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 alerts

User:AlexLevyOne

Taken to ANI, per below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

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

I could use some advice and help regarding User:AlexLevyOne. The account is just a couple of weeks old but already reflects several hundred edits of highly variable quality. While his intentions appear to be good, he frequently displays some pretty bad judgment, and despite the efforts of several concerned editors to engage him on his talk page, has responded simply by blanking their comments. Example here.

It is, for example, not a bad idea to scan articles looking for {fact} tags. But some assertions are more squirrelly than others and it is not always sound editing simply to remove the tagged fact in every instance. Likewise, several short paragraphs can often be collapsed into one, but not at the expense of legibility. This post to the user’s Talk page by User:Deor (blanked shortly thereafter) illustrates several of his problem edits: diff.

To sum up, AlexLevyOne makes some good edits, but many irresponsible ones as well. I think he needs to be reined in a bit – focused a bit better – but given his unwillingness even to acknowledge Talk page requests, I’m not sure how to go about it. As for his edits -- I’ve tried to repair some of them, but he is prolific and I can’t keep up with him. That’s another reason for this request. Comments, advice, extra eyes or hands are all welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you as to this user's editing. He declines to have any interaction whatsoever when people raise issues with his edits.

However, I don't know what WQA can achieve. If he won't talk, he won't talk. He doesn't have to talk, but he should recognise that failure to engage will lead to his dubious edits being regarded as disruptive.

If he continues to decline to engage, we can do little but revert and warn. Ultimately, his editing is going to lead to a block. Mayalld (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is WP:ANI a better place for this? (Part of the problem I'm having is that I can't quite figure out what to use to warn him - it's not vandalism, really, but more often just *really bad judgment*. What's a level 3 warning for that?) JohnInDC (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The user clearly has a less-than-adequate grasp of the English language and should probably be editing the French WP rather than trying to "improve" this one. I thought of asking the admins at WP:AN what to do about an editor like this (good faith but incompetent, who refuses, apparently, to read the editing guidelines or to discuss his edits), but frankly, I'm not sure that they can do much, either. I agree that the need to clean up many of his edits, coupled with his persistent silence, are quite frustrating and am open to any suggestions. Deor (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that many of his edits are messing up the appearance of an article, uw-mos might be appropriate (leading to uw-generic4 in the end), some of his edits delete formatting, so uw-delete, or, bluntly, given his persistence in doing the same thing again after non-templated attempts to engage him over his problematic behaviour, uw-vandalism. Mayalld (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, those MOS templates are good. Thanks. I added one to his Talk page based on one of this morning's edits. JohnInDC (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's just charging along and I'm starting to feel stupid about larding up his Talk page with warnings that he's just ignoring. I think I'm going to go to WP:ANI. JohnInDC (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's here. Please weigh in if you think it would be helpful. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This item can be safely archived - discussion moved to WP:ANI. JohnInDC (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Krzyzowiec

User with long history of extreme incivility incidents [1][2] , multiple civility and revert warring warnings [3] [4] and blocks[5], now openly instigates revert warring, making extremely incivil personal remarks seasoned with anti-Semitic rant about Jews in Czech language [6]"žid nemůže krásti -- on jen bere, co jeho jest. Peníze nežida jsou majetkem bez pána -- Žid má úplné právo si je přivlastnit" ("Jews don't steal, they take what belongs to them. Money of the non-Jew is a property without the owner - a Jew has a right to take it" and so on. I think open instigation of revert wars and openly anti-Semitic rants like this are not acceptable, and something must be done about it. M0RD00R (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

How about MORDOR'S Behaviour ? Look at his edition in all Polish related articles his adds are mainly around "proofs" for "Polish antisemitism, xenophobia, homophobia etc." That's sick, someone has to stop that other way we will have more propaganda from MORDOR than now. He also removed multiply times citations and sentences in the article about NOP. I tryed to discuss things but MORDOR can't talk, he need to do whatever he want. Situation is very hard because it's mainly impossible to build community and non propaganda Wikipedia while one user do whatever he want in spreading his point of view and no one react for these pathethic actions.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I see little common ground for discussion with you for quite obvious reasons:

