Revision as of 14:50, 13 September 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:Abductive

I thought the matter of User:Abductive not assuming good faith with me had been dealt with at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Another personal attack on an AFD and when another editor reproached him here , but now there has been another attack from him here , and I think this is the best forum to discuss it.

Both examples represent incivility and bad faith in assuming that an editor has ulterior motives. Both are an attack on my good standing as an editor who does his best to follow WP rules. I think Abductive should try to concentrate more on the issues at hand and not other editors possible motivations. Johnfos (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything particularly wrong with that edit... or the original edit you complained about either, for that matter. It looks like you are choosing to read every comment in the worst possible light and running off to complain about it. The underlying issue is that he has legitimate complaints about your behavior not following Misplaced Pages policies. If you don't want him to point out your bad behavior, stop the bad behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Unlike you , I've never been blocked so my behaviour can't be that bad. Johnfos (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty bizarre bit of reasoning. So anyone who has never been punished yet hasn't done anything wrong? How convenient. Unfortunately POV pushers don't get blocked as often as people accused of not being as civil as someone else demands them to be, despite POV pushing being a far worse offense. Lots of POV pushers game the system by reporting that people are treating them as if they did something wrong even though they are breaking the basic, fundamental principles of this site and people have a right to be mad at them. So, I repeat, if you don't want people to point out your bad behavior, stop the bad behavior. It doesn't look like you have any intention of listening, so with any luck maybe a block will finally be headed your way. DreamGuy (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You've been blocked so many times that for someone like me your credibility as an editor is zilch. I just don't pay much attention to what you say anymore. From my point of view, you are always ranting on about something or other, providing little constructive input. Johnfos (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Johnfos, if you wish to avoid having sanctions imposed on you, please stop engaging in disruptive and unseemly conduct, and move on. Following and commenting about DreamGuy (talk · contribs)'s contributions or block log, when it is unrelated/immaterial to the matter at hand, suggests that you may hound any editor who has no findings against Abductive (talk · contribs)'s conduct. Crossmr (talk · contribs) already told you that there was nothing that resembled an attack in your original ANI complaint, and he pointed out what the actual matter was. Similarly, Chamal N (talk · contribs) and TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) already indicated that dropping it, rather than hounding Abductive again, is the way to go. The fact that you still brought it here after the issue was resolved at ANI suggests you are simply not getting it - forum-shopping, wikihounding, incivility and assuming bad faith are not the solution. DreamGuy was spot-on when he told you (above) "it looks like you are choosing to read every comment in the worst possible light and running off to complain about it" and that if you don't want others "to point out your bad behavior, stop the bad behavior". Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnfos, as you very well know, consensus was that it was not a personal attack as was explained both here and here. I really don't see any reason for you to keep going on about this unless you have a personal grudge against this editor. Your comment above on DreamGuy's block log on the other hand, is a borderline personal attack and a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. If that is the way you respond to someone who was trying to help you, your own block log may not be clean much longer for you to brag about. ≈ Chamal  ¤ 10:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If I deserve to be blocked, please do so. Or if I deserve a formal warning on my Talk page, fine. I am in the denouement of my time on Misplaced Pages. Johnfos (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User: ChildofMidnight - uncivil editing behavior

User:ChildofMidnight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

has recently been creating an uncivil editing environment at the Barney Frank article. This behavior includes edit warring, belittling other editors' content in edit summaries, and repeated insertion of content despite requests to allow the relevant discussion on the article's talk page to take place.

I started to become more involved in the article after I saw that User:ChildofMidnight may have been engaging in edit warring by repeatedly attempting to insert a particular piece of information, despite objections from another editor , , , . Between the third and fourth attempt to insert, I posted a comment on his talk page

"Please also understand that the WP:BLP policy applies to the entire article, not just those sentences that refer to Barney Frank directly. Also, your argument that it is 'well sourced' does not trump BLP policies"

At this point, I performed my first and only revert ever of this disputed content , stating WP:UNDUE as my reason in the edit summary. Before my revert, rougly one third of the "early life" section of the article was about Frank's father's connection to organized crime. Shortly thereafter, I joined a discussion on his talk page, in which he followed my above comment with

"...So you guys should cut out the bullshit and false accusations because that's a blockable offense..."

