Revision as of 18:29, 10 April 2009

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. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA 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:Nukes4Tots

This user has a long history of abusive and abrasive communication, enggages in edit warring and accuses others of it. S/he didn't like an edit I made, and posted a 3rr notice to my talkpage prior to any violation. I gave him/her the same notice, with an explanation, followed by a discussion of wikiquette. This editor then went to a page which I've long worked on, which s/he has no history with, and accused me (falsely) I've edit-warring there. To tell the truth, the stalking and hounding is to me a mere annoyance, but I have no doubt this user is driving away good contributions. DavidOaks (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the actual edits in question. The (removed) warnings on the user's talk pages are easy enough to spot, but since Nukes4Tots is relatively active as an editor, it would help uninvolved editors greatly if you provide links to the edits so we don't have to look through tons of pages Nukes has edited recently to find what you are referring to. Also, please notify the user in question of this Wikiquette alert. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I do, of course, enjoy the tit-for-tat warnings and 3RR filings (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, never tried a diff before; here goes -- the reversion of my edit at Missouri: and the accusation that I was engaged in edit-warring there: Yup, I gave him the same 3RR he gave me, on the same basis. Probably shouldn't have. I just want someone to tell him to note his behavior. It's pretty destructive. DavidOaks (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

David, I believe he's talking about diffs like these, showing you going out of your way to characterize my warnings as harassment: , , , . Really, this user posts something and I revert it. After two more reversions, I stop and warn him as ettiquette requires. I then post on the WP:GUNS project that I'm a member and active editor on and also on another user's talk page, one who has done extensive work on the Lee Enfield article in question. I believe I've been completely above board on this. I checked the user's edit history once and found that he was edit warring on Missouri. I reverted his edit there and re-warned him that he was now edit warring on two articles. Don't know what I could have done differently. I took his edit to the talk page on Lee Enfield and tried to engage him in a meaningful discussion but he bowed out of that discussion and just began edit warring again. Again, I'll leave this up to a judgement call but if you're going to sanction anybody, look at the diffs I provided and then examine the diffs he provided... nuff said. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Thanks for the example (note: the diffs were made functional). DavidOaks (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that deleting material I was placing in response to a suggestion by another editor is a simple reversion. And I think I made quite extensive and civil use of the discussion page. Nor did I characterize your contributions as vandalism, as you did to mine, repeatedly. A grave accusation, and I do confess it brought me close to my temper line, though I tried to restrict myself merely to responding to mischaracterizations. I haven't been at my very best behavior here, for which, I repeat apologies. DavidOaks (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that the user in question has placed "rvv" (revert vandalism) as summaries for his edits. His contributions page shows reverts as a majority of edits. Most of these edits are not vandalism: on some, he has removed edits to his talk page discussing his abuse of the 3RR rule, even abusing it to make sure his revision stands. He seems to mark a lot of things he doesn't like as vandalism and reverts them. -- OsirisV (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots is currently edit warring to modify the content of my words on an article talk page. He keeps trying to change my phrase "Regarding the attempted POV change in the lede" to "Change in the lede." he calls the phrase "POV Change" "hate speech", "uncivil", and "offensive" in his 3 reverts to try to change my words. he also calls other editors retards, retards again and admits to baiting other editors. calls editors fucking morons, and this, and he also permanently scared away a new editor here, after getting into a kamikaze edit war with them and getting them both temporarily blocked. turns out nukes4tots stalked the new editor onto an article nukes has never edited before, then edit warred until they both were blocked. the new editor never returned, and Nukes4Tots went back to business as usual. ] ] ] ] ]. Nukes4Tots 4RR'd to edit war on a talkpage to include the insult "are you blind?" ] but was never reprimanded. is the article Nukes4Tots stalked the new editor to just to revert them with the message "your use of this colon offends me" ] and , Theserialcomma (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

a few minutes ago he decided to WP:BITE this new user who only had one edit (this edit ]) by calling it a really? one good faith, but unsourced addition that nukes4tots doesn't like, and this is a vandalism account? really? Theserialcomma (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

and how many times can Nukes4Tots call any IP (from many different ISPS) that attempts any mention of the phillipines in a gun article "filipino bandit" before it's uncivil? how about 24 times going back just a few months? ]

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

This issues is at WP:ANI which is the proper place as administrator intervention is necessary. The section is here. Please provide all further evidence at that thread until this issue is resolved. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Skywriter