• "That's it, you fucking pig. You spread your propaganda too much." [7]
• "Please do something with M0RDOR, he is Polish hating Jew ;(. Ban him, please." Followed by openly anti-Semitic rant in Czech language translated above [8]
• "look at the Mordro's editions - He always delete important things and add non-reliable sources. Maybe ypou should to ban him ?"[9]
• "Stop spreading your Jewish propaganda" [10]
• and last but not least your strange obssesion with my persona. You've been asked kindly to stop using my username in edit summaries and respecting WP:NPA ages ago. But still every now and then I'm being reminded "This is not your playground" [11] [12], I'm being mentioned in random edit summaries [13], and slandered with usual "propaganda" nonsense:

• Some users treat Wikipedia as their own propaganda spreading tool machine such as MORDOR
• stop spreading your propaganda.
• Stop spreading your Jewish propaganda
• Stop spreading ur propaganda about the Poland, MORDOR
• or the "pig quote" mentioned above [14].

You've been advised to cut down propaganda accusations by neutral editor just weeks ago [15], and yet you've done it again here [16].

That said, even if I see little common ground for reasonable discussion with you, that does not mean that I'm not willing to discuss your edits with uninvolved editors. I always welcome outside opinion in cases like this. As you know your edits were discussed for example here and here. And also as you are aware, your arguments have been dismissed by uninvolved editors as "nonsense" [17] and "borderline for being deleted as unacceptably racist on a noticeboard"[18]. Lately yet again consensus has been reached that your edits fail WP:RS and other policies [19], but still you have reverted consensus version with edit summary "Revert vandalism" [20].

But the fact that when things does not go your way over the organization (National Rebirth of Poland) that you've openly associate yourself with [21], you resort to extreme incivility [22] or straight forward disruption [23][24][25] [26] this is nothing compared with this recent openly antisemitic edit [27]. Wiki is not the place where antisemitic canards will be tolerated. M0RD00R (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mayalld

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

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

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

Two points: (1) Mayalld is not an administrator and did not (indeed, could not) delete the article. (2) This wasn't a "single-person … deletion". Mayalld nominated the article for speedy deletion, and an administrator (SatyrTN) reviewed the article and deleted it, citing general criterion 11 for speedy deletion (blatant advertising) as the reason. Railing against Mayalld for, in good faith, putting a speedy tag on the article seems misplaced anger. No one has accused you of "wrongdoing"; an editor and an administrator have simply concluded that an article did not meet the Wikipedia inclusion standards. You've initiated a deletion review discussion about the article. Why not calmly wait to see how that plays out? Deor (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tjfulopp seems to have a major issue with Speedy deletion as a process, and is effectively protesting that the whole process is unfair. In that case, he needs to debate the process in the proper place, not argue that a single deletion, done in accordance with the current process, is wrong.

He seems to believe that deletion when he hadn't finished arguing with me is wrong, and that the article should not have been deleted unless and until I had made the case for deletion to his satisfaction, and persists in sending long winded, and petulant, messages requiring ever more information (such as this), and complaining if I remove those messages. It seems to have escaped his attention that if he had spent the four hours between tagging and deletion in adding the reliable sources that he claimed to have, instead of arguing, the article may not have been deleted.

The fact that he now seems to be forum shopping, and that he hasn't had the courtesy to inform me that he was taking it to this forum is unsurprising. Mayalld (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidea

Wikidea is currently using edit summaries to accuse me of trolling, stalking (despite the fact that I first edited that page on 24 February 2008) and for not being smart. On article's discussion page he also accused me of being a troll and expressing wish that I would go away [28].