Administrator User:Chillum intervened, and agknowledged that both sides of the argument were legitemate, and suggested that we discuss the disputed content on Talk:Barney Frank. I then went and created this section on the talk page, where I and several other editors are discussing the addition of this content. This morning, ChildofMidnight made this edit, with the summary

"if we can't have accurate encyclopedic statements then there's no room for this bullshit puffery in the opening paragraphs"

and then proceeded to insert the information he attempted to add before for a fifth time . I now see that very shorly before I created the talk page section, ChildofMidnight created one as well, where he says that

"For some reason a couple of editors are going ballistic over Frank's well sourced statement that his father was involved with the mafia. What's the big deal?"

The editor that ChildofMidnight was going back and forth with before I became a part of the situation is User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. I think that if this behavior continues, people are going to get baited, and it will be extremely difficult to work on the article. MichaelLNorth (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is basically an informal way of intervening with editors who may not be aware that their behavior is problematic. CoM doesn't fit that description: he's been the subject of numerous WQA and ANI threads, and he has been topic-banned from Obama articles. So this report isn't going to accomplish anything -- if the behavior is unacceptable from an experienced editor, report it at ANI. Looie496 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I've been dragged to these boards numerous times by various POV pushers posting lies, distortions and other nonsense after coming after me because they disagree with the way I edited something. Once or twice a dimwitted admin, unable to comprehend the simplest of situations, even blocks me. It does get old after a while. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah well there you go. CoM just won't listen. As L said, this venue isn't enough. Read up WP:DR; RFC is probably your next step William M. Connolley (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: a need for further action also arose here: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_ChildofMidnight. In view of CoM's response above, it's hard to imagine a constructive outcome from a WP:RFC/U ("An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information."); but it could collect information for appropriate sanction. However where an editor has a history such as this and a constructive outcome is wildly improbable, ANI might serve better. Rd232 09:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a good time to squeeze that WP:CIVIL muscle, CoM; your language speaks volumes. --King Öomie 12:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Distortions? I don't feel like digging around for it, but I can recally CoM claiming I'd said things I never said, and never responding when challenged. He's a good editor at times, but he's problematic and worse at other times. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see those diffs Doug. But thanks for the pile on! ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would just point out what a joke it is to have editors come to my talk page to accuse me of "inventing words unsupported by the source" and telling me to "Cut out the crap that you know perfectly well is complete bad faith" when I add a perfectly reasonable bit that's fully supported by a reliable source. Then these same editos complain to admins that I'm uncivil. But maybe you guys have a different idea of civility than I do. I know R2d2 does, I've seen his behavior first hand and it's grotesque. ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, OK, sorry, I guess your response to the above post discouraged me from looking at the situation as a whole: "Indeed, I've been dragged to these boards numerous times by various POV pushing fuckwits posting lies, distortions and other nonsense after coming after me because they disagree with the way I edited something. Once or twice a dimwitted admin, unable to comprehend the simplest of situations, even blocks me. It does get old after a while." Such incivility (on this page! the irony), rather than any serious attempt to defuse the situation, prompted my comments. (In any case, someone else would be better placed to examine the situation, since anything I would say short of complete exoneration wouldn't go down well.) Rd232 13:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, when someone comes to your talk page, calls you a liar, tells you that you're editing in bad faith, reverts your good faith edit as "vandalism", and then complains on a noticeboard that you're uncivil, it's hard to take their comments seriously. The edits were perfectly legitimate. The incivility came from those attacking me. I'm human, so when people behave like complete assholes I have a tendency to treat them as such. And from what I've seen you and WMC are not particularly civil or respectful to other editors, so as far as ironies go, the two of you lecturing on how others should behave seems a little bit ridiculous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well if that's how you see it, that's how you have to explain it. Could just be a brief oneliner, referring to wherever those comments were made. Rd232 14:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In a perfect world when someone comes harassing a good faith editor on their talk page with a bunch of personal attacks and incivilities, at least one admin would step forward to discourage them from doing so and ask that they focus on article improvement and content issues. But instead we have this gamesmanship and drama mongering where the civility policy and noticeboards are used as cudgels to go after editors in content disputes. And guys like Connolley look out for their friends and go after anyone who dares disagree with them. What can I tell you? We have puffery sourced to Bill Clinton's speechwriter in the opening paragraph of an article (that isn't discussed anywhere in the body) while well sourced encyclopedic content is omitted because POV pushing editors don't want it mentioned that Frank's dad and his dad's business in Bayonne New Jersey had mafia ties. If they want to keep it out, then do it. But don't come accusing me of "gross" BLP violations, or misrepresenting sources, or vandalism, for trying to write an accurate article and being unwilling to expect our readers to guess what "Frank's father ran a Jersey City truck stop—a place Frank describes as 'totally corrupt'" means. I thought we were supposed to spell things out, not spin things to our liking and personal politics. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "In a perfect world when someone comes harassing a good faith editor..."... The thing is, tallying up the numerous AN/Is, WQAs, ArbCom, etc... "good faith" is no longer a term that can be applied to you. WP:AGF is not a shield for terminal, habitual, bad-faith behavior. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