Skywriter was adding OR to And you are lynching Negroes. I, along with several editors, removed the content. Instead of adding a template, I left a message on Skywriter's talk page. My message was not insulting or "preachy", but a reminder to follow WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Skywriter responded with this comment. It contains numerous insults (ex: "you don't know what the hell you are spewing about") and insinuations that I'm a racist. The worst insult is that I think the murdering of black people is a joke. (all this because I removed some OR?...apparently, it's a trend) I asked Skywriter to retract the comment, but to no avail. This user seems intent on slandering and intimidating others with insinuations of racism. My hope is that someone else can get through to her/him. Just because someone has been editing since 2005, doesn't mean they can get away with this kind of uncivil behavior. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 01:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm offended by Skywriter's statement "It is perverse that people like you believe that the lynching of black people is a joke" in relation to this debate. In the United States, accusing someone of being a racist is approximately as vile as accusing someone of being a child molester or a muderer. To make such personal attack over an editorial disagreement is reprehensible. Please note that from the talk page and the edit history that not one but six editors are in disagreement with Skywriter. --Boston (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is a lack of clue and a refusal to "get it." I don't think the user is blatantly incivil as much as he simply doesn't understand the point of the article. The "joke" is really an insult to America, meaning it isn't a "punchline" as much as it is a come-back to criticism of Communism. The Soviets held up the lynching of African Americans not as a point of humor, but rather as a source of shame for America. Skywriter needs to understand that while the lynchings are definitely racist (obviously), the subject of this article, the Russian phrase, is attacking, not joking about those racist acts. I think Skywriter will understand the point of the article better, and why his edits were inappropriate, if he understand this background. The Seeker 4 Talk 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Theseeker4, I respectfully disagree with part of your analysis. It's not just about Skywriter not "getting it" in relation to this article (note: the insinuations are taking place after more than one article dispute); it's about him/her making extremely insulting statements that go beyond normal personal attacks. I can't believe that an "established editor", especially someone who doesn't know me at all, would say I think people dying is funny. That's the most uncalled for and hurtful thing anyone has ever said to me on WP. The more I think about Skywriter's rude comments and attitude towards others, the more I realize it needs to be addressed immediately. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 04:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You very well may be right, and I am not diminishing his personal attacks. I only had this one incident to base my opinion off of after all. He may be a tenditious editor, only there to cause problems and ignore anyone else's opinions. If that is the case, he should be blocked. If he continues to fling racism charges at anyone with whom he disagrees, he should also be blocked. If, however, he realizes his misconception and apologizes for the accusations of racism, I think this can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Which happens will now depend on Skywriter. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Racism is a touchy subject. Perception is a difficult thing to get over. If someone percieves that a specific statement is racist, then it takes great pains to fix that. Until then, the belief will be firmly entrenched. Therefore, anyone who defends the "awful" statement is therefore also a racist, at least until the perception is changed. This is a good example of the ABC model. Until we can show Skywriter that the article is actually not racist (as I have tried to do on their talkpage) then they will believe that any defender of the article is also racist. Change the antecedant, the behaviour will hopefully follow, leading to a new consequence. You're right however, calling someone a racist is one of the most vile and disgusting of personal attacks - let's change the "A" first. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've made some recent edits that hopefully hammer home the fact that criticism of American racism rather than "lynching Negroes, har-dee har, har har" was the original point of the phrase discussed in this article. Since Skywriter has expressed the opinion that the article itself is an "ethnic joke...told at the expense of African Americans" and has no place on Wikipeda, I'm not optimistic these edits will cure this bout of mastadonia but as Theseeker4 said, "(what) happens will now depend on Skywriter." --Boston (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Whilst there are some incivil comments here, editor expressing an opinion about an article is not in itself incivil just misinformed, i think the major issue is a misunderstanding of the project and WP:NOTCENSORED principle. Just because wikipedia contains an article on a subject it doesn't mean that the foundation or any editor endorses it. The article seems to be a russian Matthew 7:3. --neon white talk 06:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter slandering me is not the result of him/her being misinformed. It's an editor making accusations of racism in an attempt to intimidate people (several people, actually). We all have content disputes at some point, but that doesn't mean we can throw a temper tantrum and claim someone thinks people dying is funny. I might not "get" an article's content, but that doesn't mean I have the right to act the way he did. The fact he won't apologize or retract his comments is the worst part. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 14:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That has been noted but the root of the problem is the misunderstanding of what wikipedia is. --neon white talk 05:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Scjessey

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

User is exhibiting uncivil behavior, not adhering to AGF, and generally appears to be turning up the rhetoric, when turning it down would be the better course of action to decrease the level of hostility at Barack Obama and its associated talk page. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