He was warned to watch on his manners by User:84user [29], me [30], and User:Yannismarou [31], [32]. -- Vision Thing -- 23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by every word, and my record in every page that he is messing with, against this vexatious, impudent troll. Wikidea 01:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to echo User:Yannismarou—cool down, Wikidea. Cool Hand Luke 04:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

His latest comment: I wrote it you moron. -- Vision Thing -- 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Artw and User:Collectonian

Last night I stumbled on Masters of Horror after someone created an episode article for it using WP:COPYVIO material from IMDB. I redirected it to the episode list, only to discover one didn't exist. So, I spent a few hours creating an appropriate episode list, adding in the missing airdates and writers from a semi-list that had been in the main article. I then checked all of the other episode articles. All of them were simply plot summaries, some 800-900 words in length, and a few more copyvioed from IMDB. They all failed WP:EPISODE, WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, and WP:MOSTV. As such, I redirected them all to the episode list. Artw began undoing some of these redirects today. When I left what I felt was a polite question on his talk page asking why, he left an uncivil response[33]. He has continued making personal attacks in the AfD for one episode, in his edit summary, and on my talk page.[34][35][36][37]

I finally left him a warning for the last one on my talk page,[38] to which he responded with more incivility.[39]. Another editor has also left him a warning about the personal attacks[40] and his response shows no sign he intends to change.[41] I've never dealt with this editor before nor been in contact with him before today. He has barely even edited in the last year, so I see no reason he should be so extremely hostile towards me. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian has the misfortune to have been engadging in a stereotypical mode of behaviour that I dislike on a set of articles that I happened to be looking at, and managed to catch my irritation both barrels. Engaging Collectonian in quite that manner over the mode of behaviour was wrong of me - I should have dealt strickly with the actions and not the person. I apologise If I have been overagressive towards them. Artw (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hard to believe that when you are canvassing people to come "save" the episode articles with remarks like these[42] (which is a false statement, as only the episode articles were redirected while the main article was actually cleaned up and expanded with real referenced info instead of random stuff). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly remembering why I haven't edited for a while. And yes, removing content and replacing it with a redirect is basically the same as deleting it in most conventional senses of the word - the information no longer exists in the regular public parts of wikipedia. Artw (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how asking someone if they'd be interested in helping improve articles is canvassing (especially as I have Artw's talk page on my watchlist along with a number of the articles in question). This isn't the first time Artw has passed me links to articles he thought I'd be able to help improve (usually sci-fi/horror). As we have disagreed in the past he also knows I'm going to give him my honest opinion.

I would ask Artw to stay civil though, if the articles are going to be improved it is always best to try and keep things as calm as possible so that everyone feels they can contribute their thoughts without worrying someone might snap at them.

Hope that helps explain things from where I sit. Hopefully, the concerns Collectonian rightly raised about the quality of the articles and Artw's wish to save them will help focus attention on the issue and help to resolve this one way or the other (if they can't be fixed they will need redirecting). (Emperor (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Certainly these articles should be improved, but consensus-free summary deletion (we call it "redirect" sometimes) is not the answer. I can see why someone would lose their calm for a moment. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 21:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have engaged with this matter via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Screwfly Solution (Masters of Horror episode). User:Collectonian's position on this article seems to be quite mistaken as this film quite notable and, being a free-standing, self-contained, high-quality production by a major director, fully merits a separate article. The Masters of Horror anthology seems to have been generally made in this style using other big name directors like John Carpenter. Engaging in the unilateral, non-consensual listification which got User:TTN topic banned for disruption seems especially inappropriate and unwise in this case. If User:Collectonian continues with her disruptive provocation then we should perhaps seek a topic ban for her too. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• That has nothing to do with the incivility at all, and after your personal attack in the AfD[43], I don't think you really need to be involved in this discussion at all as it is clear you aren't neutral and are just looking for excuses to bad mouth me some more. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• User:Collectonian is uncivil here, making an insulting edit summary as she edit-wars contrary to consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You started it with that mess in AfD and your deciding that because YOU agree you get to revert rather than actually let the discussion continue. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever

Repeated incivility and personal attacks towards all users who disagree with him [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54],[55]. Repeatedly politely warned by several users to no avail (latest: [56]). I've asked User:Moreschi to put him on civility parole, under WP:ARBMAC and he denied, in a rather colourful way [57]. Note here that Moreschi has imposed WP:ARBMAC on me for much less and this is why I considered him the first choice as a neutral admin.--   Avg    18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's make it a lit bit clearer:

• oh hell no. you are disgustingly biased. please hold while i vomit. seriously, stay away
• fuck that
• Thanks, but I don't think I'll take advice from an illiterate pretending to be something he's not.
• obstinacy is unbelievable. btw are you a steak or a kebab?
• I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to take the blatant POV pushing by VMORO seriously. I don't feel the need to address anything that he wrote, because it's all bullshit.
• "you almost made me crap my pants my pants with laughter." and "Have fun trying to push your idiotic fringe view (and before you say that's personal attack, admit to yourself that you are POV-pusher)."
• rv POV pushing bullshit. stay away
• removing the bullshit

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

Another one:

• prolly coz u suk - that's to an annon. When I asked him what he was doing I got this answer: I'm pretty sure he does suck anyway..--Laveol ^T 21:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

user:rspeer

Resolved

 – Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He may have been impolite lately, possibly biting another, as you can see here ([58]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

He did look a bit bitey - maybe leave a polite note on his talk page and see how it goes from there...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 02:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done: I left him a note...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 02:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Bettering the Wiki 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs)

I may have violated some Wikiquette, but I'd like to know what in particular made this necessary. The diff links to the entire conversation between me and MCB. I do not claim to get along with MCB, but it would help to know what part of that conversation crossed the line.

The word "bitey" is strange here, because it seems to refer to don't bite the newbies, and my entire goal on UAA is to prevent biting of newbies. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• WQA often confuses me, but this one a bit moreso. How exactly did Rspeer "bite a newbie" here? ^S._D.Jameson 21:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• He bit an established user, not a newbieBettering the Wiki (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for using the wrong terminology, but you seemed rather stressed and hotheaded.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think all will be well if we just leave this. The comments were not 'biting' per se, but weren't entirely civil. Treating this as a 'warning shot' would probably b best - as rspeer is an obviously great user, showing unsurpassed kindness to newcomers. One argument and he's at WQA - that seems extreme. Let's just let it be for now...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 18:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree to close this, but not before warning rspeer that another action will be higher in the dispute resoultion process. I say this not to be mean, but to control his behavior.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely your choice if you want to escalate this or pursue the next step in dispute resolution should another incident occur. Howeverh, I will expressly state that I don't think it is necessary, nor do I think it will necessarily be looked upon in your favour. Dendodge has summed it up - no action is necessary here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Anonymous_Dissident

User:Anonymous_Dissident repeatedly makes indirect personal attacks:

• Calling an AFD nomination "very poor" with no address of the arguments presented.[59]
• Giving undue "advice" about conduct in AFD debates [60]
• Making condescending remarks in response to a polite template warning [61]
• Making false accusations [62]
• Calling user actions "ludicrous" [63] rather than providing constructive criticism or basic discussion
• Calling user actions "silly" [64] rather than providing constructive criticism or basic discussion Becky Sayles (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't personal attacks. I think because the discussion was heated, you have taken offence when none was present or intended. The issue seems to be a result of an AfD, which has now closed, and I believe we can consider this issue closed also. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't take offense for anything he wrote, nothing that important. I just chose to identify problems with the way he conducted himself. Calling things ludicrous or silly, not someone, has implications on the person responsible for them. Clearly a single editor is responsible for nominating an article, and to call the nomination poor without discussion is a direct attack on the editor by intent. He would rather call the nomination poor than to treat the nominating editor with respect and to explain his !vote. It seems counterproductive to call things silly or ludicrous, and not to actually discuss relevant issues. He appeared not to understand that such discussions are not democratic votes, nor that quick responses to comments does not imply belief in the contrary. I tried to bring up issues with comments by left by other editors, and I got condescending advice about not being able to change the outcome. Becky Sayles (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling a nomination poor is not an attack. WP:NPA even says that this situation is not a personal attack: "A posting that says 'Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y', or 'The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research', is not a personal attack." You are not the nomination. He called the nomination poor, he did not call you poor. I don't know how to make that any clearer that it is not a personal attack. Also, the thing he called "silly" and "ludicrous" was you warning him for making a personal attack when he didn't do so...there is nothing "counterproductive" about it. The only counterproductive part is making a big issue by misrepresenting facts here. I don't understand what sort of "productivity" you expect from that conversation anyway. --Smashville^BONK! 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's my take in a little more detail:

• The admin referred to an AfD nomination as a poor nomination. The user is being uncivil towards the nomination?
• The admin gives you advice that responding to each keep nomination with a question is not going to result in a change of result.
• The "polite" template that you gave the admin was in response to him telling you that responding to each keep nomination would not change the result. You therefore incorrectly templated him for a personal attack. His statement that he did not make a personal attack is correct and in no way uncivil.
• Again, a rather civil response to you after you have templated him and made this post on his talk page. Posting a link on an admin's page on "How to Discuss an AfD" is simply snarky and uncalled for. Given that, the response you were given was rather polite.
• The admin says it is ludicrous to view his statement as an attack. That is neither uncivil nor untrue. There was no personal attack.
• He states that the believing that a page with frequent updates is considered a blog is silly. He did not call you silly.

I also note you did not inform him of this discussion. After reviewing these edits and other edits, you are the only one that seems to be behaving in a slightly uncivil manner. You are taking disagreement to your AfD nomination a little too personally. If you nominate an article that people are actively working on for deletion, you can expect there to be disagreement about it. A person giving you advice is not a personal attack. However, templating someone when they did not attack you is itself considered a personal attack. As per above, this should be considered a closed issue and the only reason I tacked this on was that I thought it was a little more detail (and I spent a long time writing before my edit conflict) --Smashville^BONK! 18:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Telling me that the result would not change is contrary to the purpose of the discussion. I discuss the comments of other editors. He makes the assumption that he is right, rather than participating in the discussion appropriately, making comments about conduct. I feel as though being an admin is being given excessive weight. An admin who does not constructively contribute to the discussion [65] should be held to the same standards as any other editor. If I incorrectly used the template, that certainly can be my mistake. But Templating an admin in general, and providing a link to information that might help him work more constructively in future AFD discussions, I thought was appropriate. To me he appeared not to understand how an AFD works, so I attempted to point him in the right direction. This was based on the absence of discussion with his post calling the nomination poor, and his use of the discussion to generate comments about editor conduct rather than placing that on a user talk page. I made the assumption that the AFD should be limited to the article nominated, and that talk pages would be more appropriate for the rest.Becky Sayles (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep within the parameters of your report, which alleges personal attack. Two other editors thus far have said they think this report is bogus. Rather than abusing templates, filing bogus reports, and generally making untrue accusations against others, I would advise you to be less liberal and willing to make incorrect and blatantly false assertions and allegations. Such can cause problems here, as no-one enjoys being warned about, accused of doing, something they never did. So now I will warn you: make sure what you are accusing someone of is true by policy, else problems could result. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that your entire complaint is based upon a personal attack made by you (templating someone and accusing them of a personal attack when there was no personal attack is considered a personal attack) and the reaction thereafter. Taking this to WQA afterwards is almost certainly a continued personal attack. And the "not appearing to understand how an AfD works" again is just plain snarky and uncalled for. That he didn't explain his logic entirely is not a personal attack and your behavior hereafter, including taking this to WQA, is simply rude. When someone disagrees with you or tells you that your actions are not warranted, it is not a personal attack. The only person who has behaved poorly in this situation, Becky, is you. AD has been more civil than one could expect given your behavior towards him. --Smashville^BONK! 13:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Badgering and lack of civility shown by User:Dfgarcia

