Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive49 

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

Edit warring, declarations of intent to use sock puppets, blatant NPOV and OR violations

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereSee below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've become involved in an edit war in the article Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty surrounding these edits pushed by Ivantheterrible1234. NPguy and I believe they are clear violations of NPOV and OR. We have repeatedly expressed our willingness to work with Ivan if he has something constructive to add, but he has in return engaged in reversion, personal attacks, and threats of sock puppetry. I considered tagging the page for an RfC but based on Ivan's responses to my objections to his edits, I don't believe additional people weighing in against him will help. I would appreciate any help available. AzureFury (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm afraid we can only do so much here. WP:ANI would be a good place to ask, particularly about the threats of sock-puppetry. But it's imperative you try Article RFC and/or mediation for content issues. You might need to make an RFC on user conduct additionally for the conduct issues. The links to these 3 forms of dispute resolution can be found at WP:DR. Good luck~ Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The RfC for conduct was my first thought, but I'm the only one to say anything on his talk page, and the RfC for conduct description says at least two people have to warn the person. I don't know if this is professional or not but I just asked someone else to give him a warning on his talk page so we qualify for RfC on conduct... AzureFury (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's critical to get more editors involved first through Article RFC. (You might need to inform administrators (at ANI) about the sockpuppetry threats) If the new editors who get involved also encounter similar (if not the same) issues, then you can advance straight to RFC for conduct. You generally need to be somewhat involved in the dispute - even if someone here was to give a warning, it wouldn't be sufficient for them to certify the basis of the dispute because of the lack of involvement, including in how the content issues are tackled. If there's no evidence of doing so, the conduct RFC is usually deleted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll put up an RfC right now, thanks for your advice. AzureFury (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
You're very welcome, and good luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Mathsci

Resolved. Everybody has been given the feedback they need. This noticeboard is not a venue for content disputes. Jehochman Talk 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: The user who started this thread has been blocked indefinitely for meat puppetry, and disruption. These accusations should be viewed in light of that fact. Jehochman Talk 23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In the course of a dispute at the talk page on Michael Atiyah, User:Mathsci has repeatedly attacked me and other editors personally.

For example, he stated: "... a number of Indian extremists have tried to disrupt this page". The dispute in question has nothing to do with nationality; I have never indicated my nationality and neither, to my knowledge, have other editors involved in the dispute. In my opinion, this extraneous mention of my presumed ethnic origin is tantamount to a racial slur. (What adds notability to this dispute is that just prior to this, User:Mathsci felt the use of the phrase `Eurocentric history' by another user was very inappropriate.)

A second disruptive tactic that User:Mathsci has used is to repeatedly accuse me of being a sockpuppet for another editor User:Bharatveer. Although, there is no evidence for this, User:Mathsci has repeated this allegation here and here.

Nevertheless, I feel that the second transgression is minor compared to the first one. I am new to Wikipedia, but I hope that it is not considered `civil' to introduce and insult someone's ethnic origin especially when it is completely irrelevant to the topic. - Perusnarpk (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no User:MathSci. Please could an administrator warn or block the above recently arrived SPA who, unable to insert libellous unsourced material into the BLP of Michael Atiyah (see the postings on WT:WPM, on WP:RSN and on WP:BLP/N), is going on a forum shopping spree across wikipedia. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
He has now been given advice on WP:BLP policy by two administrators, User:Slrubenstein and User:Nishkid64. Hopefully the problem should now be resolved. Mathsci (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Mathsci appears to have been targeted for harassment by a variety of single-purpose, POV pushing accounts. No action is required here. Jehochman Talk 13:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, User: Jehochman's post above is not neutral. It is easy to verify that my statements above are correct. If User:Jehochman feels that it was appropriate under the circumstances for User:Mathsci to use the ethnic epithet "Indian extremist", please state so. Otherwise, I feel this is a violation of Wikipedia policies of no personal attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perusnarpk (talk • contribs)
POV pushing is not welcome on Wikipedia, whether polite or impolite. A review of your contributions shows that your account is a single-purpose, disruption-only account at this stage. You can change that by peacefully editing a variety of articles. Please stop campaigning against other editors and show that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Otherwise, you may find yourself blocked to prevent further disruptions. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, I would happily accept your resolved tag above if you, even briefly, addressed the issue. Are you stating that different guidelines apply to new editors and old editors: that old editors are allowed to launch personal attacks on new editors that include ethnic slurs? Or are you stating that the usage above was justified? If you are stating either of these things, please state that clearly here and I will not remove the resolved tag. If not, please allow other neutral editors to weigh in. thanks,
P.S: I resent your use of the word disruptive and in my opinion, it shows bias. As a new editor, I have participated in a controversial discussion but I have not edited the page itself as a quick review will show. What is `disruptive' about participating in a discussion, and why does it constitute POV pushing? Please show me the appropriate guidelines. thanks Perusnarpk (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are most certainly a disruptive influence, and you should stop. You have been advocating a position that is counter to Wikipedia policies. When told that you are wrong, by several experience users, you continue to push and attack. That is not the way things are done around here. I implore you to stop. Jehochman Talk 15:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the "ethnic slur"?? "Indian extremist" isn't insulting a person's ethnicity; it is insulting their political position. Surely it is okay to say a white power group is Aryan extremists, and doing so does not mean I am picking on their race??? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from experience, I know some people liken the term extremists to terrorists so it's possible to be viewed as incivil, rather than as one side in a content dispute. Even if one were to use a label in a content dispute to describe a 'side' of the dispute, I think a person can come up with a label that is not so bad.
There's obviously a lot of issues going on in this dispute, but overall, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the subject of the WQA (Mathsci) to refrain from throwing that label around in the future. If there are sockpuppetry accusations, they belong to WP:SSP. Any concerns on users should be voiced in the appropriate forum, such as through WP:DR - not an article talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it isn't necessarily uncivil to call someone an "extremist", I'm just saying that it's clearly not an "ethnic slur", and Perusnarpk's continued insistence that an ethnic slur occurred sort of undermines his credibility... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Correct. We should endeavor to use the least inflammatory language possible while maintaining accuracy. Calling somebody an "extremist" is generally not too helpful, but it is not worthy of a block. The editor who came here with the complaint has been exceptionally polite, but their effect on the discussion has been most unhelpful. This thread is really just an extension of the content dispute. The matter should return to the article talk page, and then dispute resolution if that fails. Jehochman Talk 18:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup, if the labelling and sockpuppet accusations has stopped, then what's within the scope of WQA is indeed resolved here - the rest of the issues should be dealt with as you've stated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, given some of the comments above, in my opinion, this was not a comment on my political beliefs since the entire discussion never broached the political beliefs of any of the editors involved. (In fact, my own views are quite the opposite of `Indian extremists'(used in a political sense) and if the expression was used in that sense, I would find it even more offensive.) As far as I can understand, the phrase `Indian extremists' meant precisely that: "a bunch of extremists from India". However, I will not belabor this point now, given the repeated requests of User:Jehochman and the fact that cognizance has been taken of User:Mathsci's lack of civility. For now, unless this repeats, I consider the discussion closed. Perusnarpk (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
All I can recall is that Abhimars used the terms "eurocentric" and "exposing Western idols". I have never seen these terms used in the international world of mathematics. I do know Sir Michael personally as well as many of his students, including Graeme Segal, a good friend of mine. Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have looked more thoroughly at the talk page of Michael Atiyah.