An agenda-driven editor stood up on a soap box and claimed I had been editing "improperly" - a lie he has been repeating all over the place. I told him that was bullshit. Furthermore, I regard this as a bad faith alert. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can we have some diffs? --neon white talk 05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a process fork of the Obama Arbcom case here. I have filed an AN/I report here to try to calm the revert warring and incivility on the Obama talk page. ChildofMidnight is indeed a prime offender but that quickly gets to the larger matter under arbitration. Wikidemon (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• QueenofBattle and Scjessey, given that Obama articles are currently at ArbCom, there's no point in escalating a separate dispute from here. Please present any issues you have with each other in evidence at the case. Though, for swift, necessary or emergency intervention, the administrator noticeboards may still be utilised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I object to this thread being closed. Scjessey's comment is clearly inappropriate. It's not right that it just get dumped off onto an Arbcom decision that may be a long time in coming. The diff provided seems very clear to me, and if there's some ambiguity over whether it's appropriate I'd like to know what the policy basis for that interpretation is. And discussion at Arbcom has noted that the notice boards are the appropriate place to deal with particular incidents like this. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the ArbCom has been open for almost three weeks, and results are hopefully closer than you believe. Grsz 00:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Fastily

Removed comments and topics from this page, without reason shows clear prejudice against users who chose not to engage in the whole community business http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=281806669&oldid=281806490

User:Boston notified me of the mistake I made while reverting vandalism - I did not realize there was a discussion in process going on, thinking it was only IP vandalism. I'd like to apologize for the error and confusion. - Fastily (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

user:cerejota

this user Has continued to behave in bad faith, and generally insult or ignore anyone who challenges him.

• NB - Per this complaint by editor who has unhelpfully decided not to sign comments ("I don't refuse to sign posts, I just choose not to, no rule says you have to") is part of this disagreement already being discussed on this page. --Boston (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

user:Haberstr

Is repeatedly insulting to any editor that disagrees with himin his attempts to push his agenda such as myself, O'fenian and Mcenroeucsb.

I assume this is 80/86.xx.xx.xx again. There's no evidence of insults by me, but many accusations of vandalism from 80/86.xx.xx.xx. As I'm sure he and others realize, his/her disruptive behavior slows the engines of NPOV productivity here at Misplaced Pages.Haberstr (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

user:Gwen Gale

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

Another editor with clear prejudice against those who don't engage in the community aspect. It is essentially harassment, as can be seen by her actions on this very page.

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#user:_Gwen_Gale. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• NB - This is another scattershot counter-complaint by editor who has unhelpfully decided not to sign comments ("I don't refuse to sign posts, I just choose not to, no rule says you have to") and is being discussed above. --Boston (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to ask me or any other admin for semi-protection on mainspace pages disrupted by the IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure the editor "decided" not to sign? It could be the user just forgot. The real problem is it is a complaint without specifying anything, just general unhappiness with Gwen Gale. Even if there is a real problem, there is no way to know if it belongs here; and it could be the user has been forum shopping. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcom, in this very thread, the IP says "I don't refuse to sign posts, I just choose not to..." The IP is not forgetting to sign. Moreover, Malcom, I suggest you think more about stopping your own highly disruptive and unhelpful behaviour. If you wish to carry on with a discussion about this, you are welcome to do so on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it puzzling that Gwen Gale has attacked me for "disruptive and unhelpful behaviour" when I did not have a single word critical of her in my edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Unless there is some past history disagreement between user User:Malcolm Schosha and User:Gwen Gale (is there?) , I also find User:Gwen Gale's comment about disruptive behavior puzzling especially as it seems they are on the same side of the discussion against the angry IP person. Unless given indication otherwise, let's assume User:Gwen Gale just misread User:Malcolm Schosha's comment and let's cheerfully move on. --Boston (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Read Malcom's block log.--Cerejota (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Heavens. --Boston (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Lucius Sempronius Turpio

The abovementioned user posted this following uncivil remark on my discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dave1185&oldid=281717595). Despite explaining politely to the user about the conditions leading up to his article being deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lucius_Sempronius_Turpio&oldid=281461957), he continues to taunt/take potshots at me on his discussion page where I had move the discussion to. -- Dave1185 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User: Mitsube

