Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active discussions

Uncivil behavior

• Trasamundo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jaontiveros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Carlstak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Spanish Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1-User:Trasamundo: not stop his uncivil behavior over me. Now accuses me 2 times that I "sabotage" wikipedia. I'm getting personal attacks before in Talk:Spanish_Empire, which are repeated in last Trasamundo intervention. In the same talk he called me "Sockpuppet" in 4 times In this latter occasion he accuses me that I "sabotage" wikipedia.

Cited (Trasamundo):

• "So any accusation by Santos30 to others about original research it is simply a comical childish tantrum as if a child is denied a candy.."
• "this is the strategy of this individual, so that the page will be blocked, and nobody can edit, which is a full-scale sabotage in wikipedia.."
• "I know that when the protection period expires Santos30 will recommence his sabotage in wikipedia.."

This is his last edition where he accused me twice of sabotage.

Please any help to stop the uncivil behavior of Trasamundo in the talk. Thank you --Santos30 (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

2-User:Jaontiveros:who supporting Trasamundo the dispute,"agree with Trasamundo", tries to help him to stop the Talk,and impose their views through a banned from wikipedia english, repeating the uncivil behavior seek a penalty on me trying to find any improper purpose and here. Thanks--Santos30 (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Jaontiveros talk about User Retired in Wikipedia.es, not expulsed before and not involved in the discussion, and Jaontiveros not say that Trasamundo gives and recive in Wikipedia.es strong support from User:Durero, who said these ugly words about Wikipedia.en after revert me and delete the map, kick me and block the talk. Then, User:Escarlati, supporter of user Durero in Wikipedia.es, delete POV template.--Santos30 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are that bothered by the user, refrain from editing that section for just a bit, though if this is taking place at the es.wikipedia site, WQA may not be a good choice as this is the English Wikipedia. I'd consult a dispute resolution process on that site. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the uncivil behavior was here, in wikipedia english Trasamundo accuses me of sabotage by Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Thank you--Santos30 (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

3- Carlstak in the same uncivil behavior uses Sockpuppet investigations with the same attack in the talk:

• here
• here,
• here

.--Santos30 (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The matter of the SPI is open. Users should not call one another socks unless sockpuppetry has been confirmed by an SPI checkuser. Otherwise it falls under WP:NPA as a personal attack or an ad hom attack. There is a difference between one account being a legitimate sock versus an undisclosed sock used to edit articles. It seems you are indefinately blocked from es.wikipedia I would suggest using only one account here, disclose any other accounts you've edited on and simply be truthful, the truth will come out in the SPI case anyways. If you are found not to be socking, then that user must stop calling you a sock, or implying it because the Checkuser found no indication of it. Even if you did sock at one point, and come self-clean and act in accordance to policy, further pestering by that user could be a civil matter in which he could be warned or blocked. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I do not need puppet. Although I can lose my "user" during my work in wikipedia, and then I use the IP in articles editions. But never as sockpuppetry to avoid 3RR, never to my own support in a talk. I have not another user. I not have fear to use the talk. Thank you very much.--Santos30 (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I would create a user named Santos30Public for such public use, if you have to use IPs to edit at work or away from home, those edits could be deemed 'socking' as unless specifically marked to Santo30, they WILL be considered a different user OR a suspected sock. I would retroactively attribute your IP edits with you claiming they are your own and signing your name to them. A legitmate sock also redirects to the main account, when it is not as safe for you to use your main account due to the risk of passwords being taken or such. I would explain this at any SPI you are called to. It matters quite a bit as to whether you sock to deceive or socked for privacy. Claiming those IP edits as your own is a start to fixing the mess you are in. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I can claiming this IP edits [1], but in Spain it is IP dynamic that can change, and maybe other people can use this IP now.--Santos30 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Then cite, next to the post that YOU made as an IP with your Santo30 account. Say 'I, Santos30, made this post' or something. You shouldn't redirect an IP to your account, only the edits you made with it. If you had a different user name (not an IP) then you should redirect that user account to your Santo30 one. That's what I mean. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK I understand. I claim IP edits [2] and delete redirect [3]. Thank you very much.--Santos30 (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A good step, now if someone DOES have issues at SPI, you can cite this conversation and your edits as an attempt to correctly fix it, now you know, I wouldn't post under an IP address on pages you previously edited, just for the sake of the matter. Make a second named alt account for public use as noted above. Thanks you for doing so though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

OK here the account to recover editions in IP public [4]. Thank you Chris.--Santos30 (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Trasamundo: not stop this uncivil behavior over me. He call me "Socketpuppet", "Sabotage", and now Trasamundo for 3 times accuse me of lies: Cited Trasamundo:[5]

• "The next Santos30's lie"
• "Santos30 lies"
• "Santos30 continues lying"

Maybe I'm in the right or mistake. But i'm not came to wikipedia to lying. Please a help.--Santos30 (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The user doesn't want to respond here, but I would ignore him. And bring the content matter up at WP:DRN. If he thinks you are lying about something on a content matter, its best to put more eyes on it. That or go to WP:3O, but I am powerless to stop someone from making such statements. They are not exactly civil, but also not breaking any real rules if the editor has an honest opinion of that, its still hurtful to say it. Its why I suggest having other editors comment on the content matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks, but it is impossibe work. Now he accused me:

• disruptive [6] and
• filibustering [7].

With old consensus for File:Spanish Empire Anachronous 0.PNG Trasamundo delete this map 1506 and changes for the old map 1499 (without Central America) and say me "only change the year of the legend" to be "constructive". But what he disputed (island of Cuba) is in both maps!!, then what he wants is a picture of 1499 with the year of the legend of 1506.[8] Their exigency is truly disruptive. A help please, Where I can take a help with this editor?. WP:3O is the place or where?.--Santos30 (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Trasamundo in another uncivil behavior call me: "someone interested in filisbustering and quarrelling".[9]
• Trasamundo delete the "Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion" [10]--Santos30 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not socket puppet as you can see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Santos30 --Santos30 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of bias

• Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rrashmissingh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Love's Journey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A month or so ago I came across a series of articles written by Rrashmissingh and Love's Journey concerning the author Rashmi Singh and her books in AfC. None of the articles had any proper sourcing and I declined them on this basis. Considering the sheer amount of times that the editor tried to submit the works in various formats, has attempted to add the author to various pages on the mainspace, paired with the fact that the screen names hinted that this could be the author or someone editing on her behalf (friend, family member, co-worker, etc), I decided to watch their edits. Love's Journey (the editor) got blocked due to it being a promotional screenname, but this account was working in tandem with the other editor. Now I do want to note that the Love's Journey editor is not involved in the accusations of bias, but I want to give the full background. Rrashmissingh was in talks with another editor, which was initially going to accept the article on the faulty and unreliable sources that were on the article for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Taming The Restless Mind. On several occasions I'd tried to explain to Rrashmissingh why the sources were unusable (on various AfC pages, the AfC help desk, etc [11]) and I went onto the other editor's page (User_talk:Michaelzeng7#Taming_The_Restless_Mind) to explain why the page would not be appropriate to add to the mainspace. I went in detail and explained that it was not ready for the mainspace and that the article would just go through a lengthy deletion process and would ultimately be a waste of editor time.