  • [1] Abhimars tells F&f that he is "angry with Raju for exposing eurocentric history and exposing western idols".
  • [2] I tell Abhimars:"Please refrain from making personal attacks on Fowler & fowler and other editors, Please avoid using phrases like "eurocentric history" and "exposing western idols". This extremist language suggests you have another agenda..." and end with "Otherwise, why not try editing another WP article some time?"
  • [3] An anon IP 67.169.0.250 calls this language "completely natural".
  • [4] Perusnarpk agrees with the Abhimars and 67.169.0.250
  • [5] I tell Perusnarkp "You and your friends are quite likely to be blocked from editing this encyclopedia if you continue making disruptive edits of this kind. In the meantime please go and look at Atiyah's entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica to get some idea of what a biography in an encylopedia should look like."
  • [6] I ask Perusnarkp how he knows about the precise nature of ArbCom restrictions on User:Bharatveer as a newly arrived editor. Perusnarpk does not reply for a few days.

If Perusnarpk had distanced himself from these extremist sentiments, there might have been some point to this wikiquette posting. Otherwise he has completely misrepresented what happened. Any reasonable and experienced WP editor would I think have drawn the same conclusions that I drew from this interchange. However, here and elsewhere, Perusnarpk has gone out of his way to misrepresent those opposing him (notably most mathematical editors) and in particular the first two editors who had the courage to engage with him. It is disgraceful that even now he is allowed to continue his disruption across the wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Hoxharian propagandist"

Resolved. Was handled awhile ago --Jaysweet (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:Gennarous has accused User:Cberlet of being a "Hoxharian propagandist" (it's at Talk:Fascism#Chip_Berlet.27s_intentional_holding_back_of_article_progress; it was quite a while back so I'm not inclined to go look for the original edit unless he denies saying it.) Unless I am seriously misunderstanding, that's a pretty nasty accusation (the reference is presumably to Enver Hoxha, former dictator of Communist Albania). As far as I can tell, it is not based on anything factual: I've read a lot of Berlet's writing and can't recall him ever having anything nice to say about Hoxha, so it appears to be a generic attack, like calling someone a Nazi propagandist or a Stalinist propagandist. Seems to me to be beyond the realm of civility. - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I see now that User:Cberlet has closed his account, and I don't know the circumstances of that, so I'm not sure how relevant this is. If (and I have no idea whether this is the case) this amounted to part of harassing someone out of Wikipedia, then I would think it would remain quite relevant.- Jmabel | Talk 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Check the dates, I was blocked for that incident for a week. I said it in the heat of the moment, when said user was IMO going out of his way to irritate me. In case you're curious as to the choice of words there is this article from FrontPage Magazine.[7] Thanks.
PS - Berlet has left Wikipedia in a huff after he was blocked for making a personal attack against someone on the Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche article (don't know who). I was not involved in that since it was during my block. He may have attacked Carol Moore I think?[8] After further looking at the edit summaries, Berlet may have been blocked for calling Jimbo Wales a "spineless coward".[9] - Gennarous (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't follow the whole Cberlet thing in depth, but as I understand it, it was not just a single incident that led to the block, but rather the culmination of a bunch of things. The single incident might have been the catalyst.
In any case, Gennarous correctly points out that this incident occurred two weeks ago, and that he as blocked for a week as a result. That is a stronger message than we could possibly send at WQA! ;D I am marking as resolved, since this has already been taken care of. Although, now I can add "Hoxharian propagandist" to my list of obscure-yet-scathing insults. ("Yo mama so fascist, she's a Hoxharian propagandist!") --Jaysweet (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued harassment

User: Your Radio Enemy has placed further messages on my talk page using harsh language. His nature appears unhealthy and obsessive. He has declared his intention to focus directly on me. His recent edits show that he is editing pages he has found in my own edit history. Libro0 (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Good, at least he is stopping his unhealthy and obsessive lies against me now. Starting sockpuppet proceedings because I disagree with him and replaced the images he stole from another website. Retaining information in articles that he and only he thinks should not be there. If it was there in the first place someone other than you thought it was important to include. He seems to play the system and drive people off Wikipeida. He is a bully and you have to stand up to bullies. He is the one who is guilty of continued harassment. Just look at [10], [11], and [12]. Uncivil harassment all from the innocent as the driven snow Libro0. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is another one of his paranoid rantings. He keeps acting as if I am a sockpuppet, and mentions other users he thinks I am in his rants. Of course I am going to look at someone who is constantly making false accusations against me is doing. I just happened to find some things that needed fixing and fixed them while monitoring him. Is someone who is searching for St. Leo's likely to be searching for an obscure defunct soccer team? Ditto for New York IRT and the rest. It is seeing a problem and fixing it to make Wikipedia a better place. The only thing is that I found these problems while monitoring the behavior of someone who seems hellbent to attack me. Did he even notice the problem? Apparently not.

I am not focusing my attention directly on him, I am seeing if he is doing any further damage to me. This passive aggressive abuse of the system is just more in his pattern of uncivil behavior. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I set a trap for Libro0. Let's see if he'll take the bait and claim it is sockpuppetry evidence. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User: Keeper76

Resolved. Apology by Keeper76 has been accepted by Xander756. —Travistalk 15:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user personally attacked me on my user talk page quoted: "I'll say again, I'm done with you, and I'll add a fuck you to boot." and "I will not see your response to me here, so "blast away" if it makes you feel better, you worthless editor. You have nothing to add to this encyclopedia in my opinion." Diff can be found here: [13] I think that the fact he is an administrator makes this all more of a bigger deal and people that cannot control their temper and lose control should not be in positions of power. --Xander756 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeper76 made a genuine attempt to help you re-obtain rollback rights and you spat in his face. I don't blame him. At some point, you need to consider that perhaps the problem might be coming from within. Related threads: Wikipedia talk:PERM#Xander756' request, Wikipedia:AN/I#User:Swampfire. By the way, this is my one and only post to this WQA. I already exhausted my efforts arguing with you at WT:PERM. –xeno (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I second this. I participated in the discussion at Xander's page after Keeper got upset with Xander, and there's absolutely no question that Xander's attitude precipitated Keeper's becoming angry. Editors and admins are human. When you treat them poorly, sometimes they become angry. S. Dean Jameson 03:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
None of those threads are actually related. What your are doing is called "tainting the jury" in which you try to bring in unrelated subject matter. The only thing that matters here is that Keeper76 lost his temper and personally attacked me. There should not be any excuse or reason for that to happen. I did not insult anybody, I let him defeat himself. He tried to explain why he didn't help with excuses that did not fit. When I pointed out why these reasons couldn't be so, he lost it.--Xander756 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not the only thing that matters. WikiLawyering about "juries" doesn't mitigate the fact that this last episode was the latest in a long string of harangues you've subjected people to, after your rollback rights were removed. S. Dean Jameson 03:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
People seem to love the term wikilawyering. Was it because I mentioned a jury and then that made you think of lawyers? That is what his tactics are called, if I could have used a different term I would have just to avoid you saying "wikilawyering" again. This needs to be viewed as a separate incident. Keeper76 insulting me has nothing to do with me having an edit dispute with another user now would it? --Xander756 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
He didn't insult you. He told you to fuck off. There's a difference. If he had said, "You're a dumbass with no brain in his head", that would be an insult and a personal attack. "Fuck off" is simply a rougher way of saying basically "good bye, and good riddance." And "wikilawyering" was what you were doing to try to explain why you never replied to Keeper's initial message, where he specifically asked you to reply so he'd know you were interested. S. Dean Jameson 03:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Please check again. It wasn't an F off, it was an F you. The day "F You" is decided not to be considered an insult then it might be the same Jesus returns to Earth. --Xander756 (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
He came to your talk page with open arms. You treated him like garbage. Why is there a WQA being filed about him again? Protonk (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Your actions can't be isolated into individual edits, because your attitude and wikilawyering (yes, wikilawyering) have a compounding effect on anyone who tries to talk to you. The way you approach things leads editors to either a) lose their temper at you for eternally not getting the point, or b) ignoring you completely. We've all seen similar situations before. Some of us have even married into situations like that, unfortunately. Dayewalker (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  • My last post here: you treated Keeper more poorly than he treated you. He tried to help you, and you just spit in his face, basically. The only difference is that your obstinance made him angry enough to swear. It's you that has the problem, Xander, not everyone else you've interacted with the last several days. S. Dean Jameson 05:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything that is actionable here. Xander756 has endorsed an editing practice that resulted in his rollback privileges being revoked, with good reason -- I won't go into that here. Keeper76, a well trusted administrator, attempted to assist you in re-obtaining rollback privileges, which you all but rejected. This is not the first time I've seen your name around Xander756, and this is only another case on top of another that all but certifies that you are not here to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, but to endorse behavior that is uncivil and generally awful. I can see why Keeper76 became upset at your actions Xander756, and I endorse his usage of the phrase "fuck off" in that instance, because quite frankly, there is few other terms available to describe your attitude on this project Xander. seicer | talk | contribs 05:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, it was not "F off" but "F you". I don't mean to beat this horse but there is a difference there. My entire problem here is that I am here to constructively contribute to Wikipedia and yet I am being hindered unreasonably. People keep telling me I am taking this too seriously but I'm simply here to help the site. It seems others are unnecessarily trying to stop this (i.e. not wanting me to stop vandalism, vandalizing my user page with profanity, telling me I'm worthless etc.) It's not like I'm a new user, I've been here quite awhile... --Xander756 (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you beating a dead horse is exactly the problem other editors are having with you. You say you're here to constructively contribute, but a quick look at your last hundred edits shows you've barely made any edits to articles. That's where some of the accusations of wikilawyering are coming from. Dayewalker (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks here. What I see (in the diff provided at the top of the report) is continued assumptions of bad faith by Xander756. Keeper76 took the time to go out of his way to try to help you Xander, and I can understand how he got so upset. I share the concerns of every single user who has commented here to date, and I strongly urge you to look at all of them again and modify your approach in the future. I too am of the opinion to dismiss this WQA as meritless. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Point made successfully. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Xander756, I've been told to "fuck off" before on Wiki; in fact, in full view of several ArbCom members, and nothing happened to the person who said it to me, who is now an admin. It happens. I chalked it off, kept an eye on the person to see if it was typical of his behavior, and it hasn't been; perhaps it was just a bad day. By all accounts, you went quite the extra distance to provoke a generally helpful, kind and efficient administrator to post those comments to you; please examine your own behavior in the incident, or you will have a frustrating experience on Wikipedia. I don't condone uncivil behavior on Wikipedia, but this response from Keeper76, a good admin, is highly uncharacteristic, which raises my eyebrow about how far you went to provoke. Since you don't seem to be making many friends in a collaborative editing environment, you might considering dropping this for now, as I did when it happened to me. On the other hand, Keeper76, you should't have done that, and I'm sure you know it and I doubt it will happen again. Of bigger concern to me here is that some of the editors who frequent this page on Wikipedia, and who are elsewhere accusing a productive editor of any number of things, are completely discounting any validity to Xander756's issue here, undermining (again) the entire point of WQA: that is shocking. Dropping the F-bomb on another editor should always be addressed at WQA; I'm afraid that the editors frequenting this board have furthered rather inconsistent views of Wiki policies and guidelines and are undermining the purpose of this board, rendering this a useless step in dispute resolution, and giving the appearance of using this board to take sides in popularity contests. As much as I like Keeper and recognize this as an uncharacteristic reaction from an excellent admin to an extreme provocation, WQA is not a place for playing out popularity contests. Keeper, pls offer amends and tell Xander you won't do something like that again. Xander, pls examine your own behavior that led to this and then let it go; you've drawn a good deal attention to less than desirable aspects of your editing behavior, and continuing this is not in your best interest, even if Keeper's response was less than ideal. And the regular editors frequenting this board need to re-examine Wiki policies and guidelines and the ways that ArbCom might respond if this ends up in their lap, and begin to respond to issues raised on this board in ways that will further resolution of disputes rather than allowing issues to grow and fester, so that they don't end up at AN/I or before ArbCom. The people most in the wrong here are those condoning, under any circumstances, use of the F-bomb on Wiki: by doing that, you will only increase the chances that Xander will become a more difficult editor, and Keeper will end up in a protracted dispute. Please work to resolve disputes, not further them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dang. I said I wasn't going to post here. SG just nailed it, proving once again that she's way smarter than me, and has led me to respond. I need to confess though SG that what's worse is that I didn't only say "fuck off", I said "fuck you". Also called him worthless, which is probably even worse than a fuck off, or it is to me anyway. Way worse. Apologies for my temper Xander, you deserve more respect than that. Someone please troutslap me on my talkpage if they see this from me again (I can't honestly say it was the first time, and I can't promise it won't be the last, but I'll try my damnedest). Keeper ǀ 76 14:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I knew you'd come through, and quickly, Keeper; that's what makes you one of the good ones :-) Now I hope Xander will accept the apology and move on and improve their own behavior. But what I most hope is that this ship (WQA) will be righted :-) That editors here are claiming that this WQA is meritless is more appalling than what led to this thread. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
That piece, SG, very accurately sums up the situation. Keeper, I'm sure, will learn from this experience and will hopefully adopt a matter of resolve within situations like this, taking a break when necessary so temptations to lose 'cool' are minimalised. Xander, on the other hand, needs to learn to be more acceptive of help whilst those others here must not dismiss the fundamentals in the sake of wanting to comment. Rudget 14:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
What "SG" posted is what I have been saying all along. Wikipedia should not be a popularity contest and it that bringing up unrelated issues in an attempt to undermine my validity on subject is counterproductive. Anyway, I accept your apology, Keeper76. Have a nice day.--Xander756 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. X756, please do take note of the email I've sent you - you'll find I extended an apology to you alone.
  2. Very watched thread + inconsistent response from 1 of the 2 main regulars (compared to responses in the last few months) = more eyes (hopefully for the long run this time). This is what multiple editors have been asking for (multiple times) since last year at AN, ANI, talk pages of specific admins and FAC regulars for that matter too. It's an established problem from a long time ago, and when those alerts are made on those pages, it'll get attention for maybe a month max, often much less...and then WQA would be allowed to crumble again. 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 eyes is not enough...it needs to have dozens, consistently.
  3. The users who are most to blame for the state of WQA in the past few months are those that have fully aware of the problem since the dark ages, yet refused to do anything about it until now (some only screeching until now) - while others don't even acknowledge the problem until now, based on #2. And why only now? I'll let you ponder on that, based on recent ANI musings by that same person screeching over it.
  4. WQA would no doubt have been fully dysfunctional, if not for the continued time and effort those 'regulars' put in to try to keep a pulse going. Recently, both are dealing with 1 thing after another in RL, and while they pop in and out whenever they can, it's no where near the amount of time and effort they've put in over the past few months. One regular will definitely not be so regular due to frequent absences from wiki in the coming weeks/months - and other than the odd thread, soon, there are going to be more cries for attention; more of the same as was in the dark ages; for the lack of third party input here. Then again, a couple of users will come across this in ruins and try to make it function again.
  5. There's been many resolved disputes among parties from the facilitation by those 'regulars', and those parties have gone on to do good things later, satisfied with the input they received here. On other occasions, they didn't pay attention, it escalated and they were subject to remedies. Why was this feat possible? Because those 2 regulars have spent their time (and their contributions) helping actually resolve a lot of those disputes, contrary to the opinion of someone who shamefully spent (almost) no time here in the past few months (to know how time-consuming and how difficult it sometimes was to do so, given the backlog). As well as involving off-wiki communication with parties at times, on other occasions, the level of work done on WQA was to such an extent that the limited time spent on wiki meant that almost all contributions for a week might be completely WQA-based as uninvolved input. No 'regular' needs to reexamine policy and guidelines - what's needed is for others to put up.
  6. Finally, I'm glad X756 has accepted K76's apology, while K76's lapse in judgement has been noted, so it's resolved - even if it meant forcing others to respond by being strongly and unusually inconsistent on a fundamental point that's been rambled about both here and in other venues by that 'regular'. Maybe this time, for once (as a long-run measure), the users who are most to blame for the issue (see #3), will not let this venue drop to the sorry state it's been in before - the alert has been given here itself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:32, 2 August 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 Domer48Fenian & BigDunc

I would like an admin to look at my situation. There is evidence at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/GDD1000 and on talk pages that the user names I have listed are united in an attempt to harrass me and prevent me editing the article at Ulster Defence Regiment. The discussion page there shows that their involvement stretches back more than a few months and that they have strangled attempts by other editors to improve the page by similar harrassment, incivility, bullying and the use of propaganda against other editors. So far I have had an untrue allegation of sockpuppetry leveled against me. I have been called the, "Self confessed former Ulster Defence Regiment member GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest", accused of adding disruptive material to the article, deceiving other editors, making a mockery of this encycopedia, being dishonest, adding unsourced additions, biased POV additions and copyright violations, having several "brand new accounts," collusion, pretending to be a new user, avoiding scrutiny, lying, appalling, editing problematically and pretending to be someone else. The following statement was made by the DomerFenian user: "You are an editor with a long history of disruption, gross POV editing, edit warring and copyright violations, you should not be permitted to try and get a clean start under a new name, and deceive other editors by editing the same article pretending to be a brand new editor". The tags of my accusers are: Domer48'fenian' and BigDuncTalk Everything I've read about new users, harrassment, good faith, the five pillars etc etc etc etc tells me that all of this is VERY wrong. Why should I, or anyone, be subjected to it? I do note that the user Domer has a history of being blocked for extended periods of time for similar abuse against other editors. All help appreciated.The Thunderer (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Domer has two blocks for incivility and I recently filed a report here against Dunc.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Despite two admins closing the sockpuppet complaint as unfounded he (BigDunc) has opened it a third time and demanded information to continue their vendetta.The Thunderer (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong not a single admin has closed it as unfounded, and not even a single admin has closed it. Also I'd even point out the first close was done on a non-existent reasoning acording to Enigma here. BigDuncTalk 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Neither I, nor the user GDD1000 who you have such a bee in your bonnet about, have been found guilty of anything more than reacting to the abysmal treatment handed out by you and your tag teaming partners. Your manipulation of guidelines and policy seems to be matched only by your dogged perserverance in hounding anyone whose opinion doesn't concur with yours on articles related to Irish nationalism. The history of the extended attempts by GDD1000 to become a useful editor on Wikipedia is littered with your reverts, always quoting policy but doing nothing to assist the user in editing points into the pages the user was trying to contribute to. I note that "post-departure" your malicious behaviour continued against that user by damning his/her mistakes as a new, but enthusiatic editor, as "copyright violation," "POV pushing," etc. Not once in the history of that user do I see you or your fellow tag teamers welcome the new user or give him/her encouragement to continue posting, despite the overt politeness and appeals for assistance made to you. I see the same thing happening with me. Your welcome to me consisted of you jumping on the sockpuppetry bandwagon, reverts to my edits with the most spurious of policy quoting and a refusal to accept the word of an admin who has done a checkuser proving there is "no abusive sockpuppetry". You appear determined to pursue a course of incivility, harrassment, disinformation and propaganda against me to drive me off the Ulster Defence Regiment article and prevent the addition of useful, encyclopedic knowledge. That indicates to me, as it will to any person who bothers to check your edit history, that of your cohorts and of GDD1000. You've objected to my presence on Ulster Defence Regiment when I posted encyclopedic history of the regiment, its formation, armaments, vehicles, structure, commanders, awards, image, effect on the local community, duties, bases, casualties and allegations of collusion between loyalist and republican paramilitaries, all with inline references and citations and all you contributed in the same period was a revert to challenge information which was a direct lift from an article on Wikipedia which had been there, untouched for two years. In effect you've been hoist by your own petard for pursuing a vendetta.The Thunderer (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me state that 1) there is no abusive sockpuppetry being perpetrated here by The Thunderer and 2) I'm less than impressed with both BigDunc and Domer48's campaign of intimidation of the above editor. It's pretty obvious that they don't agree with his standpoint on certain issues and have taken it upon themselves to smear the guy's reputation with insinuations and accusations of sockery. Obviously, the goal here is to drive him from the project and, though I think his words to-date have been a bit strident and OTT, he has every reason to feel put-upon here. I'd like to see Dunc and Domer drop the matter, leave the editor alone, and basically get back to editing - Alison ❤ 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the SSP case is not only closed but the door has been slammed shut at this stage. It only took two admins and a checkuser to close it. In short, it was a classic SSP 'fishing' case and one placed to simply cause trouble for their target. C'mon, guys, let's not do that. Had that been RFCU, I'd have thrown the case out for Checkuser is not for fishing - Alison ❤ 23:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Alison. I apologise for being "strident" but this type of harrassment is very hard to swallow, particularly when there is so much emphasis placed on friendliness in the guidelines published on Wikipedia. The Thunderer (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that I recently had an incident of gaming at the hands of these two users. Perhaps something can be done now. There is a clear recent history of disruptive behaviour.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an Admin can guide me on how to ensure I don't have to suffer this type of harrassment on Wikipedia again?The Thunderer (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Longchenpa WP:3RR warning help