User:Mitsube is reverting all my changes to any articles that he himself is also working on, even though he has given no good reason as the content I am using is valid and the sources I refer to are WP:RS. He seems to have a personal bias against me, though I am not sure what I have done to deserve it, and have edited other articles without this kind of treatment. Sometimes user:Sacca steps in to back him up. I have tried talking to Mitsube (and Sacca) on their talk pages, to no avail. I can also see on Mitsube's talk page that other editors have similar problems with him. I keep trying to put my edits back in with explanations and without aggravating him (or her), but he keeps going ahead and reverting them again. Please help. Is it possible to block him for a while so he has time to cool down and stop trying to start an edit war with me? (Truthbody (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Bad faith towards me

Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs) has recently made posts at ANI (thread live link) which I think are rather bad faithed towards Polish editors in general and me in particular: "where editors who happen to come from Poland (coincidence I'm sure) ... and will probably win just because of numbers", "Piotrus, partizan campaigning with personal attacks and straw men on AN/I is not likely to produce any results for you" (update: another rather uncivil comment about me on ANI). He also moved my post (second diff), potentially confusing readers. Further, during a related discussion, in responce to me citing a naming guideline () he actually edited the guideline, changing it to remove the example I cited. I think that such comments and behavior are uncivil, violating WP:AFG, WP:CIV and WP:NPA and I deserve an apology. It would be appreciated if other editors could point out that such behavior is not the best standards on Misplaced Pages. I would also like Deacon to assume more good faith towards me and other Polish editors in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Re AN/I, the discussion was about Greek editors voting en masse at certain pages taking a Greek nationalist line. The discussion moved onto parallels, and I pointed out the parallel at Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655) where Polish editors were similarly coming down on a similar line. Quite legitimate. You then joined in with straw men and personal attacks, accusing me of saying "Evil Poles"..

The truly bizarre thing is that though I've been very moderate about using the "N word" in the context of Piotrus' campaign to change the name of a Lithuanian city to a Polish spelling on Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655), and ignored many personal attacks, Piotrus himself has used it freely "remember that no amount of logic and evidence will change the opinion of a nationalist true believer. For some, Vilnius was forever 100% pure Lithuanian Vilnius, likely created that way when the universe begun.". So although he thinks he's free to accuse a Scottish editor of Lithuanian "nationalism" just because he opposes Piotrus' position, he's come here expecting sympathy when someone doesn't use it towards him. Apparently my nationalism changes btw, because during his 2nd ArbCom case he was accusing me of being a Russian nationalist just because I posted evidence against him, and that I was part of a "Russian cabal" which consisted of a Ukrainian editor and a Russian editor who'd left wikipedia almost a year before. You gotta wonder sometimes! Piotrus, please stop with the frivolous forum-shopping and please let a "debate" remain a debate without trying to escalate it into a dispute. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have never said that Deacon used the phrase "Evil Poles", nor I have ever called him a "nationalist true believer". Those quotations are taken out of context, unlike his statements, which clearly relate to my person. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Piotrus, "Evil Poles" and "nationalist true believer" were posted in relation to my statements, but they had nothing to do with me. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Note, Piotrus is continuing to disrupt the AN/I thread with personal attacks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly not accusing you of being either, despite you trying to misquote me to the contrary. If I did, please clearly post the diffs where I am saying "Deacon is xx" and I will apologize for them. You, however, accused me directly and clearly of various unethical behavior; hence I would like an apology for your statements that I am "partizan campaigning with personal attacks and straw men"... "stacking up Polish votes to to Polonise the name of the Lithuanian capital"... "nationalist"... and so on, as visible in the linked diffs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The phoney indignation is boring, and nothing's gonna happen here. Please just stop all this drama-mongering and let's keep things to topical discussions on Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655). Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I see nothing new, but the same old pattern - report your content opponent to various venues in hope, for getting upper hand in content dispute. M.K. (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well maybe Polish and Lithuanian editors are lining up predictably on this naming issue. But I don't think this is as clear-cut an issue as FYROM. So I've attempted to steer the discussion away from mutual accusations of nationalism and put it on a more scholarly basis (the crux of Vilnius/Wilno debate is not national preferences per se, but between using the common modern English name and the "historically correct" one for the period). I suggest continuing down this route will be more productive. --Folantin (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not about Poles and Lithuanians. This is about Deacon's comments about me, which I find uncivil and offensive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Majorly

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

I'm posting this here because I think an apology is in order for the way Majorly acted towards me at a discussion at AN and his refusal to apologize for his bad-faith accusations on there. His comments towards me at AN were follows: , , , , and . His comment You're merely supporting allowing a user to continue disrupting Misplaced Pages. So in effect you are at fault, in my opinion, though not at all directly. Thanks for dropping by, your opinion was highly appreciated. was nothing but thinly-veiled sarcasm and a violation of WP:AGF. His commentary towards me and User:A Nobody, the only other editor to oppose his idea, constitutes badgering which violates WP:CIVIL.