Stuck

 – referred to mediation cabal

Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my history you will notice that User:Dfgarcia is constantly leaving me messages regarding his "profession" as an ESL teacher, and offering to "teach" me things. I have tried to ignore him and lately I admit that out of frustration I have lashed out at him. He constantly provokes me, and as you can see I have NEVER left a message for him that was not in response to a message that he left for me, usually without reason. Please ask this "editor" to cease with his childish games and snobbish attitude towards me and to immediately terminate his annoying habbit of posting messages on my talk page. I have nothing more to say to him, he is not leaving constructive advise for me for any other reason but to be cleverly demeaning towards me and to insult my character, much in the way an unpopular schoolboy would try to "tattle" on his classmates. Further dialouge with him is nothing more than a pointless waste of my time. Thanks. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, he is attacking you. I will leave a note on his talk page promptly.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 DoneBettering the Wiki (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... you don't get it either: [66]. dfg (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing to substantiate your claims on that page,DF.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well then I'm glad it was someone else who took meaningful action: the sysop involved both warned and blocked the above user.  Done dfg (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at edit histories, I think Wjmummert would benefit from some kind of mentorship. While prolific, he doesn't seem to 'get' some aspects of Wikipedia; I'm looking at the extensive, and largely unchallenged, unsourced editorialising in Chicago Cubs articles (which need a WP:NOR cluebat in general). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree, and had hoped to clue him in on such, except that he was very combative to begin with and it devolved into this mess. That he is so prolific and makes so many incremental edits further discouraged me from jumping in and trying to work together. He has received some guidance from other Chicago-topic editors whose names I won't drag into this, but it's been slow going. If anyone knows of an extremely patient mentor willing to step in to situations like this, please alert them. dfg (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* This is only getting worse...I have no choice but to reccommend you to the mediation cabal.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest reading up. Additionally, in the future, take the action first, and then template, not vice versa with over an hour's delay. dfg (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of civility from User:Maurice27.

In the context of a dispute about possible vandalism from User:Maurice27, he has been showing a lack of civility with his own user talk page:

1. First, he has shouting me on my own talk page. I'd claimed him not to shout me.
2. Second, he removed my claim and has attacked me saying I'm a "dumbass" in a resume description of reversion from history talk page. I'd claimed him not to attack me.
3. Third, he removed again my respectful claim, and has attacked me saying I'm telling "foolish words" in Spanish "A palabras necias..." (I'm Spanish-speaker). This is a part of a popular expression in Spanish language that is "A palabras necias, oidos sordos", it means "Foolish words, deaf ears".

See in History of talk page from this user, from August 12th at 11:00 AM to 11:06AM.

Thanks. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 11:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:InternetHero

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

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

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

User:InternetHero has been notified of this request. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even talking to you. I was refering to FoBM and DigitalC. I wasn't even talking to them; I was talking to User:Chovain. If you want to talk about etiquette:

I made many compromises (I left out 2 of my contributions for the history of the telescope article and the optical telescope article---politely labeled here and here), and I just want to be seen as a contributer that has the right to edit freely on Wikipedia (with references of course). I think the problem also resides in them thinking I'm not assuming good faith: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (3rd para).

I've shown very good faith on many occasions (which were in turn overlooked many times) found: here, here, here, and here. InternetHero (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

InternetHero's consistent response to the considered contrasting opinions of his peers is to accuse them of 1)lacking experience, 2)ignorance, 3)waging a personal vendetta against him, 4)racism/bigotry, and/or 5) cite Wikipedia guidelines construed so as to support his want -rather than the purpose of the guideline. He has repeatedly rejected exceedingly kind feedback from multiple sources, attacked third parties he has solicited for support when they did not agree with his POV, and declined offer of a mentor. I strongly hold that it is in our interest, and InternetHero's, that a solution is found that is voluntary rather than punitive or compulsory -but I am at a loss as to how to affect any such solution. InternetHero has voiced a belief that edits involving his contributions are personal attacks motivated by a personal dislike of him, likewise to critical analysis of his positions expressed on talk pages. I believe these problems are rooted in an unproductive ego association with contributions and editing from a position of advocacy for vested point of view -traits to be guarded against by all editors, for sure, but that have risen to disruptive levels with this user. Any input on the mater would be greatly appreciated.Mavigogun (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you something: "How many times have I asked for a discussion before you 3 (not Eldereft) indiscriminately revert my edits?"

Other than following me around like a shadow, you just follow what everyone else is doing (probably to game the system). You talk about UNDUE weight, etiquette, and verifiability yet you have been here only this long, and you seem to use those words when the others use them. Absolutely no offence intended, but I noticed this from the start and thats why I don't really consider you part of this whole thing. Coming here to express your opinion shows you probably don't have anything better to do but trust me, you can find more enjoyable things then trying to outsmart/degrade people. Try finding another hobby to vent that frustration.

In conclusion, I know what I'm doing for the most part and I recently always have been courteous. You only have to look at the history of the talk-pages. anyway, I'm over this. The community has spoken and thats all that matters. InternetHero (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The above reply speaks volumes to the problem. InternetHero has been warned to decist from personal attacks, and to "comment on the edits, not the editor". Yet, he above feels justified in describing others as racist (something that he was been warned about in the past), and then replies about how another editor expressing an opinion "shows you probably don't have anything better to do...". Because of the number of policies and guidelines violated, I don't think that WQA is enough for this issue, and that a RFC/U will need to be completed. - DigitalC (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This coming from some1 who thinks that a consensus is overrided by verifiability... You're defending a person who probably has some psychological issues---trust me. I ask you: "Who spends their time helping a troubled youth on Wikipedia"? Some1 who I am going to put on alert for stalking---thats who. He keeps (1, 2, and 3)following me and this DigitalC guy is starting to as well. This will probably be dubed as "a personal attack," but you guys need to find more constructive uses of your time. I'm only 23 and I go to school (not now) and work as a janitor...

This whole facade is just to try and think that the way I'm doing things is wrong, but that would leave out my integrity---something they probably hate seeing that the community has spoken against them. I tell you: "Please try and find another way to vent your frustration". I won't go as far as to say you need councelling or something, but you (DigitalC) should try and find a better way to vent other than trying to degrade ppl. Absolutely no offence, but you should try this website.

Anyway, the sandbox-edit prepared by DigitalC is completely out of context considering much of my "personal attacks" were in the confines of them having to stalk my history logs to even find it. In addition, the other "bad things" I did was probably in respect to deleting their editing on my user-page, and to a much more laughable extent: editing non-sourced material or "material not found in the source". My reply to this is: "Why in the heck would I need to source to verify that Al-Haytham was alive during the Middle Ages". Regardless, I can see the bit about canvassing.

In reply to the other stuff found in the next (very large and particularly misleading/indiscriminant) sandbox-edit: "this is where I lost my patience in the Dispute Resolution process and sought help from 2 admins (who completely agreed with me)". Read at least half of it and you'll see what I'm dealing with here. I hate to spend so much time for this nonsense, but I don't want my account to be labeled as "compromised" in any way shape-or-form. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ward3001

Note: Case re-opened.

Hello. I've noticed a bad side of Ward3001. In response to this warning, I told him that it may be best to tone it down a bit here. (Note: It submitted three times because I continually tweaked it after clicking save, but before the page reloaded.) Then, Okiefromokla said the same thing. He then dismissed our comments and left a nasty message at my talk page. I then explained and apologized for the misunderstanding and again, he dismissed it. I was wondering what I should do. Thanks! Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a more detailed message at this user's talk page regarding the issue. As long he stays calm in the future, there shouldn't be a problem. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've re-opened the case as the user continues to leave messages, as he did here. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Canada Jack

I was hoping that someone could help cool down a situation where a long-time user appears to be taking everything that I am trying to explain to him with great hostility. After posting in proxy for the indef. blocked User:Ryoung122. I left him a message on his talk page indicating that indefinitely blocked users do not get a say on Wikipedia and that proxy posting could have consequences. He responded not on his talk page, but on the talk page of the article in question telling me to be a little bit less of an asshole. I warned him not to be uncivil and gave him an opportunity to remove his comments himself, at which point I would have entirely forgotten about the incident. His response, again on the talk page of the article, was to accuse me of threatening him and to tell me to "back off, and cease being an asshole. I don't know who the hell you think you are, but grow up." I find this response entirely inappropriate given the tone of my comments on his talk page (note that I even prematurely apologized in my first comment, in case I was mistaken with his proxy posting), but I feel as if anything I could say directly to him at this point would only escalate the situation.

Canada Jack has been an excellent contributor over the past few years, as far as I can tell, so I am uncertain as to why he is reacting this way. I do not feel that, at this point, any use of administrative tools is appropriate, given his standing, so I was hoping that someone here could explain the situation better than I could, or at least in a way that he would take less offense. Usually the standard procedure would be to remove the incivility, but I am afraid to do it myself and escalate the problem but in this case I moved it out of the article talk page and into the user talk page. Cheers, CP 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

For full discretion: I moved another uncivil comment to the talk page. Cheers, CP 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)