Taken to WP:AN/3. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am concerned User:Longchenpa will be violating WP:3RR while we dispute Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#WP:NPF_enforcement__relief. Can someone offer advice to prevent this. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I love that phrasing. It's so... accurate. Yes, indeed, Zulu Papa 5 has been attempting to bait me into doing a WP:3RR, even leaving a count on my talk page. *walks away laughing* Longchenpa (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This issue is now reported on the 3RR administrators board. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 00:57, 5 August 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:BehnamFarid

Resolved.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:BehnamFarid engages me in an uncivil manner regarding an edit dispute to the article Khūzestān Province, removing sourced material and engaging in ad-hominem discussion. While his first challange did have some merit with regards to the applicability of the source, the second revert had no such reasoning included. I find his actions disruptive to my editing and detering to the quality of the Khuzestan province article and therefore request your assistance. MiS-Saath (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

User:BehnamFarid continues his practice unabated and continues the disruption. Please view this edit [14] . I repeat my request for assistance with this disruption. MiS-Saath (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for removing the stale tag, but this is becoming unbearable. User:BehnamFarid now attacks me in a statement for the arbitration committee, openly referring to me as someone who has personal problems. [15]. I find this extremely upsetting. MiS-Saath (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
See also this [16] and this [17]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiS-Saath (talk • contribs) 00:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing too blatant, leaving a civility warning for this user. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Wikipedia talk:Africa-related regional notice board.

Resolved. No edit warring for several days. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagreement over wp:talk, User:Blockinblox and User:Jeandré du Toit, diffs: [18] [19] [20]. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-03t12:55z

I have commented at the talk page in question. While Blockinblox's rant is not particularly constructive, it is not so egregious that it would typically be removed as per WP:TALK. Since I see no edit warring in the last several days, I am marking this as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Romaioi

Stuck. Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Continued from archive page:

Thanks for your support Jaysweet. I have made those modifications as per your suggestion. I am not afraid of appearing bitter as long as the truth has been highlighted. I don't look favourably on the kind of flippant behaviour that Noclador demonstrated, regardless of whether it was directed at me or anyone else.

However, I do not know why this page has been archived as I do not consider it to be resolved - I have made several requests as per Ncmvocalist' comments and have not receieved his reply. I have made concessions and recieved none regarding the anti-User:Romaioi negative comments.

Romaioi (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Will see if I can take a look later this week. Sorry about the delay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
No problems, I'm in no rush. I know I wrote a lot. Thank you, by the way. Romaioi (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've finally looked through your comments there.
I'd said we can archive relevant sections or comments sometimes...but note; the ANI page you referred to has already been archived - meaning, that's that. In response to your concerns over the ANI, and the merits of the incident report: the fact that no administrative action was taken (or any other responses were given) speaks for itself. That's how it will also be looked at should the dispute ever escalate. The edit-summary you've cited is something we can't do much about here I'm afraid.
That said, I agree with Jaysweet's conclusion - if you were to replace the rant on your User Talk page with the statement you suggest, I absolutely agree that no action is necessary, and that this complaint is resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and patience on this talk. I do not mean to sound belligerent, but I do not consider this resolved.
You have someone who was given the power to do an investigation (Noclador) during which he carried out a series of personal attacks on one of his targets, in addition to denigrating the target’s character. In response, beyond defending oneself and calling the accuser/abuser a liar, the target did nothing untoward.
The types of personal attacks made on the accused were not insignificant.
Yet, the wrongly accused target was also the subject of a WQA and an ANI. On the other hand the abusing accuser has received no sanction, no counseling, nothing. If no such action is taken then the accuser (Noclador) will see this approval for him to act in the same manner to the next person. Maybe an ANI is required in reference to his behaviour.
As I said earlier, I think it is fair to have statement inserted here by someone indicating that I am not guilty of incivility, but rather was more the victim of it. Alternatively, simply state that the WPQ action, pertaining to me, is unwarranted. I also asked, as an alternative, for a statement at the ANI page stating that Noclador’s statements are misleading and inappropriate. Seeing that it is already archived, a statement should suffice – Noclador’s comments are is still there to be read with no defense made (I was not even notified about it at the time). Else, I will put something there myself, linking back to here.
I have already changed my statement, but I do consider the previous version to fit the definition of a rant.
Sincerely
Romaioi (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Romaioi, the archive pages are only to contain threads that existed at ANI, as they appeared at the time. It's not to be altered to add a defense that was never made at the time or to clarify messages that are already there or to link back to discussions that didn't exist at the time. It's not allowed, and users who do are promptly reverted.
In this case, the person who filed the WQA simply wanted some intervention in regards to what was on your talk page so that this dispute does not escalate. That part has been somewhat resolved.
If you're still concerned about Noclador, you can try the next step in the WP:DR link or asking for input at an administrator noticeboard. But remember, action taken is preventive rather than punitive - Noclador has moved past the dispute and is editing per usual. It's your choice if you want to do the same by letting it go and moving on, or not. But I'm afraid I myself can't help you with this any further - perhaps Jaysweet or someone else can. Anyway, best of luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ncmvocalist, if you want to leave it there and cannot do any more then thats fine. I appreciate the efforts of yourself, Jaysweet and all others involved. But I am not happy with the outcome. No defence was able to be put up at the ANI page because I was not even notified that it was going on. And Noclador has been able to move past it because no one has taken him to task on his abuses. He has been able to abuse his power and not be held accountable whatsoever. In fact, he was gven a pat on the back. (Describing what he did in regards to his attempts to implicate me as lying certainly does not do it justice - much stronger adjectives apply.) Instead the victim of Noclador's abuses and insults has been taken to task for highlighting the abuse and was perversely accused of abuses he did not commit (the claim that I made personal abuses (plural) is rubbish). You have an unethical abuser, in noclador, who now has carte blanche approval to do what he wants to whoever he wants. That’s how I see it. Of course it has been easy for him to move on. It is difficult for me to do the same because I keep getting dragged back in (from pathetic and abusive sockpuppetry accusation, to misleading WQA (the instigating text is misleading) to perversely inappropriate ANI). All the best. Romaioi (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Reported on Administrators' noticeboard here. I have noticed that Romaioi did not alert Noclador to the report himself but another editor had to do so. I'm somewhat bemused by claims of a personal vendetta when Noclador has totally disengaged from this editor for weeks now. Justin talk 08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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


Incivility - User:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog

This editor, when asked in a civil way to explain an edit, is generally rude or insulting. Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here. I could go on. This user has been warned, blocked, warned again, etc etc. I have also seen many instances where this user remains calm and helpful but I think he should be warned overall for getting too heated and becoming rude. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mayalld

This is a follow up on a case of contested speedy deletion, which I deal with on the appropriate place -- see more here. This is also, I believe, a case of an editor who seems to be misusing his admin power by evading detail clarification of his speedy deletion nomination, and by letting the speedy deletion status on so that deletion was completed while I was showing interest in improving the posting and actively providing evidence why the posting was justified and notable.

As you could see on the talk page of the deleted IGO Search, I reacted on the 'speedy deletion' nomination mere minutes after it was posted today. I asked the admin, very politely, why this was done. Initially he cited 'blatant advertising', which I questioned, and he changed it to lack of 'notability', which I countered providing objective information about the non-commercial non-governmental nature and superb respectability of the publisher of the service described (mandate of the United Nations, 101 year history as an international research institute, etc.) I also said, citing Wikipedia help sources, that if notability was in question, speedy deletion was the last resort of an editor, and I asked him to reconsider. Afterwards he asked for sources, which I was ready to answer, were the article not already deleted in the meantime. It would have been enough if he changed it to possible deletion, giving me and other people more time to discuss deficiencies of the article properly. I wonder how is it possible that one single person, without other views, discussion, and without an editorial consensus, and especially without providing comments and time on how to improve a possibly deficient article, how can one such person cause deletion of someone's work. Moreover, when I complained to him about this very incident, still trying to be very polite and talking about his actions rather than himself as a person, he deleted both of my posts and posted an note on my talk page to which I could hardly, with my own words deleted, defend against.

Summary: I am all for intelligent discussions backed by clear and irrefutable evidence, and I am hereby protesting against single-person non-discussed deletions of the above user. I believe blatant deletion of other people posts is not a way of discussing issues described in them. I shall be very grateful for any consideration and recommendations as to how can I -- or other people affected by someone deleting their work without proving any wrongdoing -- proceed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjfulopp (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Two points: (1) Mayalld is not an administrator and did not (indeed, could not) delete the article. (2) This wasn't a "single-person … deletion". Mayalld nominated the article for speedy deletion, and an administrator (SatyrTN) reviewed the article and deleted it, citing general criterion 11 for speedy deletion (blatant advertising) as the reason. Railing against Mayalld for, in good faith, putting a speedy tag on the article seems misplaced anger. No one has accused you of "wrongdoing"; an editor and an administrator have simply concluded that an article did not meet the Wikipedia inclusion standards. You've initiated a deletion review discussion about the article. Why not calmly wait to see how that plays out? Deor (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Tjfulopp seems to have a major issue with Speedy deletion as a process, and is effectively protesting that the whole process is unfair. In that case, he needs to debate the process in the proper place, not argue that a single deletion, done in accordance with the current process, is wrong.
He seems to believe that deletion when he hadn't finished arguing with me is wrong, and that the article should not have been deleted unless and until I had made the case for deletion to his satisfaction, and persists in sending long winded, and petulant, messages requiring ever more information (such as this), and complaining if I remove those messages. It seems to have escaped his attention that if he had spent the four hours between tagging and deletion in adding the reliable sources that he claimed to have, instead of arguing, the article may not have been deleted.
The fact that he now seems to be forum shopping, and that he hasn't had the courtesy to inform me that he was taking it to this forum is unsurprising. Mayalld (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever

Repeated incivility and personal attacks towards all users who disagree with him [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31],[32]. Repeatedly politely warned by several users to no avail (latest: [33]). I've asked User:Moreschi to put him on civility parole, under WP:ARBMAC and he denied, in a rather colourful way [34]. Note here that Moreschi has imposed WP:ARBMAC on me for much less and this is why I considered him the first choice as a neutral admin.--   Avg    18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it a lit bit clearer:
That's just to make it more readable. I'll add up to the tally soon. I grew really tired of this recently and since he didn't change anything in his attitude since the couple of ANIs filed against his behaviour I'm in full support of sanctions. He's been acting sarcastically and made really unpleasant remarks of at least 5 or 6 editors most of the times completely unprovoked. That is if "POV-pushing" is enough of a reason to call someone illiterate, a steak of gebab, disgustingly biased and so on.--Laveol T 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Another one:

User:InternetHero

InternetHero appears genuinely to desire to improve the encyclopedia, but may need to be reminded of the social norms of collaborative editing. In particular, this user has accused me of racism. I requested that the comment be refactored; the request was received, but ignored (current version after 17 hours and two edits by InternetHero to the offending page).

Clearly, actual instances of racism fall under WP:SPADE and WP:NPA, but the stated basis for this accusation is my contention that Telescope#History should focus on the historical technological aspects, reserving involved discussion of the theoretical underpinnings for History of optics and other articles in the same interwoven family. My contact with this user began when I answered a WP:3O about this dispute here. Reviewing the 3O history, I note that the request was initiated by InternetHero; subsequent canvassing of known editors led to opinions more to their liking. Rendering my considered opinion led immediately to an assumption of bad faith with respect to due diligence in reviewing the history and basis of the dispute.

I acknowledge that answering a third opinion request can be setting myself up for a certain amount of abuse, but I consider this behavior beyond the pale. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could communicate this to InternetHero. Alternatively, telling me to suck it up and go edit would also resolve this dispute. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:InternetHero has been notified of this request. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't even talking to you. I was refering to FoBM and DigitalC. I wasn't even talking to them; I was talking to User:Chovain. If you want to talk about etiquette:
I made many compromises (I left out 2 of my contributions for the history of the telescope article and the optical telescope article---politely labeled here and here), and I just want to be seen as a contributer that has the right to edit freely on Wikipedia (with references of course). I think the problem also resides in them thinking I'm not assuming good faith: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (3rd para).
I've shown very good faith on many occasions (which were in turn overlooked many times) found: here, here, here, and here. InternetHero (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
InternetHero's consistent response to the considered contrasting opinions of his peers is to accuse them of 1)lacking experience, 2)ignorance, 3)waging a personal vendetta against him, 4)racism/bigotry, and/or 5) cite Wikipedia guidelines construed so as to support his want -rather than the purpose of the guideline. He has repeatedly rejected exceedingly kind feedback from multiple sources, attacked third parties he has solicited for support when they did not agree with his POV, and declined offer of a mentor. I strongly hold that it is in our interest, and InternetHero's, that a solution is found that is voluntary rather than punitive or compulsory -but I am at a loss as to how to affect any such solution. InternetHero has voiced a belief that edits involving his contributions are personal attacks motivated by a personal dislike of him, likewise to critical analysis of his positions expressed on talk pages. I believe these problems are rooted in an unproductive ego association with contributions and editing from a position of advocacy for vested point of view -traits to be guarded against by all editors, for sure, but that have risen to disruptive levels with this user. Any input on the mater would be greatly appreciated.Mavigogun (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me ask you something: "How many times have I asked for a discussion before you 3 (not Eldereft) indiscriminately revert my edits?"
Other than following me around like a shadow, you just follow what everyone else is doing (probably to game the system). You talk about UNDUE weight, etiquette, and verifiability yet you have been here only this long, and you seem to use those words when the others use them. Absolutely no offence intended, but I noticed this from the start and thats why I don't really consider you part of this whole thing. Coming here to express your opinion shows you probably don't have anything better to do but trust me, you can find more enjoyable things then trying to outsmart/degrade people. Try finding another hobby to vent that frustration.
In conclusion, I know what I'm doing for the most part and I recently always have been courteous. You only have to look at the history of the talk-pages. anyway, I'm over this. The community has spoken and thats all that matters. InternetHero (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The above reply speaks volumes to the problem. InternetHero has been warned to decist from personal attacks, and to "comment on the edits, not the editor". Yet, he above feels justified in describing others as racist (something that he was been warned about in the past), and then replies about how another editor expressing an opinion "shows you probably don't have anything better to do...". Because of the number of policies and guidelines violated, I don't think that WQA is enough for this issue, and that a RFC/U will need to be completed. - DigitalC (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This coming from some1 who thinks that a consensus is overrided by verifiability... You're defending a person who probably has some psychological issues---trust me. I ask you: "Who spends their time helping a troubled youth on Wikipedia"? Some1 who I am going to put on alert for stalking---thats who. He keeps (1, 2, and 3)following me and this DigitalC guy is starting to as well. This will probably be dubed as "a personal attack," but you guys need to find more constructive uses of your time. I'm only 23 and I go to school (not now) and work as a janitor...
This whole facade is just to try and think that the way I'm doing things is wrong, but that would leave ou