In response to his actions, I left Majorly the following notice on his talk page: , which essentially pointed out my issues with his etiquette and asked for an apology. Shortly thereafter, Majorly posts on IRC about my suggestion: <Majorly> "Please issue a sincere apology to me and acknowledge that I am acting in good faith." I'm not going to dignify that with a response ;).

I'm inviting the community to review his actions towards me. Per the evidence above, I feel an apology is in order and I'd like Majorly to refrain from assuming bad faith when editors disagree with his ideas. ThemFromSpace 03:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. There's nothing to address here. If we brought everyone who was a bit snide towards everyone else in discussion to here, then WQA would be overloaded with trivial complaints. In any case, what do you honestly think you're going to get out of this? He's not going to apologize and there's going to be practically nothing concrete that will stop his behavior, so this report is fairly pointless. — sephiroth bcr 05:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's so pointless about it. This is clearly a violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. After all, isn't that what this board is about? I've seen many such cases on here. This is also good as a document in case he continues this line of behaviour. ThemFromSpace 07:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's pointless in that no one is going to do anything concrete to him because of a few snide remarks (hell, it's hard to even call them snide). There's a big gap between the uncivil trolls usually brought to WQA and Majorly's comments here. This report borders on being trivial in comparison. Could he be a bit nicer? Perhaps. Are we going to block him, slap him on the wrist, or institute a civility parole? No. Let it go. — sephiroth bcr 08:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're demand for an apology was really pointless. Discussing things are fine, but when you stomp onto somebody's talk page demanding an apology, do you really think they will apologize?  iMatthew :  Chat  12:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he is going to apologize, unfortunately. иιƒкч? 12:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

One can ask for an apology, but not ever expect one. To insist on one is ... well, pointless? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• The complaint here is frivolous in that there are no assumptions of bad faith or incivility or personal attacks. Difficult communications is an issue that could be looked into I suppose, though is there really a need? Rather than beat a dead horse, if either of you can disengage on the topic for a while (agreeing to disagree), that would resolve this issue much more quickly. Whether Majorly's conduct may warrant review at some point is a question that may be worth asking, but certainly not over this. Also per BMW, expecting an apology is pointless - I would say particularly when there is very little to apologise over. But you are welcome to request for an apology in any case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• I am going to archive this since additional commentary seems unnecessary. I remind all editors that to make unfounded accusations of incivility is itself a breach of our civility guidelines. Eusebeus (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Black N Red

This, this,this, and this are completely uncalled for. We were having a disagreement about the location of C.A. Monarcas Morelia, and the aforementioned diffs were his responses. If something could be done about this, I'd really appreciate it. Regardless of the issue, this kind of behavior is unacceptable. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Right after those diff's, you provided a warning yourself ... that was, of course, the correct idea. Did the editor continue those comments in a place that I cannot see? You warned them, they acknowledged it by removing the warning ... if they continue, then you will need to take it further. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

After the third diff I and others warned him, they deleted the comments, indicating they had read them, and then started again with the fourth diff like nothing was said. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Blakegartner

I'm having trouble explaining most of 5p to Blakegartner (talk · contribs) (aka 24.185.178.252 (talk · contribs)). I've started to loose patience and am afraid I'm becoming rude. Could someone look over Blakegartner's talk page and give an outsider's perspective? NJGW (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like an etiquette issue to me. Seems like a dispute about a source, maybe post at the RS noticeboard for a wider view. --neon white talk 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The top of this page reads:

• "Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors who are engaging in incivility, or who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies"

The user says "There can't be a negative review or a positive one. Unless you make it big, gate-keepers like yourself will prevent the information from being seen." which shows a clear miscomprehension of wp:N. I've tried over and over to explain that only notable views are included here, but he insists that this will help make this source notable. It is a 2005 book that has no reviews in the press, only support from "hundreds of internet forums" (according to Blakegartner). NJGW (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I came here because this page describes itself as "an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go." I thought it was like a 3PO for communication, a step before RFCU. Is it really a source dispute when the other editor admits a source isn't notable? I predict RSN would just say what I've already said: a source with absolutely no notability fails . I'm asking more for future reference than anything else. NJGW (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's mainly for etiquette| issues. I don't really see any here. You are communicating with the editor and discussing the issue civiliy as far as i can see so what's the problem? You are both in disagreement but that's not a problem with civility. I don't see why you need to be thinking about WP:RFC/U (I presume you meant WP:RFC/U rather than checkuser) over a disagreement.