re: "...at least one admin would step forward to discourage them from doing so and ask that they focus on article improvement and content issues.": Ahhh, yes. You would think that at least one admin would be willing to say something when people make assumptions that should not have been made, and others badger and harrass an editor. tsk, tsk, maybe someday someone will be willing to step up. </sarcasm> I'll be the first to admit that there are times that CoM's responses make me cringe. The fact is however that CoM is spot on in this case. A few editors tend to deny the fact that well sourced and verifiable information exists, and continually remove that information which they feel paints their "heroes" in bad light. I have to wonder what would happen if we tried to counter some of the blatant puffery in the lead with some well sourced counter-point views by folks like ... ahhh, I don't know - say Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck etc. Should CoM tone it down? .... Sure. But when editors stick to the rules, provide well sourced information that gets deleted for reasons that I can not fathom, and then get baited on their own talk page, then I can understand a bit of "telling it like it is". And that's the way it is, on Wednesday September 9th, 2009. Have a good day, and may the force be with you. — Ched :  ?  20:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Per Ched. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know ChildofMidnight's editing ways that well, but after reading the information here and seeing his first comment...I must say he does have an attitude problem. Calling admins "dimwitted" isn't needed. Also, I highly doubt everyone that starts a discussion on him is instantly just wrong in every case. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ched and myself are of the view that ChildofMidnight needs to tone it, but there may have been mitigating circumstances at times, including in this case. Could you point me to which user here (other than you) suggested, let alone asserted the view that whoever "starts a discussion on him is instantly just wrong in every case"? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I said that seemed to be his view...because of his first post. He is just dismissing all discussions on him as "nonsense" if they are brought up on boards. I don't think any other people here said anything about it, if that's what you mean. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, and yes, that does seem to be true. But I don't think it's difficult to appreciate why ChildOfMidnight may have an urge to dismiss noticeboard discussions, admins, and other things, given the history. At least half of his block log consists of entries where an admin was executing/reversing unjustified actions, or those which could have done with a bit more thought. As far as I'm aware, those also came about from noticeboard discussions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well said Ncmvocalist — Ched :  ?  00:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:The Squicks

Please straighten this guy out about his language and maybe his thinking. Thanks, MBHiii (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The language by The Squicks was not needed. The thinking looks sound in the reversion, just not in the text attached, as I read it. I would suggest gaining wp:consensus before trying to add the content again. You have been reverted 3 times by 2 different editors. A step back would be wise.- sinneed (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

He's been given a note by an admin already. Mbhiii, you failed to notify the subject of the WQA - I've done so for you in this case, but please ensure you do so in the future. As for your own editing, Sinneed has summed it up well - seek consensus as edit-warring is not the solution. See also my comments at the subject's talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

:::The edit war continues. - sinneed (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Unrelated, I followed Mbhiii to Yankee Doodle and confused myself. Apologies if I confused anyone else.- sinneed (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Karkeixa

User User talk:Karkeixa (accused of Spamming, accused of going against the WP:3rr, acussed of vandalism) is close to the insult of my (and others, and organisations and everyone that has no his point of view) in Talk:Leonese language of multiple things without proofs. I think that this actitude is against Misplaced Pages good faith policy, wikipedia etiquette policy, and that this actitude must end, specially because he has been advertised. Thank you and I'm at your disposal for clarifying everything.--Auslli (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A related wp:SOCK investigation is ongoing. Until that is resolved I don't have much to offer. I must defer to wiser and smarter folk who might. :) - sinneed (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you by your attention. I Want to finish with this matter as soon s possible and continue working in wikipedia, specially in the articles and Projects I like. Thank you again for your time. --Auslli (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by an IP

Just a little while ago, an IP editor, 206.170.111.187 (talk), left this personal attack on my talk page. At first, I had not clue what promoted the attack. So I looked at the IPs edit history to see what this was all about to see that this is the same IP that had previously left personal attacks on my talk page. Apparently, this hounding stems from when I removed their chat from Talk:Anime Expo. I'll note that there may also be a connection to Ucla90024 (talk · contribs) who has previous in a dispute with me at the Anime Expo article relating to the inclusion of some cosplay photographs at around the same time the first personal attacks by this IP began. —Farix (t | c) 03:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not an attack, it's a cry of frustration from somebody who has no idea how to fight back effectively. I generally just ignore things like that. Looie496 (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be both wiser and kinder than I, but that is a personal attack, and I never ignore them. I added a bit at the warning for personal attack. Maybe an uninvolved voice will help, but...

Looking at the anon's edit history, very little of the recent work seems to be anything but vandalism... added nonsense, wp:BLP violations, deleted content... not a prolific vandal, just slow damage; some with warnings, some not.- sinneed (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cult church informational page being sabotaged by current church members

http://en.wikipedia.org/Bethel_Church,_Mansfield_Woodhouse

I was a member of this church for nearly 10 years of my childhood. I am currently in therapy because of it. But that's beside the point. The article detailing the truth about this church is constantly being sabotaged by current church members, being replaced by a very nice-nice benign small paragraph about how it's just a regular church. If you look at the revision history, just today they have changed it at least six times, and I have been refreshing the page and changed it back just as many times.

I don't know if there's anything that can be done, if the article can be locked up or something. It has been changed by different IP addresses on different days. Today, it's been 81.138.10.158 , previously, it has been 82.2.31.240 , user Jjburt, and numerous others. (Up until 5 minutes ago, I was IP # 68.9.22.155)

At one time, the discussion page was completely blanked as well. I undid that, and it looks like user WBardwin was kind enough to format it and make it look pretty.

You can imagine how aggravating this is, the back-and-forth, over and over again, an uphill battle. I hope something can be done.

O0pandora0o (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Re the article being locked: A lot of the editing seems to be from unregistered accounts, so you could file a request for semi-protection. That won't prevent determined editors from changing it, but it'll limit damage from drive-by editors.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Both versions of the article being edit warred over are defective. What is needed is engagement on the talk page; I have filed a request for semi-protection, reported 81.138.10.158 at 3rr, and stripped out the portions of the article for which the sourcing problem is made acute by BLP problems. My suggestion is that you all talk this through on the talk page.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help with this. I will be pulling citations from articles on the Rick Ross site to back up the info on the "Instances of Mental Abuse" section. I'm not sure that the other people involved will necessarily want to come forth to the talk page, as they just seem to be happy with drive-by editing. I'm not sure they even know that the talk page exists, except for that one Minister who posted that one time. But we will see.

Thank you again! O0pandora0o (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WQA is the wrong forum for problems like this -- it is an early-stage mechanism for dealing with problematic behavior by individual editors. The place for this is the NPOV noticeboard, WP:NPOVN, or if the problem requires quick admin intervention, WP:ANI. You won't get any useful results here. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

True enough that this was the wrong forum. But s/he did get a useful result: s/he got assistance from an editor who understood what remedies were available and how to pursue them, leading to the stabalization of the situation. I tend to think that actually helping rather than grousing that someone with no reason to know better doesn't know better is the better strategy, what say you? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a third party could say a few words?

Linas (talk · contribs)

Seems to be having some civility issues with a friend of mine, Aboutmovies. Perhaps someone could say a couple words to Linas, if that won't just escalate the situation. Katr67 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed your template to {{User}}, which is more useful -- just letting you know. Looie496 (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I did. :) My computer is having trouble loading the page history, so I don't know for sure. I copied someone's tl above and quickly saw it was the wrong one. Katr67 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Katr67, it is important to notify an editor if you open a WQA about them. I have done this for you in this case, but you really should do this next time.- sinneed (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I chose not to. I have COI in the matter (longtime collaborator with "AM"), that's why I wanted third parties to intervene. Katr67 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you choose not to, then you ... should choose not to. If you choose to open an item here, you are obligated to notify the editor, as the instructions say.- sinneed (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmph, well, it's unlikely I'll be using this page very often but it seems odd since there are very few true obligations on Misplaced Pages. WP:IAR and all that. I acted in good faith and with what I thought was good reasoning. No need to reply here, this is going way off-topic. Katr67 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have left another very stern warning. I think it's likely that an ANI thread about this would have produced a quick block, but now that this WQA has been opened, I don't believe that anything else should be done unless the abuse continues. Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This and this are rather harsh personal attacks. The statement that "people like" Aboutmovies "need to be outed" is very disturbing. The "and kicked out" part I don't see a basis for. I can't really tell which article editor Linas is unhappy about, the link on Aboutmovies' warning doesn't lead me to interesting places.- sinneed (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Some quick notes: Article is Trace monoid. Note that Linas was already blocked for this about 1.5 hours ago. Aboutmovies is not blameless here, but Linas's reaction was so completely over the top that it's really hard to argue with a block, even if I would have tried a little actual conversation first myself. Finally, I'd note that the somewhat pompous comment on Linas's talk page about it being better for him to retire again if he can't control his temper, to someone who's made what appear to be 22,000+ very solid edits in over 4.5 years, are unlikely to help anything. When someone is already pissed off, that's an especially bad time to be condescending. Looie, maybe refactoring that would be helpful? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but, really, the "need to be outed" thing... pretty serious. Not sure Looie496's words are too strong.- sinneed (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if y'all need to get into "who started it". I agree AM can be curt, but I don't think he crossed the line like the other user. Thanks for all your help! Katr67 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure there is a "y'all". :) This board is a place where interested editors can try to lend a hand, if there is any formal grouping I am not aware of it. :)- sinneed (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well of course I meant y'all--the folks talking on this thread, vs. "all y'all"--the potential shadowy group of editors who may or may not attend to this page. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, I think discussing why something occurred is a valid thing to do on this page; too often, we react to the tiger being poked, and not to the person holding the stick. Often, it's not even a boy with a stick vs. a tiger, but two tigers with two sticks. Now in this particular case, the response was so utterly disproportionate that the background might not really be needed, but it's still worth noting, for future use, that at least one person (me) things Aboutmovies could have handled some polite, constructive criticism from User:Pohta ce-am pohtit a little better, and perhaps avoided this whole thing, even if it wasn't his "fault". Constructive criticism about handling constructive criticism, as it were. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the sentence that bothered Floquenbeam. I didn't intend to be condescending, I was just trying to make the level of unacceptability clear. Had I known that the editor was already blocked, I wouldn't have posted anything at all there -- rubbing salt into wounds is not my M.O. In fact, I have struck the whole message. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Looie; Agreed it would have been better if a block notice of some kind had been left. In retrospect, much of my comment about the "pompous" and "condescending" comments were, frankly... well... pompous and condescending. Sorry about that, that was poor form, especially here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note about the block notice, I already let the blocking admin know that a block template would have been helpful in this situation, so hopefully they will remember to place notices in the future. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the note, and apologies to cause effort for some of you. I always leave block notices, it was a simple omission this time. tedder (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Snowded

User:Snowded just swooped into two different articles that he hasn't been a regular editor of, reverted an addition I made, and left the edit summaries: "Please read and abide by WP:BRD." However, it's HE that didn't abide by WP:BRD. He just deleted the additions and didn't discuss WHY he deleted them. He didn't say why on the talk page, nor in the edit summary. I immediate asked him why on his talk page , but he still didn't explain. If I don't know why someone is deleting something, then I don't know what argument to make in response to put the information back in. Please ask him to give a concrete reason for the reversions, otherwise to stop this kind of disruptive editing. Otherwise, ironically, I know I'll be attacked for "edit warring" for simply putting it back in won't I? Or would it not count as edit warring for me to put back in something that was deleted unexplained? Would that count toward 3RR? Thanks for your help. Introman (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that you were re-inserting material that had been removed. The material was added (BOLD) then removed by someone else (REVERT) but instead of taking it to the talk page (DISCUSS) you re-inserted the material. Once you make an addition and someone reverts it like that, it is your responsibility to discuss the change and why you think it should be included, and you do this by taking it to the talk page, not reverting the removal and explaining why in the edit summary. Continuing to replace text that someone removed is edit warring until you establish consensus for the material on the talk page. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, if you'll look at the edit history of the Liberalism in the United States article, no one had removed that edit but User:Snowded. I hadn't put it in previously. And if you look at the Liberalism article, I put that edit in with discussion on the talk page as well as the edit summary. It can't be true that a user is justified in doing a reversion of an edit without explaining what his problem is with the content of the edit. I don't know how anyone could not see that as disruptive. Introman (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I should have included this in the first post: no one should revert a good-faith edit without at least an explaination of why they are reverting it, and if material has been added, taken out, added again etc., an editor shouldn't revert again, no matter which version is live, until discussion has taken place and consensus has been reached. You are right that Snowded should definately not have simply reverted you without posting on the talk page his reasons for opposing your edit, and even if he opposed your edit, he shouldn't have reverted. Reversions are only necessary when BLP, copyright and other specific issues are involved. Again, I apologize for not including this in my first post. However, who reverted you the first time does not matter when it comes to the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Snowded definately shouldn't have reverted you, certainly not without explaining his reasoning, but you also shouldn't have reverted the removal of material until you have discussed it. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone looking at the edit history can see what has been going on Seeker --Snowded 20:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can you let him know that? What he's doing just creates edit wars. Thanks. Introman (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I notified Snowded of this discussion, so he will be able to comment and read my comments here. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I actually agree with your additions to the articles, as the distinction should be made and is important enough to be included in the lead. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅Thanks for letting me know Seeker. intorman, you inserting the same or similar text on several articles relating to Liberalism. You are in main ignoring discussion on those articles. You may have a case in part but you have to discuss things with other editors. Running here after two reverts on two articles when you are not discussing matters, and failing to notify me is not impressive. --Snowded 19:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Either you dispute the content of edits or you don't. If you do, please explain what about the content that you dispute. Don't tell me I "have to discuss things with other editors," when you didn't discuss anything at all. Don't you see how that kind of hypocrisy is bad Wikiquette and can inflame editors? Thanks. Introman (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on each talk page is extensive and I have been monitoring it for weeks. You are not engaging in that discussion but you are asserting your position and constantly editing the ledge to support those assertions. If it will make you happy I suppose I could always go onto the talk page and say "I agree with ..." but I really don't see the point. My interest here is to try and encourage you to engage rather than throwing accusations of hypocracy at people who have the timerity ti disagree with you. Not to mention the somewhat ironic suggestion that you might be justified in being "inflamed". I suggest you close this, its not an issue of Wikiquette, your failure to engage may be --Snowded 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's untrue. Anyone can go to those talk pages and see the EXTENSIVE discussion I've been in engaged in, as well as my highly detailed edit summaries (more explanatory than any other editor I've seen). Yes, it would make me happy if you only made reversions if you disagreed with the content and explained why you disagreed with it. That's just the normal way Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Introman (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You need agreement to make an edit if others disagree with you, its not enough to just keep arguing the point with no support. Its pretty basic. I'm not going to respond again here unless you raise a substantially new issue. --Snowded 20:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I support Snowded. The reasons for excluding Introman's edits are clearly pointed out in the talk pages. I would also like to point out that Introman's edits in these articles are disruptive and he has been blocked twice recently for edit-warring in Liberalism. Furthermore Introman has had a history of conflict with other users as is quite apparent on the User Talk:Introman page. Also Introman is re-inserting all the edits that the banned User:RJII entered which also caused considerable disruption to these articles. I would ask Introman if he ever edited under that user name. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that The Four Deuces makes fraudulent claims of edit warring against me. Just look at my Talk Page for the latest example, where he tried to get me blocked by falsely claiming that I was engaging in reverts when I did none at all. It's easy for him to throw claims around. He's already been proven to not be reliable witness of events, but one who distorts events. And no I am not a user RJII. I don't use sockpuppets to get around 3rr. I ask you, are you Rick Norwood? I've long suspect you are the same people because you operate as too closely as a monopolizing team. Introman (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please strike out your abusive comments. As you see from Introman's talk page he was blocked for 4 days for violating 3rr. However the block was lifted when the blocking administrator decided that there was no consensus that there had been a violation. Note also that Introman reported me for 3rr when in fact I had not exceeded the 3rr limit and in fact did not even notify me. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The block was lifted when I had to exhaustively prove that I did ZERO revertions, and explained my edits and engage in discussion. You claim that I edit warred was FALSE. Introman (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion. However the message you should take away is to avoid edit wars, rather then be emboldened to pursue them with renewed vigour. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion. It's factual. And the message everyone should take away here is that your claims of someone else edit warring cannot be trusted. I came here to register a complaint in order to PREVENT an edit war. Introman (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The administrator who blocked you then lifted the block stated: "Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Block does not seem to have consensus." Do you have any reason to question what he stated? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the reasons that there was not consensus is because of people who took the time to examine the evidence. The fact is, I was not edit warring. The people who examined the evidence saw that. The evidence is on my talk page. Your claim was false. Your claims of others edit warring cannot be trusted. Introman (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

After you requested the block be lifted, the administrator stated: Introman's claim that he 'did not do even one revert' does not appear consistent with the language of WP:REVERT. Nothing prevents him from following the steps of formal dispute resolution, especially when he was previously blocked for reverting the same article. If he will agree to abide by consensus, any admin may lift this block. Are you saying the administrator was making a "fraudulent claim"? The Four Deuces (talk)

I'm saying that administrator was mistaken. They're human too, you know? On the other hand, you knew I wasn't edit warring and knew that you were the one doing reverts. And I'm not interested in bickering with you anymore. I've made my point. Your attempt to block me to keep me from putting information in failed. Your claim of edit warring was untrue. Introman (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Then why do you not say that I must have been mistaken? Your should show good faith. BTW in your first two blocks you denied edit-warring. In the second block you actually made three unsuccessful requests for the block to be lifted, still denying edit-warring. So it is a reasonable assumption that you have no understanding of the concept and therefore are in no position to comment on my judgment. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I've had extensive experience with you to prove to me that you're malicious and do not have good faith. I'm not saying that to be abusive. It's just what I believe to be true. I assumed good faith from the start, but that's gone. You've been even trying to delete templates I create, apparently just because I was the one that created them. It seems almost everything I put in Wikpedia you have a personal vendetta to eliminate, including eliminating me from Misplaced Pages itself. I see you as a bully. Nothing more, nothing less. That's the truth. But the issue is whether your claims of edit warring can be trusted, good faith or not. Introman (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a recent example of one of Introman's edits: OMG, you are hardly one to call someone else careless. You original research is rampant. You misinterpret sources, and say things are in sources that are not there, constantly. Introman (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC) May I suggest that until Introman follows the rules of etiquette himself that he desist from complaining about other editors. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrisy. You only report my response to someone calling ME careless and insinuating I wasn't serious about improving Wikpedia: I think my response was pretty mild considering the accusation thrown at me. Introman (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is disruptive to use abusive language no matter what the other editor says. Could you please rephrase your last edit in a civil manner. Thanks! The Four Deuces (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It sure is! But I didnt use abusive language. Thanks! Introman (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to a recent Wikiquette alert where I complained about Introman. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Issue with user Bandurist.

I was just wondering what would be a proceeder in this case. User Bandurist (talk) reverts without explanation and deletes attempts of discussion from his talk page replacing them with a smiley face? Here are just examples of his unexplained reverts moving pages around etc. from today all without any eplanation: ]]]]] and his edit history ] Here are my attempts of communicating with him which were immediately deleted and replaced with a smiley face:]] I personally think that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also very rude. What can be done about it, is there anything that is a standard proceeder in cases like this one? Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I also notified user Bandurist (talk) about my request here]--Jacurek (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at the first case. You changed "Lwow" to "Lwów", with an edit summary of "it was called Lwów then", but no evidence. He reverted, with an edit summary of "no it wasn't". What else did he need to say, since you hadn't provided any evidence? You then placed an angry complaint on his talk page, and he responded with a smiley face. What you should have done, and still should do, is provide some evidence that the change was correct. If Bandurist ignored your evidence, you would have a legitimate complaint. I haven't looked at all of your diffs and don't really want to -- if you handle the first one correctly, it will help to deal with the other ones. (The word is "procedure", not "proceeder", by the way.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, I think you completely misunderstood my complaint. Frankly, I do not know what Lwow has to do with it and don't just "look at the first case". I also don't know if you realize that, but you are defending this rude behaviour here. No offence, but your comment is useless and does not help. Could any of the administrators look at the recent edit history of user Bandurist and give me his/hers opinion. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WQA is not always watched by admins -- sometimes, but not always. If you are sure that admin action is needed, the place is WP:ANI -- but I think you'll get the same answer there that you did from me. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, you did stated your opinion already, thank you. Could you please not comment on this case anymore and let administrators sort it out? Thanks again. Regards--Jacurek (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looie469, if you have not looked at the diffs, and do not want to, why are you wasting your time here? Let it be handled by someone who wants to look at the diffs, and try to find a solution. Tymek (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette is a rather pointless page. Take the issue to AE for a professional review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any serious content dispute looking at your diffs. Main problem is miscommunication. People, you should really talk about content and compromise instead of deleting each other's comments (as Bandurist did) or bringing your complaints here or to AE (as Jacurek did). Sorry if this sounds rude.Biophys (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All Bandurist could do is to apologize. Will he do it? He does not even bother to comment on it here and he knows about it.]--Jacurek (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment from user:Neutralhomer (talk · contribs)

Hello, I have just returned to wikipedia following an episode regarding my static IP - in which I was the subject of serious abuse by several editors, all of whom but one subsequently apologized following a resolute intervention from a senior editor. I am now being maliciously harrassed by this editor who was castigated over his abusive actions during last month's episode - . Please read the whole IP page to understand how the situation unfolded, here is a thread from the time about the issue .

Please observe his current actions and comments in chronological order - Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He just said this to me -

"No, I won't. You are disrupting a page and you think since you got some apologizes before you get a free pass to essentially vandalize a page now. Ain't happenin' Buckwheat. Stop now and I will mark the ANI post resolved. Continue and the consequences are yours to be had. Your choice" - .

Accoring to several websites, including the racial slur database - and urban dictionary - , "buckwheat" is a racial slur against blacks. Izzedine (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is the only thing I will stay on this, if anyone has spent any length of time in the South (where I live), you find "Buckwheat" is a term used like "Buddy" in a conversation. It is interchangable. "Ain't happenin' Buddy" = "Ain't happenin' Buckwheat". No "racial slur" there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see a mildly unwise post. I don't see harrassment and I don't see a racial slur.
• I also see ""Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates." Misplaced Pages:User page#Removal of comments, warnings"
• I also see that there is an ANI involving these 2 editors.- sinneed (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - It may be helpful to see User talk:94.192.38.247, which is the (self-identified) static IP belonging to Izzedine. This is a recurrence of an earlier dispute and suggests a pattern. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I found it amazingly unenlightening. I also have to question the need for this dispute to be covered here, ANI, and 3RR all at the same time.- sinneed (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Think of it as a wiki-simulcast. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Where I come from in the South, "Buckwheat" is indeed a racial slur. Its usage in business, school and political settings has caused protests and lawsuits over the years. I would suggest not using it any more. Dreadstar ☥ 05:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I won't be using it again as I have retired. Mostly just tying up some loose ends right now. Oh, by the way, there is a festival in West Virginia about Buckwheat...the flour and the pancakes. It isn't all racist. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -
  • Image search for "Buckwheat" - .
  • Google search for "Buckwheat racial slur" - .
  • Google search for "Buckwheat offensive slur" - .
  • News article search for "Buckwheat racial slur" - .
  • Encyclopedia list of racial slurs - .

This is in addition to his harrassment and threats, and the long history of gross incivility and harrassment evident in his block log. Izzedine (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Neutralhomer is currently blocked for edit-warring and claims to have retired, so this can probably be considered resolved. In the event that Neutralhomer returns, I'm going to request that he is subject to supervision or mentorship, based on what happened here. Take a look at the history of my talk page or that of Izzedine. Despite being asked to stop, Neutralhomer continued to edit-war on the IP's talk page and post rather aggressive comments to Izzedine and me. To make things even more bizarre, he posted several messages to my talk page accusing me of harrassing him. See User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle#94.192.38.247. My only posts related to this matter were four to the existing ANI thread (none of which were directed at Neutralhomer) and one to Neutralnomer's talk page to inform him that I was reporting his violation of 3RR (as per the instructions at WP:AN3). I'm not sure what prompted this meltdown, but something needs to be done to prevent a recurrence here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• What you are doing here is very much what Neutralhomer was doing with the template restore. Yes, Neutralhomer was enforcing a rule, yes you are enforcing a rule. Yes Neutralhomer went way overboard, yes you are going way overboard. I had a very courteous editor remind me of wp:IAR just yesterday, and I now pass that reminder on. Some editors had a conflict. Letting the conflict be over would be great, and not driving a productive editor out of the community over this conflict would be even greater.- sinneed (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• What we are doing here is reporting a legitimate case of incivility, harrassment and threats - from an editor with a long history of derisible behaviour. Try and give that as much respect as you give Neutralhomer clement approval. Izzedine (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Sinneed, I appreciate that you are trying to defend Neutralhomer but, with all due respect, I think your efforts are misguided. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project and having one of the collaborators throwing tantrums from time to time is disruptive for the other participants. Misplaced Pages can survive without Neutralhomer or you or me or any one individual editor. Please advise Neutralhomer to this discussion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Abusive language by disruptive editor

User:76.75.4.195 has proven themselves to be a pretty disruptive editor, trying to make a point on Sublime (band)--the editor is arguing that Sublime without the original singer and guitar player, now dead, is not Sublime, and that the singer and guitar player who is slated to play on the Sublime reunion, a guy called "Rome", is being added to the WP article in defiance of the spirit of the original band. Moreover, WP editors who comment on his disruptive edits are said, on the talk page, to be sucking Rome's cock, and they are fags to boot. Well, I'm not a prude, but that seems a little bit too rude here. Your advice is appreciated. I understand this board is not the place to ask for a block, but I am unsure which path to pursue here--the editor is rude and boorish, takes extensive liberties with the English language (I do not approve of "douche" as an abbreviation of "douchebag"), and acts in a disruptive manner. Thank you for your concern; please wash your hands after looking at the editor's contributions. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 12 hours. Dreadstar ☥ 05:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:78.150.7.107

The above-mentioned user has been unnecessarily forceful in his edit summaries at Garth Crooks (here) and then resorted to abusive and rude comments on the article's talk page when their unsourced edits were reverted. While the comments may seem innocuous to the untrained eye, they are clearly intended to incense User:Tmol42. – PeeJay 10:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution