ThuranX is; he can dish out the condemnation and advice from on high, but cannot be bothered to follow it himself. I am not defending the anon's actions, but I am certainly drawing attention as to how Thuran seems to be of two minds when it suits his purpose. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between losing one's patience, like I did, and a constant holier than thou attitude, like you're displaying right now, and which has earned you numerous recent AN/I reports. ThuranX (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
With respect, perhaps you left after posting your righteous indignation at my "holier than thou" (and what sort of attitude do you think you might have displayed in your comments?) but before each of the AN/I complaints were found to be baseless. Rather a significant difference from being called to AN/I for what one has actually done.
I am working on my behavior, to try and be more charitable towards the foibles of others. This anger/civility - or rather "losing one's patience" - issue of yours appears to be a long-standing problem - at least in the two years I've been here. If you keep 'losing' your patience, perhaps you should attach a leash to it, or some such, so seek a longer-term method of rehabilitating your behavior so the temper doesn't get 'lost' out barking at or biting the neighborhood kids. Just a thought. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to note , the incivilty started upon the first response, not a mere push to edge. I hope this was an opportunity to bring this User's conduct to attention of others in case of future temper losses. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC).

Will an uninvolved editor please mark this thread as archived? I don't feel that I can do so any longer, since I am being harshly criticized for some reason that is beyond my understanding, therefore making me "involved" I suppose. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If he continues, leave a note here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Blaxthos

User Blaxthos has on multiple pages[8][9] [10] accused me of being a POV warrior. This has been recognized by admin third party user User:Jaysweet as being a baseless charge. Blaxthos additionally has misused the admin noticeboard, taking a dispute with me there when this would've been the appropriate spot, seemingly in an attempt to intimidate me. This is not the first time this user has misused wikipedia administration tools: [11] there, he stalked and wrongfully reported a user who he'd had a longstanding disagreement with. It was recognized as a wrongful report and dismissed. The root of this disagreement is Blaxthos' uncooperative editing, specifically on the What Happened page. I will copy and paste the crux of the dispute from the admin noticeboard page:

After the initial inclusion of Dole's widely reported letter, Blaxthos removed the edit, asserting that it violated SPS. [12]. Note that this was an incorrect reading of SPS, as I later pointed out in the discussion. When I found a source that in no way violated SPS, Blaxthos removed the entire section (which, to me, constitutes blanking).
Now, you'll notice here[13] that Blaxthos was accepting the inclusion of Dole's letter and the selected other notable responses, saying that as long as McClellan's subsequent response was included, it would constitute a neutral point of view. I objected to this logic, but with no other people offering comments, I let the issue die, as did Blaxthos. We had reached an agreement...
UNTIL Mr. McClellan began his testimony before Congress. Then, without notice, Blaxthos proceeded to unilaterally edit out the section HE had agreed to [14], along with the language that we had likewise reached an agreement on, terming it "sneaky POV."[15][16].
Blaxthos subsequently took to calling me a "POV warrior" in his talk page, in the discussion page of the article, and now on here. This is rather reckless on his part and I am glad to see that this has been recognized as a false claim.
I do not know why Blaxthos is persisting in this campaign against me, and I will not speculate to why he suddenly, surreptitiously subverted our earlier agreed upon text. I am disappointed by his continued spurious claims and hostile attitude.

I did not wish to take this further than civil discussion, but since Blaxthos has been hostile and has resorted to misreporting this on the admin noticeboard, I feel that this warrants some outside attention. Trilemma (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, first and foremost, let me state right away that I am not an admin :) I frequently help out on the admin's noticeboard, because most of the problems there an be resolved by discussion alone. I believe this is one of them.
I would rather see it handled here, since ANI is such high traffic, but since Blaxthos wants to keep it going there, I will respond there for now. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for the misinformation then, Jaysweet. If it's any consolation, you appear to have the temperament suited to be an admin ;) Trilemma (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to contribute to splintering this discussion into multiple locations, nor will I allow a content dispute to be dragged onto conduct noticeboards. The "facts" above are non sequiturs, and as such I will only address them at ANI. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
As you wish. Although, you know, ANI is for admin action, and you haven't actually asked for any admin action, you've just said that Trilemma is not observing proper Wikipedia etiquette, so I don't really understand why we have to air it on such a high traffic noticeboard as ANI... but whatever, I'm not going to argue about that. Marking this discussion as done. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Jay, while Blaxthos insists on keeping this on the admin noticeboard, my decision to post this alert is in part fueled by his (imo) misuse of the board. It's unfortunate that he won't reply here but I would very much like this issue to be looked at by observers on here, in this context. Trilemma (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Very well, I removed the "Not a Wikiquette alert" tag. However, I gotta go for the day so somebody else will have to pick this up :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The editor has been warned at ANI not to remove comments from talk pages (whether or not he self-reports it) or he will be prevented from doing it again. Additionally, after my warning, you both agreed to focus on the issues at hand now and follow Jaysweet's suggestion. So do you still want to proceed with this separately, or can I mark this as resolved for the time being? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
While the specific case of the conditions surrounding the RfC have been resolved, there is a general conduct issue that I feel warrants attention. Blaxthos has signaled some level of cooperation in this, as of today, by editing some specifically aggressive language ("An editor (referring to me) has repeatedly inserted criticism from subjects quite disconnected from the topic of this article that serves only to disparage the book and it's author, and has cried "vandalism" when presented with WP:UNDUE.")he used in starting the RfC [17], but this was only after my personal request on his user page, after my requests both on the Admin noticeboard and the talk page of What Happened appeared to go unheeded. At the same time, I feel that the manner in which he started the RfC, the way in which he went about unilaterally removing significant chunks of agreed upon text, and his general non-cooperative attitude until he was essentially compelled to warrants attention--especially since this is not the first time that he has misused administration areas during a dispute with another editor. Trilemma (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Jaysweet will be willing to pick this up again :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
<sigh> No good deed goes unpunished? ;)
Trilemma, you mention that Blaxthos has misused noticeboards in the past. Do you have diffs of this? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, it's the link from above, [18]. Arzel should've taken his case here, but summarized it instead in the admin noticeboard [19]. Clearly it wasn't a case for there, but it would've been appropriate to bring it here. Having followed the incident, it appeared to me that Blaxthos was stalking Arzel, due to their past interactions, and looking for a way to use administration areas as a tool of revenge. I didn't involve myself in the affair, but being that this is now a second instance in which Blaxthos appears to be misusing administration areas during conflict, I feel it warrants noting. this, combined with his decision to unilaterally remove a significant section of an article after he agreed to its inclusion, is why I feel perhaps a sterner warning is needed.Trilemma (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
One thing I have noticed are unconstructive comments in AfDs, such as [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Destroy All Humans! series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional chemical substances, A-M, [28], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional diseases, [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], etc. Far too many WP:ITSCRUFT, WP:NOREASON, WP:PERNOM, and Wikipedia:Merge and delete posts, which are an etiquette issue in that as others have said calling people's work "cruft" is insulting and elsewhere others have also strongly suggest that we don't merely approach AfDs to just try to delete articles, but that we take some time trying to fix them first. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Blaxthos aware that this thread is still ongoing? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I alerted him to the initiation of the process, but he has seemed disinterested in participating. Trilemma (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's what I see:
I don't see a big problem with the AfD diffs that Les Grand pointed out. While I am sympathetic to his position on that, and think that probably a lot of those !votes weren't particularly valuable, there's sort of a de facto tolerance for that kind of thing.
I for one don't like Blaxthos' habit of privately contacting people on their talk page to get them to reverse a decision/opinion every time something doesn't go exactly his way (e.g. here). I think it is a bit overly-aggressive and doesn't encourage a harmonious resolution to problems.
I also don't particularly care for his habit of putting everything as a numbered bulleted list every time he is trying to make a point... heh.. But it's hard to fault him hugely for this. My concern with it is that it can come across as very confrontational. But who can say if that's really his intention? It's just a style I don't care for, but there's nothing inherently incivil about it.
The Arzel 3RR case potentially points to a bit of Wikilawyering.. it is unclear if he really felt it was a legit 3RR violation, or if, as some editors had alleged, Blaxthos had been lying in wait to "get" Arzel on something. I would be inclined to WP:AGF for now, but it is a little bit of a concern.
The bottom line advice I would have for Blaxthos is to just chill out a bit :D People are going to bend and break the rules a lot of the time, and one needs to pick their battles. Sometimes, allowing people to bend the rules can even be a good thing. Even when it's not, I think Blaxthos would benefit from letting other folks' transgressions slide a little more.
However, I don't see any major Wikiquette issues on Blaxthos' part. With the possible exception of the Arzel 3RR case (and again, I am assuming good faith on that for now), the only thing I can really find Blaxthos guilty of is approaching situations differently than I would approach them. heh... I'm still awaiting that promotion to King of Wikipedia, but until then, I think Blaxthos is allowed to do that ;) --Jaysweet (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack in Talk:Kanto (Pokémon)

Resolved. Nothing to see here. Complainant advised to use diffs in the future, and should consider taking a break from the topic. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

under the dub heading compromise The user User:The Hybrid is harassing me Yami (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I went over there and I could not find any harassment. I think that there are some editors (yourself included) who need to take a step back from this conflict a bit (and it is a conflict). My personal opinion is that this is not a Wikiquette issue, and is more of a content dispute issue. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Yami -- Please see this guide for how to provide "diffs" of individual user comments. Like LonelyBeacon, I see no evidence of harrassment and I frankly have no idea what you are talk about. If we missed something, you can provide a diff of the exact comment. Otherwise, please patiently work out your differences. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly frustrated that the subject of this complaint responded a little aggressively to a comment you made during a content dispute. However, the comment you made was very problematic, so it's a good idea to pay attention to those concerns and ignore the tone expressed by the subject of the complaint. Stick to the issues next time - comment on content, not contributors. Beyond that, there's nothing else to see here. It might be a good idea for you to take a break from the topic. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Landon1980

Stale. Complainant gone on wiki-break. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The user began by editing the Underoath Article against a consensus. The user keeps removing "Christian" label off of bands that classify themselves as being a "Christian band" simple because he thinks that means their religion, not music. Wikiedpia's articles on Christian rock, Christian metal, and Christian music all say otehrwise. He brought the conflict to my user page, and then went on to say I was being uncivil myself. I admit, I haven't kept my cool (because the pages that are being edited have had previous consensus to keep the Christian label and they didn't edit accordingly). I tried to tell him that a Christian band plays Christian music (as common sense would tell), but he refused and went on to edit my user talk page with "I don't understand you at all, isn't it about time for you to convert back over to atheism anyways?" I am highly offended by this, I don't think it's right or even civil to tell someone something like that. I told him to stay off but... I highly doubt he will. He isn't the only one to do this, as there are two others, but at least they have been civil about this. Please resolve this. There isn't a Chrsitian Metal wikiproject and a Christian metal category for nothing. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IronCrow, you are the only one who has been really uncivil [42], complaining about everything, and getting really angry and frustrated because no one seems to support your point of view (As we can see here [43] [44]) you have even tried to bring people into the discussion to support your point of view [45]. You have also tried to be the victim all the time, giving apologies to people that has edited the Underoath and As I Lay Dying articles, like if articles can not be changed, or something can not be argueable. [46] [47] And, let's not forget you have accused us of sockpuppetry (and it's not the first time he do that : [48]) Seems like you can not stand people with other point of view of what you think of a "Christian band" is. Admins, please read the whole discussion before taking any actions, here [49] and here [50]--Kmaster (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to add two cents here if I may. IrønCrøw is a major contributor to the Wikipedia's articles on Christian rock, Christian metal, and Christian music and to cite them in support of an arguement here, or to claim some sort of consenses, amounts to nothing more than saying he says so. That is not support in favor of a position but spamming to win an argument. It's self-righteousness at its very worst. Personally, what I'm seeing here is a wiki member using music to cram christianity down people's throats whether it's appropriate to a topic or not. Unless a band is singing in the choir on Sunday mornings, anybody would be hard-pressed to prove they are anything but makers of secular music. And let's not forget that promoting an agenda is NOT music, it's politics, even if that agenda is Christianity. The inquisition failed a thousand years ago. Don't let IrønCrøw breathe new life into it here on Wikipedia. Willie --216.8.171.242 (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I should start by supplying all the diffs of IronCrow speaking in all caps, calling me silly, ridiculous, a sock puppet, lacking viability, "we are all adults, I hope," etc., but I'm not going to. I also want to say that I never said that Christian bands did not play Christian music. What I said was a bands genre is what kind of music they play, and that just because band members are Christians it doesn't mean they play Christian music. My opinion is if a band is metalcore they play metalcore music, if a band is 'Christian rock' they play Christian rock music, etc. The whole conflict is over the As I Lay Dying (band) and Underoath articles: We all agree that Christian has nothing to do with their genre, and that they are both metalcore bands. Well myself and two other editors feel the lead sentence should describe the band in genre related terms like all the other articles, deeming them a metalcore band, rather than a Christian metalcore band. We moved the fact the band members are all Christians into the second sentence so it wouldn't confuse readers by making them think they were a 'Christian metalcore' band rather than a metalcore band. I realize that a lot of Christian bands play Christian music, but that is when 'Christian______' is their genre. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a bands genre the kind of music they play? Does the fact they are Christians make it Christian music instead of metalcore? Landon1980 (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
If they, themselves call the music they play "Christian Rock" then that is their genre. Calling it anything else is original research. If on the other hand they do not call their music "Christian Rock" then it is OR to call it Christian rock, even if they are Christians and they play rock music. If there are significant other sources calling theeir music Xtian Rock then you might mention that, maybe, but should put in some phrases like "have been called". OK?Filceolaire (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If they're Christians, then they fall under the category of 'Christian persons' or something to that effect that has been used as a category by the relevant WikiProjects - in effect, this is a biographical detail. If they play music that is on Christianity (Gospel music might be a good example), then they can be called 'Christian bands' or 'Christian metal band' or whatever. If they don't play on/about Christianity, then they are not Christian bands - even if as individuals, they may follow Christianity. If you need me (or someone else) to explain this better, OK, but the rest can be resolved among yourselves - both of you need to retract your incivilities (wherever made - by striking through them) and move on. If this is not possible, then please state why not here, because it should be simple to do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Landon1980 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to say anything about the debate, but I agree with everything Kmaster has said. IronCrow is the only one being uncivil, constantly typing in caps and acting like we just committed a crime and are denying it. He even said he was pissed off at us. [51] I was going to cite examples of this but looks like Kmaster already got the major ones. — FatalError 03:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil accusations on Pederasty article

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereThis is primarily a content dispute, and far beyond the capacity of this noticeboard to resolve. Sorry. Try WP:RFC perhaps? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello. I would like to draw attention to the pederasty article, which is having some problems right now.

Pederasty (as erotic relations between men and boys) is considered from various viewpoints, some historical, others positive, and of course majority views tend to be condemnatory, especially those that are concerned about the legal consequences, and harm to children. I (and it seems some other editors) am perfectly fine with every relevant view to be presented. Editors have expressed concern over POV forking (having a seperate pederasty and a pederasty in the modern world article), and that needs cleaning up, and there are many unsourced POV statements in the article. However, a group of editors (especially Haiduc [52] and AnotherSolipsist[53]) seem to be constantly removing peer-reviewed critical material when it is introduced:

When peer reviewed literature presenting relevant and majority views on pederasty are presented, they tend to cry homophobia, political conspiracy, smear, and propaganda and revert large sections of text [54][55][56][57][58], and as can be seen from the above, they make every attempt to remove material that describes the critical or majority views on pederasty. The accusations of “homophobic propaganda” are also quite ridiculous considering that most homosexuals have a dislike of pederasty and research suggests that they are mutually exclusive anyway [59]. When material is moved to the discussion page for discussion, they tend to totally ignore it [60][61], and focus instead on distracting from discussing material facts by throwing uncivil accusations about [62][63]. They fail to assume good faith, and fail to address the actual facts being presented. Their protestations seem to amount to “I don’t like it”. I have made strong efforts to follow the edit-revert-discuss cycle to all reasonable lengths, but constructive discussion of the material in question is not forthcoming. Any advice or attention will be welcome. Phdarts (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that reliable sources on the topic should be included, especially those pertaining to the majority or critical view. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagee with the above editors. In a nutshell, Phdarts and other editors are pushing the bizarre pov that pederasty (an awful and equivocal word!) is pedophilia. Elsewhere I've pointed out that they are d