*Some of what you have written actually suggess to me that you in fact are misunderstanding policy. WP:N is the policy by which we decide whether a subjects merits an article. It doesn't limit article content nor does it effect the reliability of a source. WP:RS is the guideline by which we judge the reliability of sources. In terms of books but you need to be looking at things like the reputation of the publisher, for example books published by Oxford University Press would largely be considered reliable. Ultimately there is no solid criteria for what is reliable and what is not and often it is down to a community consensus so if you cannot compromise and no consensus can be formed ask for wider input from other editors such as the reliable sources noticeboard as i suggested above. --neon white talk 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

...and there's a warning template about notability. It's a key tenet of WP - if the other editor was ever given a Welcome template, they should know it ... it becomes potetentially blockable (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Blaxthos and, heck, me too!

I have a pretty strong opinion about criticism articles, and I've been butting heads with this other user over on the Talk:Criticism of Bill O'Reilly page. A calmer head and a new set of eyes to play referee on the discussion would be great. I should probably open an RFC on the actual question, but for now I'm just concerned that the conversation has taken on an unpleasant tone. SDY (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence? --neon white talk 12:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mostly issues with WP:AGF, i.e. this diff, along with repeated accusations of disruption. My guess is simply that so many other people who have tried to make changes to the page in question have done it that even if I try to make changes to an article that I view as falling afoul of a legion of policies, the only defense is simply a condescending "no, you're against this article therefore you're wrong.  :)" If you look at the history of the article, this is a typical modus operandi of people trying to preserve badly sourced ramblings from sources which should not be given much weight at all. SDY (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User:LibStar

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

This user keeps bothering me in my own talk page . I've already told him plenty of times to stop with his childish arguments and leave my talk page. Of course, I've left it open to him to write constructive comments on my talk page, but thus far he continues with the argument. I feel that he is bothering me on purpose, expecting for me to blow up and insult him. He also keeps accusing me of personal attacks, but you can read all of my comments and notice that most of what I have said tend to be jokes to his more serious paranoia that I'm attacking him and that he is doing the right thing by continuing a pointless argument in my talk page. I'm sure this falls under some sort of Wikiquette issue, so please somebody help me!-- (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

in response: continuing personal attacks (at least 7) on me such as these edits: , , , this personal attack was placed AFTER reporting me on this Wikiquette alert...not sure if that is in good spirit: , ,, and the worst personal attack was the edit summary here . This all results from MarshalN20's ownership of Peru national football team. obviously wants to point score by wasting people's time listing it here. I thought this was over but he wants to continue.LibStar (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• LibStar, saying what another editor "obviously wants" is a poor tactic because no one can read minds. And MarshalN20, you should know it's inappropriate to "joke" in such a way with an editor with whom you have a disagreement -- such an audience will almost invariably find such comments offensive as indeed they should. From what I've seen both of you have been rude, but thankfully neither of you has been egregiously or unforgivably rude either. How about right now, here, you both apologize to each other and promise the community and yourselves to make every effort to be more pleasant in the future? I think this sort of "verdict of Solomon" is the best you're going to get and it's in everyone's interests to agree, apologize, forgive, forget, move on, and make effort to behave better starting now. --Boston (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks Boston, I'll happily apologize and move on as long as the personal attacks stop. I've got editing to do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs) 02:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

lol. I still find this to be quite ridiculous. I asked LibStar to leave my talk page several times (in a highly kind manner), but he kept coming back to continue the argument. On note of the paranoia this user has with the edit summary he priorly mentioned, even User:Timeshift9 made an input that, word by word, went: "There's no personal attack in the edit summary. Grow up." To me jokes are just jokes, and I like making jokes both in real life and in the Internet. An insult is something that is actually poignant to a person. However, stating facts is separate from the matter of jokes. LibStar is being paraonic, he kept arguing on my talk page over something silly that did not need much discussion, and he is now accusing me of ownership of an article. If that were not enough, he also now attempts to pull a Pontius Pilate by claiming that "I thought this was over but he wants to continue," when it was him that kept continuing the argument. If my jokes hurt LibStar then I apologize for them, but I will not apologize for the facts I presented. All I want is for this person to stop posting on my talk page if he has nothing constructive to say (That's all I ask! In fact, that's all I've been asking!).-- (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeshift didn't understand the context, that edit summary was clearly aimed at me.End of story. LibStar (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No. I just made a broad statement. You should have assumed good faith, and you should remember what Boston just said: "no one can read minds." Stop trying to read my mind, because you're doing a bad job at it.-- (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