Rrashmissingh later posted onto Michaelzeng7's page again, accusing me of bias, of not knowing reliable sources, of not being able to be a reliable editor because I'm in school, and that I have a vendetta against anyone with the name Singh. (User_talk:Michaelzeng7#Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FTaming_The_Restless_Mind_.29.) What had happened with that was that Rrashmissingh had been adding the author to various pages as a notable person and I did a search for the author's name to see if they had tried to add an article to the mainspace. I found the other Singh, who had a lack of reliable sources to show notability. I tagged the article for notability, although it has multiple issues with it. (Rashmi Singh) I was just recently going through my watchlist and saw that there'd been something posted to the user's page and remembered the earlier conversation on Michaelzeng7's page and went to see if there was an ongoing conversation that I could contribute to and discovered the accusations. It's starting to get heated, but it's not quite at the level that I'd bring it to the admin page, so I brought it here. On top of all of this, the user's only edits have been attempts to promote the author on Wikipedia, although in their defense they mostly have stuck to AfC. Everything I've done so far has been within the bounds of Wikipedia's rules. To put it bluntly, it's not my fault that the author and her works lack the reliable sources to show notability per Wikipedia's guidelines and no amount of insulting or accusations of bias will alter that fact.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Here are links to the editor's adding of the author to various pages, which was part of what made me watch the user in the first place. Rrashmissingh has repeatedly tried to add the author to Notre Dame Academy, Patna. ([12], [13], [14]) Some of the edits were instantly reverted by bots, others by myself or other editors. There have also been edits to Pustak Mahal, which have been reverted by other editors. ([15], [16])Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also I wanted to include one of the user's pages on AfC to show what I meant by unreliable sources and the like: [17]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I certainly hope we don't take this discussion to full-out dispute resolution. My thoughts on the matter side mostly with Tokyogirl. The articles in question do not have enough reliable sourcing to evidence notability. Even if the author chooses to be silent, the book has not met the notability criteria (or significant coverage has not verified that it has met the criteria) for books and people. Which is why I declined the submission and subsequently nominated the article for deletion. It's simply that. There is no reason why Rrashmissingh should continue to act in such a behavior, where the comment on my talk page was highly unnecessary. However, I think the best way to end this is to forgive and forget. Rrashmissingh stop, Tokyogirl79 let it go. v/r Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

An Uncivil Threesome

I'm getting extreme uncivil behavior from three members of wikipedia User:Shawn in Montreal, User:Tomwsulcer and User:Nat Gertler. Without trying to relive this last week on Wikipedia, this threesome of people have triple teamed everything I've done. One of the members User:Shawn in Montreal filed a COI on me, then afterwards realized he was wrong, he made an apology (still the damage was done)- but then went back to his uncivil actions and ways. I'm still a newbie here esp with creating articles and so forth, but these guys have bitten me constantly and have attacked like a pack of wolves. If you could just look at all of our edit history, you will see a pattern with them and their behavior towards me and my artciles, etc. It's very disturbing, and please, if someone can look into this threesome as it's been a very unpleasurable expereince here on Wikipedia.Causeandedit (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• You should have cited the problem articles, like the Steve Lieber link farm than you tagged as an advertisement (and that User:Shawn in Montreal used your talk page to disagree with your evaluation of).
• What about listing the other problem articles, so that non-administrators can give you feedback on their evaluation of the edit history? LittleBen (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the three editors mentioned above of the existence of this thread. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I"m trying to understand exactly what the accusation against me is here. Yes, I was editing articles related to Jonathan Hay (publicist), which User:Causeandedit was also editing. Then said user announced that he would specifically target certain articles related to me... primarily articles that I was already involved in the talk page. So yes, I've been involved in editing, and I didn't stopped being involved in talk pages of pages he chose to target. When User:Shawn in Montreal saw that he had announced such targeting and noted that he'd add those pages to his watch list, presumably because he recognized the targeting and knew that due to WP:COI concerns, I'd be reticent to edit the articles themselves. Overall, I've answered the user's questions, pointed him to Wikipedia procedure, and suggested steps that would help him maintain an article he wanted to protect. If someone wants to point to what aspect of Wikipquette I've violated, that might move this discussion forward. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Welcome Causeandedit, sorry you are are having such a rough time of things. Can you please choose three diffs as examples of this uncivil behavior? Perusing your edit history I certainly see evidence of disagreement, but simply disagreeing with someone is not uncivil. VQuakr (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Causeandedit is referring to articles such as Jonathan Hay (publicist) and Hoopla Worldwide and Nat Gertler. Causeandedit has worked hard on these articles to try and improve them, but my sense is that he or she does not yet have a firm grasp of Wikipedia's rules about sources, verifiability and such, and I continue to urge this user to please read WP:RS and WP:V and WP:NEUTRAL. Many references added were links to blogs, websites, press releases and such. I urge Causeandedit to understand that reverting the contributions of well-established contributors such as myself, on repeated occasions, including removing tags without fixing the problems noted, is perhaps not a good policy in the long run. In my view, Causeandedit's additions to the three articles do not yet show an understanding of Wikipedia's rules and, as a result, many edits have been contested, challenged, and the Jonathan Hay article has been put up for AfD. I have twice offered to provide assistance and counsel to this contributor, and explained that Wikipedia has a learning curve, but it first needs people willing to wish to learn it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've been notified of this discussion but I don't know what to add to I've said in all the discussions to date. I'll just say: 1) yes I did initiate a COI noticeboard discussion, then withdraw it 2) This has been getting very personalized for some time, and a comment like this is a flag, to me, that there is WP:POINTy tit-for-tat flagging for advert on the part of Causeandedit, as there is nothing remotely "strange" about the layout of the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll add another diff: this comment from Causeandedit back on the 12th seemed to me to be the start of a strategy on his part to reply in kind to any maintenance tagging or criticisms of "his" articles by reflecting them back on articles related to Nat Gertler. It's a kind of a warning shot, imo. Now, in some cases, there are real issues on the articles he has tagged. But as I've already indicated, with the diff on the Lieber article, I think it's also disruptive editing, at times, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Shawn, once again you are falsely assuming things. Your ref to my comments are correct, and there is nothing wrong with them. I couldn't think of the right tag for the Steve Lieber page, but I knew it looked strange with the layout as I told you. Somebody went and added the correct tags to that page, which is exactly what I was looking for. And for the record, the three of guys have been so hard on me with all my work (even while building the page, I asked you guys to let me build the page and I put the correct "under construction" tag and you all were still all over it, that it got so frustrating that I kind of quit it early). So yes, with you guys being so strict and intense, I went to your pages to see your pages as a frame of reference for mine, because I assumed that you all would have bulletproof, properly sourced work that I could A and B with mine. However, the pages weren't like that at all which was suprising. Causeandedit (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• The "under construction" tag includes an invitation for other people to edit. And the pages that you went to were not pages that any of us were editing (with the exception of one ISBN-formatting correction I made years ago on one of the pages), so that excuse that you were looking at our "work" doesn't match with reality. Now may I ask once again that you show where I violated Wikiquette (with diffs showing what edits you're objecting to) or that you revoke the accusation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Match with reality"? Nice one... What are you implying with the comment? And for the violations, I will list them Nat, but right now I'm watching the two films (+2 more) to give you the credits that you asked for - for the Jonathan Hay page to put on the AFD page. Causeandedit (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking back over everything closey, I think that Nat Gertler is genuinely trying to help, although I don't think he really has a clear understanding of the music side of things and how it works, just like I don't understand the comics side of things, however, he does understand how wiki works and trys to stay neutral to wiki policy, which is fair. The accusation on him needs to be revoked because he hasn't really violated wikiquette - it's just been frustraing on the lack of knowledge on subjects. Shawn in Montreal pretty much started this whole incident, with his harsh and wrong acusations that he later apologizsed for, but as I said, the damage was done. (ill-considered accusations of impropriety) I think at that point, once he made such a strong accusation, jumped to conclusions and made a wrong COI, he should have just backed away and let things "heal" so to speak instead of still provoking and biting at my edits, etc instantly. He still makes wrong acusations, so I think he should basically walk away, esp after my first encounter with him was doing the wrong thing that he did. That said, I do respect what he has said and his knowledge, and I have learned a lot from his insight. Clearly, he has violated wikiquette to some degree, but I can get over it. Now Tomwsulcer here is what i've expereinced from him with uncivil behavior. 1) Take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully. 2) Makes snide comments 3) aggressive 4) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. So, I don't know if any of this helps anything or not. I've never done this before. :) Causeandedit (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a disconnect between the ideal of WP:Civility and the day to day rough and tumble of working through disagreements, unfortunately. I don't expect that to be changed anytime soon. Generally speaking, most editors don't have time to sift through edit histories to help resolve friction (at least I don't) -- so I'll repeat the request for WP:DIFFs which provide specific examples of the behavior Causeandedit is referencing. 10:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Causeandedit is an inexperienced and abrasive contributor, clearly partisan towards nonnotable subjects which he has created articles for such as Jonathan Hay (publicist) and Hoopla Worldwide, and Causeandedit has shown a pattern of disruptive, accusatory and non-collegial editing when others have tried to point out problems with these articles. I have tried to inform this contributor about how Wikipedia's rules are paramount, such as proper sources; others such as Nat Gertler and Shawn in Montreal have tried to do likewise. Instead of listening to our counsel and learning the rules, and fixing the problems which beset the articles above, Causeandedit has removed tags without solving the problems mentioned in the tags, focused attention on attacking the three of us on talk pages and in COI boards and here and in numerous places such as here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Causeandedit is creating a lot of friction here and shows no sign of learning the rules or working amicably with other contributors.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2012

I hadn't noticed Cause's comment above from 12:42 a.m., seeking to "revoke" this Wikiquette request for assistance. Having now seen it, I've removed my comment as I'd really prefer not to continue posting diffs about this long and drawn-out drama. Content is king, and that's where we should all be directing our time and energy.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I lost that whole thing I was posting... Causeandedit (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Shawn, you shouldn't remove your comment, put it back, so other people can see your constant uncivil treatment on me (even after you apologized for an "uncivil" action). Let me be clear, I didn't ask to "revoke" this Wikiquette request for assistance on you, or Tom... no way. I did on Nat Gertler because looking back, he wasn't doing anything to violate wikiquette. When you initally attacked me Shawn and put up your false COI, Nat was kind of thrown in the middle, because he was making comments too, but his comments and suggestions were correct and separate from you, so, I confused the motives of both of you and put the both you two together because like I said, I've NEVER been in any situation like this before. Once again, I don't think you've taken ANY accountablity to what you've done to me. This in all reality started from you. You created this and continue to do so. Causeandedit (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oh this is still on? Okay. It's all a massive waste of time, imo, but here's the comment, then:

• This comment from yesterday is also a good example of his behaviour. I don't think there's anything on that Talk page which can in any way be construed as Nat orchestrating a campaign on his article -- in fact, he's been enormously careful not to be in COI. But because the Jonathan Hay article will likely be deleted and Gertler's not, this editor continues a campaign of attack and innuendo in place of being able to mount an effective defence of his article. He may be inexperienced but he's no newbie -- he's been here since July 2011 -- and he's learning fast how to use the mechanisms of Wikipedia to strike back at editors and wikilawyer. As in the above diff, he's learned how to couch things in a "I don't know, guys..." false innocence as he manages to stay just shy of blockable behaviour. Judging the massive amount of drama he's created since this began, I suspect he will continue this campaign ad nauseum. Personally, I now think WP:DENY is the best way to deal with the situation, but I'll be curious to see what the perspective is of uninvolved editors, as they sift through all this -- if they choose to. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

These reasons above are the very reason that I created this “Wikiquette assistance” page to begin with. Since July 2011, when I started editing wiki pages, I’ve never had ANY incident or conflict with anyone at all. Not ONE. That said, it was Causeandedit who created this massive amount of drama, not ME when he made an “uncivil” public COI against me with a bunch of false accusations, in which he later apologized. But immediately after his “apology”, he continued to bash and keep going, instead of letting things just "heal". He caused a ton of stress and hurt, but he doesn’t just back off… he keeps going with his uncivil and accusing ways, and even like his above comments STILL making more accusations without taking any accountability to what he has really done here (and keeps doing). That’s not right; he should at least give that person space for his hurtful public accusations. What good is an apology, if you keep going with on with more of the same? Now Tomwsulcer has caused me so much anxiety and stress with his bullying and “uncivil” tactics. He just said above that Hoopla Worldwide is a “nonnotable subject” when clearly it is. Hoopla Worldwide is as notable as any notable indie record label can be. Look at the facts with that label, it has major distribution and releases MANY multi-platinum artists on a major scale. Sure, I might have added too many sources (and the wrong ones) and what not, and it might not read the best way, but he threatened to put a “AFD” on that page too, if I didn’t follow his ways. I asked him to help and he didn’t. So I reached out to a different editor who has experience with creating record label pages, and he removed two of the tags that Tomsulcer put on there. Tom is abusive and disruptive with his edits when dealing with me. YES, I removed tags from the Hay publicist page that were fixed from other editors as you can see from the edit history. If you do indeed look at his “exhibits” he lists for his rebuttal above, you will see that I haven’t attacked them, it’s the two of them who continue to attack and cause uncivil harm. I went back to those pages that he lists, where he accuses me of threats and added my “sign posts” as I didn’t have them before. I wish the two of these guys would just back off from me.Causeandedit (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement is a normal part of the collaborative editing process, and edits you make will be modified and critiqued by people you do not know. Commentary on and discussion regarding deletion of content you have added is not uncivil, because you do not own your edits. This discussion should be closed soon, as there do not appear to be any examples of serious WP:CIVIL violations actually presented. Causeandedit, if your hope is that you can have editors who disagree with you "banned" from editing in areas where you have been working, you should know that this is very unlikely. Remember that you should write about what can be verified, not what you know or what is "obvious". VQuakr (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks VQuakr, my hope isn't to have editors "banned" from editing at all. I want people to edit the work, not me, but I'm tired of these two users in particular who push the envelope of uncivil behavior and who have been attacking me, case in point a wrong COI - and to continue on with their bullying tactics, that shouldn't be allowed or accepted. You don't see the pattern here with them? Thanks for your time :) Causeandedit (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't come across the other 2, but I've had the misfortune to attract User:Nat Gertler's attention. There is just no need to talk to people like this. Tepi (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't wish to interact with other Wikipedia editors, then editing Wikipedia will be difficult. If you have some specific complaint to make about me here, I request that you make it and post some difs to support it. If you don't, I request that you retract your comment. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally I've found User:NatGertler to be WP:CIVIL and collegial and a decent Wikipedian.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Just on a general note, I wonder what pointers our Wikipedia knowledge base has for drafting company pages that don't come across as pointless advertising. Just out of curiosity, I took a look at "Hooplah Worldwide's" wikipedia page and one of the only descriptors it has on it is "Hooplah Worldwide has been described as a 'media mammoth'" Sure, it's factual, but isn't it not unlike the wikipedia page for some politician having as its second sentence a statement like "Joe Blow Politician has been described as "the guy who should vote for, because he is awesome."

As to the wikiquette, I of course sympathize with anyone who has come up against people in the media industry; they often redefine abrasive. I'm curious too, insofar as, like it not, wikipedia is a very political document, edits in the spirit of fun are allowed. For instance, when certain companies are so eager-beaver to be listed on wikipedia, don't we owe it to them and ourselves to list the good and the bad about them on their page? Just a question. Thanks! Hope I wasn't hopelessly off-topic here.

Settdigger (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Death Page Problem- Badruddin Haqqani

• Lihaas
• Sunnydoo

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deaths_in_2012

We seem to be having an issue. I am a normal contributor to the Deaths Page board. I handle mostly Cause of Death and verifying articles. As far as that forum goes, my work speaks for itself. I am currently #5 for the year in edits with a few over 500. I have never had an issue with another person like this before in my days. We have had some disputes with red names among others, but this guy seems to have a vendetta of some kind.

What has happened is this. I entered in Haqqani with a link to the BBC article for his death. The BBC article stated that a family member and local tribesmen said that he was dead and his body was buried. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19378474 is the article.

The user Lihaas against the usual standard for the Death section just reverted the edit without entering anything on the Talk page. Out of courtesy when I undo someone's edit, I always go to their talk page and enter the information in a nice way. I have a little script I use for this. Instead Lihaas goes crazy and starts accusing me of a number of things. He kept saying that the article was bogus and I was making things up. He further went on to say that the BBC was not a reputable source. I reversed his edit. Then he reversed mine. At which point I reversed his edit again and entered an article on the Talk Page. He then went onto the Death Talk page after I had made notice to him of it being there. It was more in your face behavior. He then closed the discussion for the page.

I dont know what to do. I have never dealt with someone like this before in either my professional or personal life. If I had done something wrong, I could understand it. But I have been in policy the entire time. He has now reversed edits 3 times in 24 hours, which is against policy. However, I am not asking for disciplinary sanctions against him. Only for help in resolving the matter as he seems to have quite a temper.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

One other quick point- after the last volley, I did ask Lihaas not to contact me again or I would report for him harassment. I dont wish for the conflict to continue- just mitigation of the circumstances and a decision to made. Sunnydoo (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

First off, an addition was made to the page in BLP violation on speculation of a death. Which i admitted to him was right per BOLD.

I first reverted as speculation accordance with the source [18], the above user then said/admits there was doubt as unconfirmed (which is explicit in the source). As is then in accord with WP, his edits need to be discussed which i told him per BRD. He then re-reverts and threatens me with reporting. This came after he leaves a non-civil note on my talk page saying i am "patronising" for that edit, he later mentions other sources by name with no evidence (and then went ahead with a 2nd revert). Then after saying i was patronising, he claims to be courteous and threatens me, when the said post came AFTER he was against consensus on the talk page (and having twice reverted). My reply to him came as a reply to me on my talk page (albeit i replied a day/2 late). See also the talk page Talk:Deaths_in_2012#Badruddin_Haqqani, where he reports that "there is a personal problem between us" and then says the report and also claims hes been courteous from the start and im wholly at fault (?). Not sure if he is acquainted with WP policies, though i brought a key one to his attention.

tw- He told me I enjoy "starting" an edit war aftre i told him to discuss in accord with BRD, the ONUS then was not on me to find sources for his addition. Yet still he reverts without; discussion OR a source that affirms.

Let me also note that after his first comment on my ta;lk page, i replied to him that BOLD reverts need to be discussed and explained why i reverted, he THEN re-reverted. Then he thinks he owns the article, saying hes the top 5 contribs and that he was [allegedly] entirely civil and i was at fault. [19]

And for the record, he has soapboxed "good riddance" on the death page [20], then saying ive questioned his honour/AGF.

I have no idea why this came here in the first place. But it points to BOOMERANG.

Dear, dear, he now mentions in the first paragraph here that he is a "topeditor with X edit" and I hVE a vendetta? Do you relise, Syunnydoo, that the comment is not in accord with courteous co-editing? You think calling me patronising is a "nice way"? Please find me one single instance that i ever/kept said this article was "bogus", the "BBC is not a reputable source" or that i went "crazy" (and that too is polite?). And hwere did i close the discussion, i merely hatnoted offtopic materialwhich anyone would agree was. At any rate, as you reverted that i only hatnoted by comment. Further please point out where i ahve reverted anything in 24 hours?Lihaas (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page history it looks pretty uncivil. Looks like a genuine problem. --Pete (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That i remove content from my talk page? Kindly please read where it stemmed from? Why should i have attacks of being patronising on my page when i was in accord with my right to revert per BRD? He tells me not to go on his talk page and he continues to add to mine? Really? I should keep taking thrats?

Did you further read his no w bad faith and without ecvidence accusation against me here too? ive disected it here (by asking not accusing) too.Lihaas (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please check out my talk page also. The part about questioning my honor and ability is this "Please stop introducing jokes into articles. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and contributions of this type are considered vandalism. Continuing to add jokes and other disruptive content into articles may lead to you being blocked from editing. ." I do not take my updates lightly as I spend a couple of hours a week researching many newspapers to find hard Cause of Deaths. I consider that response argumentative and threatening.Sunnydoo (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, ive lsited those comments my self on this page, i dont intent to hide it. And did you see the edit of ours i referred to? I dont think saying "good riddance" shows any faith on that edits part. That is soapboxing]]Lihaas (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw that comment and I think it was in pretty poor taste, but understandable. Is there any need for this to continue? The guy's dead, we have good confirmation, you two can stop slinging rocks at each other and call a truce? Please? --Pete (talk) 10:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and i had no intention of even brining it here on anything. Im involved in the discussion on the talk page, actively contributing to the matter at hand of the sources not slinging mud. If you wish to close this its fine. We can continue there (though im still aghast hes accusing me, but whatever). Maybe not a block, but he should get a trout for that. Id perefer salmon ;)Lihaas (talk) 10:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you're fishing for compliments. Looking further, there may have been some misunderstanding about the use of the word "patronising", which can have a couple of meanings. I'm guessing here, but is English a second language, or do you have a problem with dyslexia? Either can make humour hard to fathom and misunderstandings easier. --Pete (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive120, just a few weeks ago, Lihaas agreed to stop using the term "nonsense" when blanking sections from his own talkpage. I am curious as to whether Lihaas has now changed his mind about this, or whether the two instances of it in this incident [21] [22] were merely oversights on his part?

Lihaas, do you accept that Sunnydoo's original post on your talk page was entirely polite and collegial? Secondly, were you able to understand what Sunnydoo was trying to convey in that post?

Also, do you understand why your response on his talk page might lead Sunnydoo to believe that you were being "crazy" in your actions? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

1. I guess in hindsight patronising could be taken two ways. It was just in combination with the reverts et al. that it was more.

2. The "nonsense" was in response to the hostility, perceived or intended. But per both it was the hostility and it gets turned around on me?

3. Which brings me to the next point, did you see what that was in response to? That was grossly inappropriate, not just a misperception. I find it curious that there is not a lick of comment in regards to that action. Thats purely oversighted? He doesnt get even anyone comment on the gross incivility? Im sorry but that doesnt elicit good faith towards someone who work on BLP content. Note, a highly contentious issue here. He also files a report without the evidence and then blatantly dodges to falsify evidence (note, i asked question of where i did what he asked), conversely i mentioned virtually all edits in question, even ones on his page that he says defend his view. And that turns on me? ANd he gets nothing? Hes is still accussing me on this page and without a shed of evidence cause i kno wi never said/did what he accuses (As a reason to bring this here, frivolously i might add) "kept saying this article was "bogus", the "BBC is not a reputable source", i close the discussion OR where i reverted anything thirice in 24 hours?" Further nte, he insisted on keeping his content on the page when he was against consensus. That is against WRONGVERSION and BRD.Lihaas (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your level 3 warning on his talk page accusing him of creating a "joke" was certainly an indication that you considered the information (and the source?) "bogus", even if you didn't use that actual word. Now, are you willing to answer my questions? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that was the edit summary as the other user here pointed out. Clearly that was some sort of facetious commen. See the edit summary in what i link to with that edit below the warning (notw- it was NOT an empty warning it had my words to calrfiy). You really think hes dont nothing wrong? Ive even shown right here the "bogus" accusations. I also fail to see what having made X amount of edits has to do with anything. This saga stemmed from the right per BRD to make BOLD edits (him), revert(mine), then his ONUS to discuss and prove. That is there to prevent such edit wars.

And for he records, the same edit as the warning includes the caveat as explanation. I mentioned sopaox and opinion, woud that mean the content is opinion. Seeing the edit will clearly show a grossly inappropriate summary. (which, by active precedence shows that a western-friendly pov is acceptable without action but anything that disagrees is grounds for a unilateral block without dicussion or defence)

At any rate, Ive proposed this to end this facadeLihaas (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Sunnydoo there is no way that you are the top X editor, top 5 on page means nothing as well. For making that very argument it is a matter of WP:OWN and is very uncivil. You don't even have 1000 edits, try 894. Thousands and thousands of other editors are above you, in no possible way could you be the top 5 anything. That is a bad faith ad hom to bolster your authority. Lihaas, everything you write matters for context, but you must also be aware of how it appears and what it says about the situation. Don't be humorous. I say keep him on the list because it was international news. If you disagree with the content take it to WP:DRN, but drop the incivility, no need to be bickering about it. Its not even that important. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That was never my intention. My point about being Top 5 on this particular board was not made to be a boast. It was to lend credibility to my claim that the BBC and the article was not bogus and that I wasnt responsible for introducing a "joke" article as Lihaas claimed. We have had quite a few incidents of vandalism on this particular page and now public edits are restricted on it because of the vandalism. Which is another reason why I took Lihaas's charges so seriously. I personally do not care how many edits I have or how many other people have. I also realize that there are other editor's who do significantly more work on the page than myself including handling most of the monthly turnover chores, verifying edits and running bots to check references. It is a great deal of work that goes into it and not one person or even a few persons could manage to do it all. It is very much a community effort.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the matter at hand, Lihaas has extended an olive branch and I think we will just drop this. I very much think there were some cultural misunderstandings and/or funny wording that got us off down the wrong path. Thank you everyone for the assistance.Sunnydoo (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, such issues come up, I had one the other day where my message was taken way weirdly, but it made things seem defensive when I was making a compliment. Such things happen. On a personal note, someone mentioned by 100,000 edit count when my Persondata edit messed up a bad template in an article and didn't notify me. The good thing about Wikipedia, nothing is unfixable, given the desire to correct it, our narrow viewpoints are sometimes a problem. Though as a whole, Wikipedia is getting better. Working with each other goes a long way in successful coverage of all topics. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Involuntary Celibacy

• 71.60.82.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mr._Vernon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Involuntary celibacy

I made a legitimate edit to the "Definition and psychological consequences" section of this article, and this "Mr. Vernon" insists on undoing it and "warning" me. I'm very interested to know exactly why his edits are OK and mine are "vandalism".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.82.180 (talk • contribs)

Because you keep blanking content here, here, and here without explaining it in the comments for your edit or using the article talk page to discuss these changes first. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the report. 71.60.82.180, your edits removed a bunch of well sourced information and replaced it with unsourced speculation with no scientific backing.

Mr. Vernon, while the IP's edit was generally useless and not helpful in the slightest, it was made in good faith and therefore not vandalism. I recommend keeping Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace bookmarked, and use the uw-unsourced and uw-delete templates next time, as would talking to him about his edits (since he did ask you why you were undoing his edits and warning him).

71.60.82.180, please read our guidelines and policies on citing and identifying reliable sourcse in a neutral manner. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Will do. 71.*, my apologies for the vandalism comments, I'll remove those warnings from your talk page. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, 71.60.82.180 just did this edit again, which now violates WP:3RR. Since I tagged this incorrectly recently I am loathe to give him a warning, does someone else want to handle it? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Mr. Vernon, here. You are not only blanking, but you are also adding deliberate factual errors, despite multiple warnings. Electric Catfish 21:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the stranger articles I've run across here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The warning would serve no purpose, but if it continues than the edit warring note might be grounds for a block, as the editor has taken it to the talk page, that is a good sign. Our complex rules and many policies are not clear cut or spelled out until most editors run into them first. IPs are no exception. For that reason, I think the edit warring note is enough, and 3RR is stale now, but yes. Strange article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Celebrity Big Brother 10

• GimliDotNet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Leaky caldron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.137.180.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Waterlooroadfan107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Imtitanium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Celebrity Big Brother 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A discussion has gotten out of hand at Celebrity Big Brother 10, arguing over formatting of a nominations table, on one hand you had a number of editors wanting information included and others who didn't. This led to accusations of bullying [23], ownership [24] and general aggressive comments [25]. The anon did break WP:3RR at one point, but this hasn't been reported (I certainly didn't want to be see as 'bullying' a newbie). Basically would like advice on how to handle this in the future, especially when you get editors jumping on the 'bully' band wagon as soon as you have an opposing view point. Cheers. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 08:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In the current dispute the most seriously disruptive editor is User:IP.86.137.180.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (first edit 15 August). They do not assume good faith, have made repeated false accusations against other editors in the dispute and have crossed WP:3RR. An examination of their talk page [26] and edit summaries [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] is sufficient to provide the overall picture. I think if this editor could be gently but firmly warned by an uninvolved editor in good standing it might begin to reduce the considerable friction that they are generating.

User:RachelRice is also unnecessarily aggressive as exemplified in the final 2 links provided in the original post above. Telling fellow editors to “deal with it” and “This is not YOUR site.” are tendentious and provocative when targeted at well intentioned remarks. They need to moderate, as does everyone in the dispute. Leaky Caldron 09:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, first of all, the two main people causing friction on Celebrity Big Brother 10 are User:Leaky_caldron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and User:GimliDotNet who will not let others edit the page, and in the discussion it is seen that they are re-arguing something that has been on Big Brother pages for many years, so there is no point arguing about it. Originally they said that they would stop objecting if the consensus agreed, and when 7 people agreed that Guest would be better, and only they objected, they continued to fuss over something extremely small in the whole scheme of things. They continued to revert constructive edits(showing Jasmine as a guest is informative as it shows she returned at some point) and cause further unneeded trouble. I think these two editors should be warned to stop causing so much friction on this page due to their intolerance of other people's opinions. They should be reminded that Wikipedia is a free site, User:IP.86.137.180.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has done nothing wrong and simply argued their case. Waterlooroadfan107 (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you are being disingenuous. Only 5 people have expressed the same opinion as you on the talk page, one of whom did so long after the last revert and therefore cannot be included in the 'being ignored' group. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask why Jasmine was included as a guest in the nominations table when the nominations took place the day after she was in the house? --MSalmon (talk) 10:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

86.137.185.34 can you please log in if you are one of the users involved in this discussion. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you not involve me in this please. I only edited the page once. --RachelRice (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is about your behaviour on the talk page where your tendentious attitude did a great deal to provoke others into making attacks against good faith editors. Leaky Caldron 11:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a situation where two of the leading advocates for one side of the argument are repeatedly 'throwing the rule book' at the advocates of the other side. This does not help. For example, in my view User:RachelRice was quite within her rights to complain about being told how to format her Talk page contributions. The more experienced editors need to stick to the topic of the discussion and stop policing others, particularly when they are not neutral participants in the argument. In that way, the disagreement can be resolved without tangential arguments. Sionk (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record Rachel was not told how to format her talk page entries. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

How are you supposed to react to editors when comments like [32] are added. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sionk's remarks about the alleged inappropriate talk page instruction to RachelRice seems to disregard all the guidance provided about ensuring effective communication by using, among other techniques, indenting WP:TPYES. Leaky Caldron 11:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop policing everyone, none of us have done anything wrong. 86.137.185.34 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

@GimliDotNet. I completely agree things are out of control and some of the recent comments by new participants are unhelpful. The answer is to not encourage them by answering back. It's good that you've raised the question here of how to resolve it. As for the formatting issues raised by Leaky, they're minor. Why get into an argument about how to carry out the argument? If someone's formatting actions are disruptive, it would be far better to have a polite word on their Talk page. Sionk (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The "new" editors, registered and unregistered, are unresponsive to any direct talk page messages, preferring to remove legitimate advice and warning tags. We are dealing with users unfamiliar with content policy and behavioural guidelines. Their behaviour and style is typical of chat forums where there is little formality and little moderator involvement. What is worse is that they don't wish to know, hence the remark from *86 above. Everyone needs to abide by WP:5P and experienced editors would be remiss if we simply disregarded such contributions. Leaky Caldron 13:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This [33] is the type of response we are getting at the talk page. Unfortunately nothing is ever done about this, it's driving decent editors away from these articles and they end up nothing short of fan-cruft personal blogs of a few fringe editors GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, the talk page has degenerated into nothing but personal attacks by people disinterested in actually discussing the article. WFQA really is pointless, don't know why I bother to edit on wikipedia when there is zero support from the community. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. There is a proposal to terminate it at WP:CENT I believe. I think it is AN/I next step for the most offensive one. Leaky Caldron 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Leaky, am I right in saying you have said some harsh words too? You called other users on Wikipedia gullible and childish and you (along with GimliDotNet) were disrespecting other user's edits with no back up points or reasons for reverting the edits. --RachelRice (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed my personal attack, above, along with the more insulting ones left by another. Referring to some non-specific editors as gullible is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact. As for the reverts to which you refer, there was ample reasoning given by those editors who understand what a nominations and evictions table is used for but you might wish to look at the main Wikiproject - WP:BIGBRO which pre-dates our discussion by many years and has no mention of non-participating visitors being included in nomination and eviction tables. There is also a discussion on the talk page. Leaky Caldron 12:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Rachel, please provide links to where I have disrespected other editors contributions without due reason or redact your claim. If you refuse to do either I am going to escalate this to ANI because I'm getting fed up of vague claims like this being made for no reason. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste your time & effort. There is a serious lack of WP:CLUE and they have even removed my neutral template link to WP:BIGBRO from the CBB article talk page because "it is not the right place for a link like that"! As only Sionk has taken a genuine uninvolved interest in this WQA why not close it? Leaky Caldron 13:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to wait for some independent comments about how to deal with this situation, before continuing the tit-for-tat any further? I suppose I took a position in the Talk page discussion, so I'm not completely uninvolved. This Wiqiquette assistance process doesn't seem to work too well, does it?! If no comments are going to be made, Leaky is probably right and the thread should be closed. Sionk (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ken Sibanda

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Mziboy was blocked for disruption in relation to this. IRWolfie- (talk)

• altfish80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• mziboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Ken Sibanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A sock account has been used to start the deletion process by an editor. This is against wikipedia's use of mutiple account. The account used was Altfish80, and she is requesting the deletion of the Ken Sibanda page. I do not agree that the first and serious black African to write science fiction does not belong in wikipedia. They is racism at play here.Mziboy (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Mziboy (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mziboy, you are totally out of control. How many different places have you made such a report at? where is your evidence of abuse of multiple accounts? Where is your evidence of racism? Where is your evidence that this is anything other than a perfectly normal deletion discussion. You need to calm down. simce you have already created two pages about this and reported it at AIV and' ANI, it is already out of the jurisdiction of what This page can help you with. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing our accounts policy prevents an editor from creating a new account for the purposes of nominating an article for deletion. Unless you have evidence that the editor deceptively used more than one account to participate in this deletion (for example, by nominating it with one account, and then arguing to keep with a second account, without disclosing that the two accounts were operated by the same person) then most likely there is no issue here. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I seen this one before, though I'd like to chime in, that undisclosed socks or IP edits can be a problem for editors, if brought up to SPI or elsewhere. Claiming them is a good thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Insulting comment

• John D. Rockerduck
• 76.31.236.81

• User talk:John D. Rockerduck

Hi I have been off wikipedia for a little while and when I logged back in I found on this message from the IP address IP 76.31.236.81 on my talkpage As a 50 year old Catholic who teaches catechism and sponsors for confirmation... you need to go back to school with the 5 year olds. Your comments show you know nothing about what the Church teaches. Which I'm sure refers to a heated exchange I had with differant editors on their talkpage, though I felt heavily offended at the way they disrespected my faith by saying the Catholic church is "factually" anti-woman which stating that as a fact is just as offensive as saying the nation of Islam is factually "anti-american" I however was advise to ignore it and just stay away from useless forums like that; however since the IP address brought the issue to my talkpage I cannot ignore this and am heavily offended by it, since this is a clear cut case of a personal attack and it is not even related to an article; the comments only purpose is to attack me. I would like someone to tell the editor he can't leave comments like that and to stay off my talkpage unless he has actual business like improving an article not just insulting my intelligence John D. Rockerduck (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The event is stale and the IP editor hasn't edited in a week, I'm sorry, but I don't think there is anything that can be done. It was a lashing out by someone who wanted to remain anonymous, but I doubt the editor will appear here. Seems like there was some ANI drama.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on the content, I'm pretty sure it's SkepticAnonymous, a rightfully-banned user. Don't worry, his socks have been blocked, too. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Then take that up to SPI for confirmation. While the editor is not here or present, open discussion of who it might be still is unfounded, no matter the hunch. It will further interest if true, or it might uncover another editor with a beef. It is about all that can be done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Chris, the IP is officially a SkepticAnonymous sock.[34] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The IPs were previously blocked, but I do not see a direct block for socking, even if it is very true, the block for being a 'duck' is one thing, but I was just trying to be civil, since mere claims can be under NPA. Though I think this is over. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil comments and behavior

• OptimusView (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• BP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On Aug. 23, 2012 User:William M. Connolley left aggressive comments like "This can go into the Armenia article if the "editor from Armenia" wants it, but he should not be importing his national conflicts into this article" [35]. After a new version of subsection's text was consensused at talk between 3 editors, William M. Connolleyn twice reverted the discussed version and left new comments saying "please leave your nationalism out of the discussion. If you can't, then find something else to edit."[36] while I never showed any nationalism. Just before this, William M. Connolley used uncivil comments during a discussion with another user [37]. An admin's attention to his behaviour is appreciated. OptimusView (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What is aggressive about the first quoted comment above? Is it "editor from Armenia"? That text (as indicated by the quote marks) is just a copy of a phrase from the message that WMC was replying to, and is not a wikiquette issue. It is also hard to see a problem in the second quoted comment above (leaving nationalism out of discussions is a requirement of WP:NPOV and is part of normal community behavior), and the comment was a reply to a statement about certain areas where nationalistic editing has been a problem in the past. Are you saying there is no such nationalistic feeling regarding the current disagreement and that therefore, in your view, WMC is wrong? That might be a defensible position (I have not looked at the underlying issue), but the wording of WMC's reply is not at all uncivil, and is not a wikiquette matter. Your last diff possibly needs to be fixed as it does not show an edit by WMC. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is already too narrow of a point of view as the signpost article shows, if a properly sourced material which supports a nationally recognized or preferred narrative, then by all means note it as such. This matter however seems to be about bullying and WP:OWN if consensus is made and one editor refuses to accept it. WP:DRN is good about such disputes and might be the best way to take a measured step against one user trying to block positive changes. If the Armenian narrative recognizes X as their view then that viewpoint on X should be noted with contrasting opposing view if it is also recognized, label it appropriately under said national views as well. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a pro-USA viewpoint nation, its just our systematic bias, our issues with Tienanmen Square is obvious about such biases. Making sure it is reasonably sourced should be all that's required. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

We are offtopic (this noticeboard is for discussing issues concerning behavior, not content, although it may be closed), however the above comment needs a response. Claiming that if the "Armenian narrative recognizes X as their view then that viewpoint on X should be noted" is totally incorrect. After satisfying WP:RS, article content is based on WP:DUE. An article on X does not include what the Americans think about X, and what the Armenians think about X, and what the Australians think about X (and so on, down the alphabet). It may very well be DUE to note some fact about Armenia in BP, although experience tells us that usually an edit of the form "X did something bad to NATIONALITY" is usually an attempt to coatrack views about views about NATIONALITY into as many articles as possible. My comments concern the general case, and are not an opinion about BP—opinions about that should be at Talk:BP or WP:DRN. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you that a national view on a specific matter falls under coatrack. A national view or response is entirely justified provided you have a source, while you may not like it and recoil against differing matters, they are verifiable and not undue. The fact that the content disputes leads to a matter of civility, it seems that information is being suppressed under the banner that someone's interest is nationalistic. The 'bias' argument is not civil and is rude. To remove something because its a 'national view' is to damage Wikipedia when said view is properly sourced. It didn't seem to be sourced that well before, but plenty of reliable sources do mention it. BP operates it, it is an international matter, one country is very displeased, said countries response should be noted. As well as those countries which said operation is a boon. A national view is not a 'minority opinion' when said national is directly involved in a particular matter. While the pipeline is a sub-topic, if it is going to be discussed at all, that national opinion is more than warranted, it should be encouraged. The reason I am pointing out this matter, not that it is entirely off topic, is because the dispute was over the national view and an editor was being attacked for it. In order to properly explain that said views are appropriate, I needed to discuss WHY that editors opinion is valid. Its a matter of being civil, but quite clearly, the pipeline is extremely important to national interests, those nations directly affected by it should have their primary view noted when specifically mentioning the effect of the pipeline. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I did mention WP:DRN, but I believe that informing the dual content/civil dispute according the the relevant policy on said content dispute. By informing about the relevant policy, it helps in making a coherent argument on why such contributions are valid. DRN can vet it, but quite clearly, WMC is being rude and bullying out valid information on the pretext that another editor has a bias or agenda. I see no such concern, OptimusView is not changing the article to be favorable to a national view, but a single sentence. The correct manner to put those mentions in, is make a new sentence and put it next to other national supporting comments. Negative and positive. As the two problems are together, I thought I'd spare a new section at DRN and provide some insight on the content matter and why WMC's comments were not civil, and how best to defend against such claims. That is all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz

• Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz who has been blocked many times for personal attacks has been making a great many on me over the last few hours. he has called me a liar he has accused me of misrepresenting sources[38][39] He has accuse me of Tendentious editing in violation of WP:AOTE. I should not have to put up wit ha stream of abuse from this guy and would like it stopped. Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I would take this straight to WP:ANI, Kiefer has a long history with this kind of aggressive posturing, and WQA is a toothless tiger. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

DS, you too are being intemperate in some of your postings. I would suggest you both back away from each other. There is an ongoing discussion about the article in question at WT:DYK; deal with the content issues there. The instability resulting from this dispute has already resulted in the article being pulled from the queue. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I am being attacked for no reason, are you surprised I am being intemperate? I do not misrepresent sources, I do not tell lies. I do not want to put up with pointless attacks form a guy wit ha grudge. Facts, not fiction (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not surprised, but how do you think getting yourself blocked is going to make you feel better? This dispute is being spread across multiple pages and is growing acrimonious, and it would be in everyone's best interest not to continue that trend. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

He continues to accuse me of misrepresenting sources[40] What am I to do? Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop attacking back. I realize you're upset, but so long as you both remain at that level of discourse, you both are in the wrong - no matter who is actually correct in the underlying content dispute (which should of course be addressed elsewhere). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fair-minded advice, which suggested improvements for me. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruption at Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

• Andromedean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sport and politics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Sports & Politics has spent the last two weeks attempting to remove and edit the article Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics - Technologies used for Olympic sports, using a wide variety of underhand tactics which I don’t believe are unbiased or justified. This editor has caused an immense amount of disruption to this article whilst adding very little of value. I have also noticed that Sports and Politics has drawn criticism from other editors and other articles so this behavior could be more widespread.

The original reason given by Sports & Politics for removal was that‘The GB cycling team did very well and mainly the French need to get over it’

Sports & Politics then uses a variety of different tactics such as It is a conspiracy not a controversy or the technology is not controversial because no rules were broken.

ostensibly credible sounding reasons are often used by Sport & Politics such as displaying ‘original research and synthesis’ so after I have nearly converted it all to direct quotations to avoid any chance of using the tactic the strategy changes, Sport & Politics then starts to edit the technical data to gibberish, for example:

"cycling has seen the most impressive technological contribution. For example, 100% of the 221% improvement in the one hour cycling record could be attributed to developments in bicycle aerodynamics."

was changed to:

"In cycling, technology has contributed to changes in bicycles"

Due to the ambiguity of this statement I confirmed with the original source that 100% of 221% improvement really means 100/221=45% of the total, and this figure should be quoted, Sport and Politics then claimed this reason for subsequent removal:

“The above only goes to prove the confusion to the uninitiated reader and as such shows it is not easily accessible to all users of the encyclopaedia so it has no place on Wikipedia as it is far too easily confusing as clearly demonstrated above. Remember Wikipedia must be accessible to all not just the writer or those with specialist knowledge”

Of the most serious deletions by Sports & Politics brings this response from another editor

“Take for example, the statement when quoting Boardman: When Boardman was questioned if this high-tech warfare would put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." It was directly from the source. I specifically noted in my editing note that I want to quote "what is exactly provided in the source". Could Sports and politics please provide a reason for deleting it? Showmebeef (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)”

Sports & Politics answers “Calling it "high-tech warfare" is incredibly POV and pejorative. It not actual warfare and is sensationalising….”

Another tactic is to use obviously invalid technical arguments such as:

improvements in the 1hr cycling record due to aerodynamics has no relevance to Olympic cycling, because this event isn't used in the Olympics!

A more recent tactic is to corrupt the article slowly, removing references which simultaneously refer to London 2012 and controversial cycling technology, so no individual article address the heading in its entirety, allowing Sports & Politics favourite excuse for removal, synthesis.

Extracts Sport and Politics abhors which will merit quick removal includes a report called Sports Engineering An Unfair Advantage published immediately before the London Olympics with contemporary references to the coming Olympics which states:

Research shows that people fear that sports engineering will: overshadow the triumph of human spirit and effort, make certain sports easier, create unfairness so the "best athletes" might not win, and ensure that rich athletes and countries have an advantage over the poor ones.

Once Sport and Politics has edited the article to a form that he/she can credibly attack, Sport and Politics then requests it to be locked.

In general, you will notice that Sports and Politics frequently uses the same method as the excuse he/she gives to remove articles, unfounded opinion.

This list of tactics is by no means exhaustive, but it is exhausting me which is probably the whole point, attrition.

Yesterday I politely asked Sports and Politics for the last time to leave the article so that people can comment against each point which addresses all the issues. It was edited back by Sport and Politics early this afternoon, so this was the last straw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Andromodean is acting as the owner of the article and has been waned previously not to forum shop with an RfC is currently ongoing. I have made clear reasoning as to why I believe they are acting as an owner. This diff here makes an an unfulfilable request that only they edit the article. The user has had numerous editors pointing out the information is nothing more than synthesis of information. The editor has repeatedly ignores sound reasoning by multiple users as to why the information has no place in the article. There is an RfC ongoing and the user is clearly showing their dislike of people not coming to thier point of view that the information should be included. in the above diff the editor states "if there is a consensus and good reason to remove bits I will later consider this" this is clearly a demonstration of the owner believing they are the only one who can say yes or no as to what can be included and removed from the section.

Andromedean has taken particular umbrage with me as i keep on stating where the section they want to include is in breach of Wiki policy and guidelines. Most particularly in the cases of Undue weight, Synthesis, Original research and a neutral point of view. The Above 100%/221% quote is incredibly confusing and no context was given and no explanation was given. The user is missing the article is about Controversies and the 2012 Summer Olympic Games. The information the user is wanting to include is failing on the grounds of relevancy in the most part. The user is also failing to assume any good faith from me that I am acting in the best interests of Wikipeida by claiming above that i am "using a wide variety of underhand tactics which I don’t believe are unbiased or justified. This editor has caused an immense amount of disruption to this article whilst adding very little of value". This is totally without foundation and this is entirely missing the point that i am attempting to act in the best interest of the encyclopaedia by not including text which is , synthesised, biased, confusing, irrelevant, incorrectly attributed and giving minor information undue coverage. Andromedean is clearly demonstrating they are not taking on board the constructive criticisms from multiple editors and the highly detailed and justified reasoning that the information should be removed. I am not the only editor which has stated that information added by Andromedean is not of a place in Wikipeida. Andromedean has also been criticised by other editors (not just myself) that they are ignoring the reasoning given for the removal of "their" information.

This is nothing more than a dispute over content and Andromedean not liking "their" information being challenged. The user has also added a note on my talk page with the section stating in this diff here "be thankful i am not asking for a ban" The user is missing this is a content dispute and that they are clearly not without fault here.

Andromedean has also been warned for forum shopping when they were trying to go around an existing RfC with a DRN which can be seen here and here.

Andromedean needs a mentor to ensure that they fully understand Wikipeida policy and can edit constructively especially as they are posting highly un-constructive posts such as this on an article talk page here

Sport and politics (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I have been more offended by Andromedean in this discussion than I was by Sport and politics when I disagreed with him. Sport and politics is just exceptionally hard to convince, whereas Andromedean seems to think no reasonable editor can possibly disagree with him. E.g. this comment where he clearly feels that all editors who have commented in the RFC so far are biased, as he warns them that no unbiased editor will disagree with him. He is clearly not assuming good faith, instead he claims censorship repeatedly. In fact, I happened to read through WP:TE and found a number of points that apply to Andromedean: "One who accuses others of malice", "One whose citations are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit", "One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject" and "One who fails to appropriately thread their posts on talk pages". In comparison the talk page conduct of Sport and politics is generally unproblematic, but I don't think moving a user's comment from where they intended it to be is entirely acceptable. As far as editing the article is concerned it takes at least two to edit war. I have expected Andromedean to make such a report, and the only reason I did not warn him that it could be a self-destruct was that he would probably be offended if I did so.
By the way, my IP has changed again. I am the IP who responded to the RFC. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

88 I have agreed to undertake multiple changes to suit both yourself and sport and politics as can be observed from the changes from the original article. Note one of the early comments from another user before I made most of the changes. These changes included three direct links each relevant to Olympics, cycling and technological advantage to remove any reasonable claim of miscategoration through synthesis.

I just looked at the sources Andromedean used, and several of them appear to validate this as a controversy. Instead of revert warring with Andromedean's good-faithed efforts to improve this article, I suggest the other regulars here look themselves at the sources and prune out any synthesis and leave what remains in the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

however when 'synthesis' starts to include prunining out important quotes we have to draw the line and start asking for more expert help, and a genuine independent opinion. I asked Hauster as he seemed to be involved with the RFC, and something in the RFC said I could ask again if dissatisfied. I wasn't aware that it isn't allowed to ask a more experienced official who had already had some connection with the article to examine if the rules were not being mis-interpreted, although please note he suggested I bring it to this board. After given further fair warnings that is what I eventually did. --Andromedean (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any response to your Wikiquette issues, in particular the repeated and unfounded accusations of bias and censorship? (As I stated in my most recent comment in the discussion I have read your versions of the article, and remain unconvinced. Let's keep that discussion on the article talk page.) 85.167.110.93 (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean you are not being representative with the user you are quoting there. Other users have pointed out where you are not being wholly amenable such as can be seen when you approached a user for a DRN here They clearly pointed out you are not engaging in the content at hand but are believing it is the conduct of the users who disagree with you that is at issue. Another user pointed out you were not addressing the reasoning provided by others who disagreed with your assessment here.

Andromedean if you have a direct issue with a user please take it up on their talk page as opposed to approaching a user you consider to be sympathetic "to keep a record of the following infringements by certain un-named persons?" and "Then present it at one of these forums." "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA" or "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I" such as this and an edit summary "Take notes of infringements" seen here. That goes to give off an impression that you are not interested in editing collaboratively and want to remove those whom you disagree with. It goes against the spirit of Wikipeida and assumes bad faith in the user you are disagreeing with.

Sport and politics (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe that Sport & Politics has changed the title to include my name. This is disgraceful behaviour. If anyone wishes to make any complaints about me, raise your own section. --Andromedean (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean You cannot have your cake and eat it, by expecting nobody to state where you are at fault when you have made a litany of very bad faith complaints about myself. This whole section is about the Controversies at the Summer Olympics article and talk page. To make a complaint regarding myself means that there will inevitably be users complaining about the conduct of you Andromedean as many users view you to be one of the main disruptions on the article and talk page and have made that clear in their comments here and on the talk page. It is not worth the effort having two discussions about essentially what is happening on the same article. It is pointless to spread what is essentially all related to the same article over many areas of Wikipedia. That would be highly disruptive and not in the best interests of Wikipeida. The article title has been edited to reflect the fact this is a complaint about you to Andromedean. Andromedean you do not own the this section or the title of this section simply because you started this section. That again shows the negative editing you are engaging in and is demonstrating your lack of how Wikipedia works. Sport and politics (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean please refain from making unsubstantiated claims as you did in this edit summary. It is is not conducive to a constructive debate. Please also be aware this is a complaint about you as well Andromedean. The title has to be accurate in reflecting that it is a complaint about you too Andromedean. You cannot demand one sided and un-representative titles which only convey what you want to show when it is not a reflection of reality. Just because you initiated the discussion and made the initial complaint doesn't mean you get to dictate the scope and content discussed. the discussion has naturally evolved to be a complaint about your disruptive and obstropolous behaviour as well. Sport and politics (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for an experienced negotiator to avoid disruption of an article, unfortunately my request on this board highlighting the issues seems to have encouraged the same person to continue even more. Could someone explain if I have come to the correct board, and how to proceed, thank you. I have no interest in slanging matches. --Andromedean (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean I think you are missing the facts here that you have fallen foul of shooting yourself in the foot, by making this complaint you have to accept that you will have your editing scrutinised and as you have been highly uncivil and incredibly disruptive there is more than enough to demonstrate that you are editing in an way which is non-constructive and disruptive, in a way which shows bad faith assumptions and a refusal to engage only in the content. Andromedean as you continually make references of a negative and highly dismissive and personal nature about the editors who disagree with you, you are not being a constructive collaborative editor. Sport and politics (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This board does not seem particularly active, presumably they are pre-occupied with discussing whether it should be closed. I would strongly advise you not to proceed with this case for the reason given above (though it would probably be good for you in the long run). I won't report you, but I will provide the diffs I provided above, as well as this claim of editors having "agenda"s, in whichever forum you wish to take this dispute to. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How about you start the Wikiquette off on a good footing by not name calling in the title? I've reworded it in a similar style to other posts here. My understanding of the Wikiquette assistance board is that it is a place to seek a way of successfully working and communicating with one another. It takes at least two people to make an argument, after all. Sionk (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Incivility

• Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• UK Independence Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor One Night In Hackney has resorted to making uncalled for bad faith comments in the talk page of the mentioned article. First of all nowhere in Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Not_Libertarianism and Talk:UK_Independence_Party#Request_for_Comment have i made a bad faith comment towards One Night In Hackney, simply keeping it focused on content and on the policy issue - on the other hand they have decided to imply that i am incompetant and unable to understand simple English and that i am selectively quoting him.

The fact ONIH is making such bad faith comments is complicated by their own failure to fully read my comments. For example this accusation of selective quoting is itself selective considering his point on "unduly self-serving" is covered by the first point of WP:ABOUTSELF which i clearly make mention of in the third paragraph of my RfC initiation even making it clear ONIH stated the bullet point. What else i selectively quoted is beyond me. Another example of ONIH apparently not reading my comments in full is his comment "That source has been brought up before, it doesn't say UKIP are Libertarian" despite the fact nowhere did i say that the source stated that the party was but that it made mention of the party's claim.

Whilst me and ONIH do not see eye to eye on many things on Wikipedia, there has been no call for this incivility at this article. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I must also point out that this is not even a fortnight since ONIH was topic-banned for 3 months in regards to Northern Ireland Trouble's related articles for behavioural issues. Just to stress - this article is not covered by that topic-ban so there is no violation of it. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor from Troubles area stalks me to an unrelated article he's never edited before, and openly admits he has no interest in the content in question.

Same editor claims "Good enough for the context it is added in. Though there is no problem if it's put into the proper context in a new sentence, i.e. The party calls itself a "democractic, libertarian party" which fully meets the opening sentence of WP:ABOUTSELF". WP:ABOUTSELF actually says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim [first bullet point only]." [my emphasis] Since the material is self-serving and an exceptional claim, it can't be used due to the use of "so long as".

Same editor asks "Does that bullet point even apply in this case considering the context i just proposed adding it in as - a quotation from themselves about themselves and nothing more?". Hardly my fault if he can't understand basic English.

Same editor claims "ONiH says that the first bullet point of WP:ABOUTSELF applies (bringing the Exceptional claims policy into play)". What I actually said was "Wrong, read the first bullet point - "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim".It happens to be both" [my emphasis]. Leaving out the self-serving part is highly problematic, and totally misrepresents my position.

Summary: Disruptive editor stalks me to an article with the sole intent of harassment, and proceeds to misunderstand policy and deliberately misrepresent me as well. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points. I don't see enough here for Mabuska to have filed a report. At most, I could possibly interpret ONIH's comments as ones that voice some impatience and frustration, nothing more. And certainly Mabuska isn't shy of leaving similar frustration-borne comments that (in my opinion) far exceed that which he is reporting ONIH for here. I can't help but also wonder why Mabuska decides to refer to ONIH's recent topic ban, and even going to far as to draw attention to this notice at the Arb page. Is it relevant, or are we watching a WP:BOOMERANG? --HighKing (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur with HighKing, this smells of trying to exploit the troubles ban, possibly to provoke another editor ----Snowded ^TALK 21:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

inappropriate responses

• Unscintillating (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Illinois Family Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Faithful Word Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The second page is not directly related, but the Talk page shows the only previous interaction between this editor any myself.

description of your situation
This diff explains and also shows the problem.

I came to the user's talk page to discuss a revert that caused an article to get page protection.  I could also take this issue to the edit warring noticeboard, but I don't know that a block is needed.  So the sequence of events from my viewpoint is this, I made my first edit ever at [IFI], this editor finds the edit within four minutes and restores a potential libel, and fourteen minutes later I remove the potential libel.  The editor posts at Talk:Illinois Family Institute#Libel?!, and I reply.  Meanwhile, another editor has resolved the potential libel, and an administrator has locked down the page.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no potential libel here. I tried to say this nicely, but the bottom line is that Unscintillating just doesn't understand what libel is and shouldn't be throwing around that term as a justification for removing material. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Still is right; there is no libel issue and Unscintillating is frankly displaying a level of ownership that does not befit a constructive editor to the project. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor. I checked and this edit by Unscintillating appears to be correct unless the IFI was previously listed as a hate group by SPLC. If not, I recommend that any editors who edit-warred with Unscintillating to change the text back to the original, incorrect statement, be immediately topic banned or blocked. Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You should probably take a look at this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)