ha, the irony of the above statement...isn't accusing someone of doing a bad job a personal attack? LibStar (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, you're showing paranoia. Once again, all I ask is for you to stop posting on my talk page if you don't have anything constructive to mention.-- (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm no longer posting on your talk page. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's Grrreat!-- (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Shame on you both. LibStar, saying "I'll happily apologize and move on as long as the personal attacks stop" is a small step in the right direction but it's not an apology; it's a repeat of the accusation with the prediction of an apology within. And MarshalN20, your little illustrations with catty captions? Do you think they are okay because they are masquerading as humor? There not okay as it is obvious you're doing it to "dig" at another editor. If you don't want to continue this trivial slap fight on either of your talk pages you shouldn't continue it here either. It's an unflattering "lose-lose" conversation you should both stop immediately and walk away from before it makes you look even worse. C'mon, seriously. Just stop. --Boston (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you found my illustration to be of humor. Also, as far as it concerns me, I have not posted anything trivial on LibStar's talk page. However, the argument is already resolved for my part. My whole point coming here was for LibStar to stop posting pointless things in my talk page, and he just said he's no longer posting on it. So that's that.-- (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Boston, as I said the snide remarks continue including a graphic which is just a snide remark at me. The aim of apologizing is to cease personal attacks and move on. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was a step in the right direction...you certainly reacted with more maturity than MarshalN20 did. MarshalN20's misrepresentation of my opinion of his image captions was bait that I didn't bother to take. MarshalN20 doesn't seem to want to accept this very applicable advice. My only advise to you is avoid interacting with this juvenile editor as much as possible. Bust him on a 3RR violation or something like that if that becomes applicable, but don't bother talking to him. --Boston (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would I want to accept advice from you? I came here to ask for LibStar to stop posting on my talk page, and he finally agreed. Like I mentioned above, that is all I wanted, and that is what I got. Also, on the matter of the picture, there is no "Wikilaw" that prevents me from making picture boxes that I see as humorous. If you think that me making that pictures means I'm "being a dick," then you obviously have no sense of humor and, like LibStar, seem to think that every other thing is a personal attack. However, I do perfectly recall the "wikilaw" of WP:Good Faith, which is the one I most closely follow on everyone.-- (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the argument above, I held good faith when LibStar discussed things with me in the Peru national football team (Which he later accused me of "owning," once again not assuming good faith). Yet, that "good faith" of mine broke when he began to post idiocies on my talk page; which is why I in turn came here asking for him to leave my talk page (which, although it sounds redundant, he did). If you don't like me because I make jokes, and because you think that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a boring and serious place, then you seriously should begin thinking on creating your own project as Misplaced Pages is open to all and to everyone's way of contributing to this fantastic idea.-- (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just want to disagree with Boston on one point; don't try to "bust him on a 3rr violation" as that would appear to be retaliatory and immature; the best thing to do is ignore him, try to avoid him, and if you can't avoid him, ask for third opinions to avoid conflict. This advice goes to both Marshal and LibStar, for what it's worth. The Seeker 4 Talk 11:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Good day The Seeker! Nice seeing you around again. Lol. When I read the "bust him on a 3rr violation," I laughed my lungs out because I had previously posted: "That's Grrreat!" (That's 3 "r". lol). Have a good day and thanks for your comment.-- (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Binarygal

I encountered Binarygal over on Information technology infrastructure library after responding to a request for a third opinion. Originally editing anonymously, BinaryGal challenged an editor, Ashleyvh, for removing two links that were in apparent violation of the external link policy. The dispute got out of hand somewhat quickly, and Binarygal (still editing under an IP) began making personal attacks and a legal threat. After more exchange and more personal attacks from Binary, , Ashleyvh put in a WP:3O request. I put my two cents in (which supported the removal of links on the basis of WP:EL). At this point, BinaryGal started spewing even more personal attacks directed both at me and Ashleyvh, accusing that among other things that Ashleyvh asked me in advance to pose as a neutral third party. Any thoughts on how to proceed? - 2 ... says you, says me 06:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can you just tell us how it has been established that 86.167.136.66 is the same editor? I think overall there is a lack of good faith with some disruptive bad faith accusations and the editor needs reminding about WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The so called 'legal threat' really isn't in this case as there is no really threat of action so we should just consider those comments as part of the general poor civility of this editor. I see a first warning has been issued recently i think we should keep a watch to see if it improves things. Please make sure you imform the editor of this alert. --neon white talk 07:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Binarygal continued where 86.167.136.66 left off. I think we can draw that conclusion based on contributions. - 2 ... says you, says me 14:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

She's been notified, she also removed warning on her talk page. - 2 ... says you, says me 14:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate posting on another noticeboard, and subsequent conversation, moved here. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I encountered Binarygal over on Information technology infrastructure library after responding to a request for a third opinion. Originally editing anonymously, BinaryGal challenged an editor, Ashleyvh, for removing two links that were in apparent violation of the external link policy. The dispute got out of hand somewhat quickly, and Binarygal (still editing under an IP) began making personal attacks and a legal threat. After more exchange and more personal attacks from Binary, , Ashleyvh put in a WP:3O request. I put my two cents in (which supported the removal of links on the basis of WP:EL). At this point, BinaryGal started spewing even more personal attacks directed both at me and Ashleyvh, accusing that among other things that Ashleyvh asked me in advance to pose as a neutral third party. I think some admin input could really help in this case, I think we're beyond the point of assuming good faith, the gross incivility has continued even after being approached concerning the personal attacks. A legal threat may also still be outstanding, its not clear if Binarygal ever actually withdrew it. - 2 ... says you, says me 07:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say that I am not seeing personal attacks, and I did not locate the legal threat - although I did see quite a bit of short temperedness from Binarygal. Can you post diffs of the specific legal threat, and comment which terms you feel were personal attacks? It may be that I have grown a little calloused and have missed the things that have caused you concern. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The personal attacks are pretty obvious in these diff diff. They are full of bad faith accusations. --neon white talk 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Forum-shopping? This is still in-progress in WQA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't intend to forum-shop, I was concerned about the legal threat, which I hadn't noticed until after I made the Wikiquette alert. - 2 ... says you, says me 14:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I will be honest: I find this to be extremely offensive and hurtful, and will most likely not edit again when this matter is settled. There were no insults and clearly no legal threats. I simply had and still have serious doubts regarding the edits of Ashleyvh. I tried to articulate these, but ironically I was the subject of what I consider to be personal attacks a degree of hostility. Please DO check the edit history very carefully and closely. I genuinely feel that I am subject to some degree of bullying, when all I have been trying to do is protect the integrity of an article, and ensure that a change I consider to be dubious was properly debated to achieve consensus. Indeed, I contact an Admin last night to request input. Please do chekc it out. BinaryGal (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There were quite a number of incivil comments made by yourself towards this editor, such as accusing him/her of having a agenda, questioning thier motives and applying that they are trying to disrupt a consensus discussion by canvassing. One of our most important behavioural guidelines is assume good faith, this means we should assume every editor is here to improve the encyclopedia rather than damage it unless we have strong conclusive evidence otherwise. I see no evidence that this editor was not acting in good faith and your comments were not helpful. You are welcome to question other editors contributions but you must do it within the behavioural guidelines. If you abide by these in future there is no reason why you cannot edit in a productive way and i think you will find communicating with other editing and establishing compromises alot easier. Asking for third opinion is a good way forward. --neon white talk 15:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't stop editing, that wasn't the intent of this at all. I was only making a good faith attempt to improve the situation and gain some perspective, since my third opinion didn't seem to help. We want you to be a part of this community, any community has disputes, all we're asking is that you assume good faith and don't make personal attacks when approaching disputes in the future. Staying cool when the editing gets hot has some great ideas about dealing with disputes. Also, I'm sorry for not assuming good faith concerning the legal threat. Misplaced Pages has a strict policy against legal threats, but given the situation I should have made a mention on your talk page instead of an ANI report. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that there are a lot of competing interests in the ITIL world. A lot of factions. Two large communities for example, both currently listed, as they should be. A commercial company now licensing ITIL as opposed to the UK government: politics all over the place. So I think I am rightly sensitive in defending the page and insisting on consensus when changes are made, and yes when attempts are made to force them through via repetition, especially when I can see clearly that some of the edits support one external faction at the expense of the others yet lack solid rationale.

I thus tried to buy time for consensus, and however you put it, I was pushed, my sound arguments were just ignored, and I felt I was bullied. Yet all I have done is try to defend an article's integrity. Then I am accused of all sorts, notes appear on my own page, and this segment appears about me.

I can live without this. Sure, some people know a lot more about Misplaced Pages symbols and the like than I do: but not about that article topic and the backgound. So I just stated the truth in plain English throughout and held my ground hoping for an Admin or a senior person to come in. But this is where it ends up.

An while I am at it, I have always edited from different PC's because I travel. When not here I don't always login, because I am just passing a few minutes on someone else's machine. Something else I seem to be under attack for.

Given all this, would you feel like editing again?

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution