Revision as of 19:02, 21 January 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:Icsunonove

user:Icsunonove got very excited and insulting yesterday and was thus reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Icsunonove and IP 192.45.72.26 no action was taken and the hope was he would calm down... he just came back and has upped the insulting by ton:

• 1.
• 2.
• "I feel at this point I'm getting myself dirty playing with the pigs in the pen." "Your fears and insecurities are something you need to deal with off this encyclopedia."
• "You are absolutely disgusting and act like an angry teenager Noclador." "Arrogant people such as you sicken me, and make Misplaced Pages the most unpleasant of places to edit."
• 5.
• 6.

and he keeps raging and raging... --noclador (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• 7.
• "I'm in the mud with the pigs again, look at what Noclador does." "I truly feel sorry for people who live in Bolzano-Bozen and act like him. It is a disaster to humanity in fact."

--noclador (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• With people such as yourself Noclador, it is difficult not to be angry and upset. How you provoke people and accuse them of being fascists trying to make a new Rome, how you revert edits blindly labeling them as vandalism. You'd drive about anyone to rage. I've had enough of Misplaced Pages for quite some time. You go and deal with your issues. Icsunonove (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This alert can be closed, due to the user's stated intention to take a wiki-break (or to leave altogether). I would suggest in the future that you assume good faith about a fellow editor's intentions, Noclador, as it seems Icsunonove was editing in good faith. There are better ways to deal with someone making edits against consensus and convention than accusing them of having a bias, and such accusations, even if you feel they are justified, do nothing to diffuse the situation or make other users more willing to work with you toward consensus. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Theseeker4 - I assumed good faith about Icsunonove - if you would have had a look at the discussion attempts at Steinerner Steg you would see, that not only did I provide sources as he demanded I also tried to discuss with him at a point when he was already on a tear Talk:Steinerner Steg. The problem with Icsunonove is that he simply refused to discuss - in fact he is in every sense a disruptive editor. If you talk with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise you would learn, that Icsunonove has a long history of being disruptive and claims that he is taking a wiki-break... fresh insults AFTER you closed this tread. --noclador (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want you to misunderstand me, I am not saying his conduct is flawless by any means. However, looking at the actual sequence of events that led up to this, it seems he had some provocation. I am not trying to turn this on you and say it is your fault, but you should not declare someone's edits as vandalism when they are in fact a content dispute, even if they are editing after you contest the edit on the talk page. I reviewed Talk:Steinerner Steg and see Iscunonove trying to engage in collaboration in a very civil manner. Now you claim a certain IP is this user, but without a check user we cannot say that for certain or treat them as identical, unless you have a diff where one or the other says that is the case. Based on the diffs above it seems Iscunonove was trying to collaborate and work in good faith, but statements such as these upset him. He was trying to work on the article and was actively participating in the discussion on the talk page, and did not become uncivil until the diffs above. It seems his behavior was not entirely unprovoked, and if some users had handled it differently, it would not have come to name calling, demanding bans and resignations from Misplaced Pages. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgot this provocative diff . Theseeker4 (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And so much for permanent sabbatical --noclador (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't even know where to reply, with the multiple posts and adding new sections. What I'm seeing is: Noclodar edit warring and going WP:3rr, forum shopping (here, AN/I, User talk:EdJohnston), and a lack of following procedures (e.g. a dubious sockpuppet claim on AN/I instead of WP:SSP. There's a lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages (e.g. The book is wrong ) when the standard is whether it's verifiable. Gerardw (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Icsunonove II

User was reported here (see above) and on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Icsunonove and IP 192.45.72.26 for about 50 cases of incivility. Case was declared resolved by user:Theseeker4 with the following rationale: "User has stated intention to leave Misplaced Pages for some amount of time, possibly permanently, so no further action is necessary.". 28 hours later:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Would you like if I say you are conducting Germanization and that you are linked genetically with Hitler?
• 5
• 6
• 7

and he is currently going on and going on and going on and going on and... as I already said yesterday: Case is unresolved! --noclador (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

also: Icsunonove problems with civility have a long history:

• You have mental issues PhJ

--noclador (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As this was "resolved" yet, unresolved at WP:ANI, please re-file it there. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ROFLOL. I made the statement about Germanization and Hitler, to contradict his making statements that others were doing Italianization and are like Mussolini. He said it in the top of his post! You can go to the link he made and see what I said and in what context. LOL Incredible, just incredible. He is the one that is obviously going on and on and on trying to dig up "evidence", and apparently wikistalking me at the same time. Noclador, do you REALLY have NOTHING better to do? The case would probably be resolved if Noclador was banned for a good month for what he did on the editing of the page in the first place, for making claims of "italianization" "fascism" and "mussolini". On top of clearly using these admin warning systems for his own agenda and wasting people's time. As I stated on that other page, it would be nice to see some Admins look at what HE is doing, investigate it, and come down on him. Instead of these cases where someone makes this uber-witch hunt. Icsunonove (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Icsunonove III

So, this new policy: let me understand: you can call other editors: "pigs, crazy, nuts, genetically linked to Hitler, BIZARRE!, ridiculous, hypersensitive and indeed insecure, aggressive, discusting, extremely insecure, childish,..." and tell them things like: "You have no idea, Is it so boring in Merano, Swedish being arrogant, do you have a learning disability?, two people who sound and act like teenagers, You have issues dude, Grow the heck up, Are you smoking, something?, evaluate the BS you just spewed on my talk page,..." and about 50 insults more and will get away with it, if you say you will leave wikipedia and if you come back and continue to insult, that is ok, because hey insulting editors is not an Wikiquette alert??? thus one can go on indefinitely insulting other editors??? examples after I filed the second report (or in other words the last 20 minutes)

• to waddle in the mud with people such as these,
• Noclador has too much time on his hands.

and in between he went again on

• a permanent sabbatical and in doing so deleted conveniently a warning not to be uncivil... Maybe you can explain to me this new policy of letting editors abuse other editors without having to fear any consequences? --noclador (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Name calling: "I'm in the mud with the pigs again, look at what Noclador does." User talk:Supparluca# Trentino-Alto Adige/South Tyrol or Difference between revisions Don't know where you come from, but in my social environment such a behaviour is difficult to tolerate. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

God, I'd love to know what your social environment is, with the accusations you made and the edit war you instigated. Icsunonove (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Icsunonove IV

as usual: Icsunonove attacking User:HalfShadow, --noclador (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User:King of the North East

Background: Both this user and I have, in the past, had a "horrible" argument over the article Bicycle Kick. This argument turned out to involve almost as much as 5 Wikipedists, but he was not originally part of the party in dispute. As a matter of fact, the situation was more like: 4 Wikipedists vs. Me. At the end, "King of the North East" and another user took my points to a series of different places, including the football project page and even notified this "Wikiquette Alert" page due to some of my rude comments. The result of this conflict ended up in me getting a warning for my behavior, and in me keeping the edits I wanted (for the most part) in the Bicycle Kick article.

Currently: It has been almost half a year since that argument took place, and now I have decided to once again try to improve the bicycle kick article and provide more links and sources. However, now that I have started doing this, User:King of the North East has yet again re-appeared from the grave like an ugly nightmare. Yet, instead of searching for "peace" (since he was the person that accused me at "Wikiquette Alert"), he has sent me an aggressive message that, more than likely, expects for me to send an equally aggressive reply.

Well, I've already been warned before, and I do not want to be banned from Misplaced Pages. I would like it for the concerned editors here to please warn User:King of the North East, because he apparently thinks that he can get away with insulting me because I cannot do the same to him.

Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MarshalN20#Gibberish

• "I see you are still wrecking the Bicycle Kick article with uninteligable gibberish"--King of the North East. 00:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As you see here, he is saying: 1. I am wrecking the article = Insulting. 2. I write gibberish = Insulting my language skills.

• "Not only does it display awful misuse of the English language"--King of the North East. 00:01, 17 January 2009

As you see here, he is once again making fun of my language skills, which is an insult to my person.

• "Also please try to avoid contaminating articles with your own personal point of view" 00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As you see here, he states that I am "contaminating articles" and accuses me of POV. 20:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Recently: "Look anyone can see that you are a POV pusher"

Please dear members of the Wikiquette alert team, or random Wikipedists that want to act as judges: Be fair. I have not done anything wrong, and there is no reason for this user to keep attacking me. We, supposedly, had already been told by other users to stop arguing. Yet, as you can see here, it is him who is starting the problem (not me, I haven't done anything wrong). He should receive, for the least, a warning. I do not want an argument with this person, because I already have enough arguments going on in my life. Once again, please be fair of judgement. There is no way I can assume "Good Faith" of a user that uses comments like the ones I have just shown.-- (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not try using false logic here in order to make a WP:POINT. The sentence that was quoted on your talkpage was, indeed, horrible English - it was a run-on sentence, and had very poor overall structure. He called your edit gibberish - he did NOT directly say "you completely suck at the use of the English language". A quick read of WP:NPA would have shown the difference. There is also an edit in which you used weasel words/non-NPOV which I believe is also quoted on your talkpage. "Do not contaminate articles" is a comment on edits, not on you, the editor (other than accusing you of non-NPOV, which is NOT uncivil if it's true). Neither are attacks, unless you read them as one. When your edits are questioned, that is when a good editor has time to reflect on the edits and see what they could have done differently. Perhaps "contaminate" was a little harsh, but not inherently uncivil. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, he said that I was "wrecking" the article and that I was writing gibberish. He did not say "Your Edit," he specifically said: "You are." And contaminate is an insult, wherever you may want to put it. You cannot "determine" if the insult is low or high. You admitted that it was an insult, and therefore (as an insult) he was insulting me. I want a fair judge on the matter, not an "evaluator" that uses his POV to determine what he deems as "good insults" and "bad insults." An insult is an insult, and personal attacks are not allowed in Misplaced Pages.-- (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

MarshalN20 please post notice on King of NE's talk page per Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Instructions_for_users_posting_alerts. Gerardw (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BW's assertion that the comments made on your talk page were accurate, and not personal attacks. I am sorry if you are offended by them, but you have to admit the sentence you added was in need of major revision. Do not forget one of the most important parts of civility and that is to assume good faith Theseeker4 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

To both Theseeker and and BW: In other words, you're telling me that "I am wrecking and contaminating the article with gibberish and POV." Because that's exactly what it all comes down to when you mix in all of the things "King of the NE" has told me. That is by no means false logic. There are plenty of ways to say things, but it all comes down to how you say them to express your point. Fighting Words are not allowed either in the court rooms or in this website, and the two of you are basically stating that you're "OK" with their use. For example, I could say: "BW is an imbecile that wants to act like a judge, but is doing a crappy job at it; and that Theseeker is an idiot that simply sticks his nose in Gerardw's butt without looking to express something different." Is that "OK" with the two of you? By God, I'd be surprised if you say yes! No, I do not mean to insult the two of you, I mean to show you that it is NOT "OK" for a person to insult another person and "get away with it." Especially if it could just be said, taking my example again: "BW, I do not agree with your reasoning and believe that you should re-evaluate what you have just posted; and Theseeker, I would greatly appreciate it if you could express your own judgement on the matter instead of simply re-stating what BW wrote, because I do not find it constructuve." Which sounds better, my first statement or my second statement? Quite obviously, "King of the NE" could have simply told me: "MarshalN20, your edits on the article are not being constructive. You are providing sentences with grammatic errors that may need revising. Also, in one sentence you included much POV, so I will be deleting it for the sake of improving the article." I would appreciate it if both of you read all of what I have just wrote, understood it, and realize that your previous decisions were not the type of responses a "judge" in reality would have stated. BE FAIR and don't let people who use insulting language get away without even a warning.-- (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, this is the sentence that is accused of gibberish: "However, the game in which the bicycle kick was allegedly invented is older than 1894 as Jorge Basadre, a famous Peruvian historian, found what is thus far the oldest record of a football match in the Lima-Callao area of Peru to have been organized by Englishmen of the Lima Cricket and Football Club for a game between Chalacos and Limeans played in August 7, 1892; meaning that by that time football had gained popular practice in Callao and Lima, which is a situation that is ahead of the introduction of football in Callao and the invention of the bicycle kick associated with it." If the two of you say that this is gibberish, then please provide me with an improved sentence. Otherwise, your argument makes no logic, because your conclusion does not have effective premises.-- (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that the required notification has been posted on King of NE's talk page: I concur that a sentence that starts out you are stilling wrecking isn't civil. You is the second person personal pronoun, still implies pejoratively that this is longtime behavior, and wrecking implies malicious or wanton destructive, not just inserting a bad sentence.

The personal attacks on TheSeeker4 and BMW are uncalled for and also not WP:CIVIL, and we are not here to debate the content -- that should be done at Talk:Bicycle kick. Additionally, this is a informal non-binding forum, so it is not our role to punish people or invoke sanctions. I'd like to see User of NE address the 'I see you are still wrecking' part of his comment and try to resolve this peacefully. Gerardw (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I publicly and sincerely apologize to both BW and Theseeker if they found my example to be insulting. By no means did I mean it as an insult, but it is the best way I could find to make them see that it is not kind to use fighting words and aggresive language in a conversation or discussion. Once again, I apologize if it hurt their feelings in any way; I simply want for them to see that an insult is an insult, and that there is no "good" or "bad" (or "minor" or "major") way to it. This especially goes when other options, more civil options, are available. And I would also like to see "King of the NE" come in here and state why he is using personal attacks on my person; taking into consideration that our "past argument" was allegedly already resolved (I remind everyone involved that this past argument was "resolved" here; and "King of the NE" was present at that point).-- (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement This user has driven me and several other editors away from editing the Bicycle Kick article with a series of personal attacks, snide comments and unsubstantiated accusations (of bias, aggression, vandalism and personal attacks against him). It dismays me to see that he continues to get away with adding more and more of this conjecture about how the kick was invented in Peru (in barely intelligible English). The issue was not resolved here before as falsely claimed by MarshalN20 last time as can be seen here, it was quite clearly ignored by the community, with no uninvolved editor commenting at all. He has been asked to remain civil, avoid personal attacks, avoid false accusations and to read WP:NPOV on numerous occasions, but continues in the same way with Ad Hominem attacks anyone who does not totally agree with him, rather than debating the issue as can be seen from his rambling insults above. The article is in a dreadful mess and I can’t fix it for fear of more confrontation from this editor, I admit that my use of the word "wrecking" was perhaps a little strong but is used in the same context as this comment that MarshalN20 is aware of. I am dismayed by the way that this editor kicks up such a fuss about percieved insults against himself but has a history of making nationalistic comparisons with dictators and defending his right to do ("Comparing Selecciones de la Vida to Pinochet simply served as a comic relief to the argument. It's not an insult unless Selecciones qualifies himself as truly being a dictator"), using this logic; stating that he is wrecking the article is only insulting if he "qualifies himself as" having wrecked the article. If anyone cares to review Talk:Bicycle kick (an onerous task) it can clearly be seen who is the disruptive and abusive editor. King of the North East 22:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there appear to be ownership problems there. I'd suggest being extra careful in wording your discussion in neutral terms, and an article RFC to get try to get more views and build a consensus. Gerardw (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Response: Everyone of you can read the entire section on the "Peruvian Claim" of the bicycle kick article, and it, by no means, has unintelligeable English. Yet, "King of the NE" keeps attempting to claim that I am creating a "conjecture," while you can all (yet again) see that everything is properly sourced in this section. In addition, you can all see that the "discussions" and "arguments" held in the discussion page where done in early October of the year 2008. Almost Four Months have passed from those discussions (October, November, December, and now January), and as far as everything concerned me the situation was resolved. The discussion here has the "Stalemate" sign, which means: "For items that remain open but have no additional comments added after several days to a week, close the item by entering the {stale} template at the top of the item's sub-section." I was the last person to add a comment to that discussion, and nobody else replied to it; therefore, I found the matter to have been resolved by the other parties involved. Moreover, as you can see here, the article of the bicycle kick was discussed by 4 Neutral editors: User: Number 57, User: Beve, User: Peanut4, and User: GiantSnowman; and they all agreed that the section entitled "Peruvian Claim" was correct and without the need of a major revision. Feel free to message each of these users and ask them about this. Even if "King of the NE" wants to lie and say that I "have driven him and several other editors," all of the users I have just mentioned contributed to the discussion of the article and left the door open for further improvements. However, user "King of the NE" has the aim of deleting and de-structuring the "Peruvian Claim" section of the bicycle kick because he believes that the bicycle kick was invented in Chile. Even his newest statement shows this:

• "It dismays me to see that he continues to get away with adding more and more of this conjecture about how the kick was invented in Peru."--King of the NE.

If 4 neutral editors agreed that the "Peruvian Claim" was a valid section with correct information, now do you see how this user is completely biased against this? However, with all these things said, just because in the past I did use aggresive behavior, that gives this user no reason or validity to use fighting words to try and re-start past arguments. In other words, if the argument has been left dead for almost half a year (4 months is not too far away from 6), why does he want to start it again? And no, I do not hold ownership of the bicycle kick section; my only goal with that article is to turn it into a Featured Article with reliable content, and to prevent users like "King of the NE" to delete the "Peruvian Claim" because he believes that it is a "conjecture" that "dismays him." In conclusion, all of you have seen him write this statement here and, since all of you are neutral editors, I can openly expect for all of you to use simple psychology and see the apparent trauma and hatred this user has towards the "Peruvian Claim" section. Nonetheless, all I ask is for you to not let past and dead arguments be re-surfaced by allowing "King of the NE" to use fighting words and other aggresive tones when holding a discussion with me.-- (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And, by the way, my ability to write in the English language is often noted, by my professors and others, to be always excellent. Furthermore, I always check my works twice or sometimes three times before I post anything in any of my public works. So I would appreciate it if the lot of you, especially "King of the NE," stop trying to make it seem as if I do not know how to write in English. If the bicycle kick section of the "Peruvian Claim" was such a "badly written" section, I am sure that its opponents (such as "King of the NE") would care very little for it; however, since it is not, they are apparently afraid of its content (which really amuses me). Moreover, take note that I am apparently not the only person with whom "King of the NE" is having civility problems with: clicky here -- (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Rant on and accuse me of bias me on one page and come offering peace on another, good tactic. The article as it stands is in a terrible state, but there are many worse ones on English Misplaced Pages. I do not hate the Peruvian claim, and your continued accusations show that there is no sincerity at all in your so called peace offer. I have never stated the Kick was invented in Chile, I don't know where you get this idea from. I will take the page off my watchlist as it is clear that you will fight any attempted improvement as you have done here to defend your insertion of uninteligable text and blatant POV. As far as I am concerned the article now belongs to you, do as you wish with it, add as much conjecture and POV as you like there are thousands of other articles I can improve without being fought off with this kind of abuse from the "owner". King of the North East 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I really am attempting to seek a peaceful solution to our discussion, but you are the one who wants to continue the argument. You say the article is in "a terrible state," and yet its rating (at this point) is at "C Class," and I have now proposed for it (at the Wiki football page) to be once again reviewed so it will keep on advancing on the ratings. Why do you not improve the "Chilean Claim" section, which is filled with horrible grammar? Why did you never provide sources or references for the rest of the article? I provided sources for nearly everything in there, not because I own the article but because I want to see it become a Featured Article. I need help in the article, but all you ever do is try to delete things from the Peruvian claim: Is there a single discussion between you and me that had to do with anything beyond the Peruvian claim? You say I will "fight any attempted improvement," but that is a lie. I finish with these questions: If the article was my POV, why are there so many references from distinct sources verifying nearly everything in the article? Why did 4 editors agree that the "Peruvian Claim" was now a better section, and yet you keep attempting to claim it is wrong? Why do you keep stating the article is in a terrible state (What are your premises?)? -- (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Look anyone can see that you are a POV pusher, it's clearly your interest to strengthen the Peruvian clam as much as you can. Show me a reliable reference that gives a date for the first bicycle kick as happening in the 1890s and I would accept it, as I already accept that there is a view that the move was invented there. Your method of including a load of dates for early matches and stating that the game with the bicycle kick must predate them is original research but I've said all this before. I don't know what criteria the other editors were using, but if they said the section was better for the insertion of stuff like "Nonetheless, the best explanation to the invention was provided by......" (the only thing I have changed in the article for months provoking this melodramatic thread in response) then they must only be counting the number of external links or using some other arbitrary criteria. The article is in a poor state because it is the subject of edit warring and ownership issues, the grammar is poor in places, the lists of games and players are laughably incomplete, the fact that 3/4 of the article is now taken up with the "attributions of invention" claims instead of an encyclopaedic description of the move, the fact that a lot of the references are in raw form and there are multiple references to the same source, the Wikilinking to random disambiguation pages such as investigation, I could go on and on, but I wont. You clearly have no intention of letting me improve the article having kicked up a stink and accused me of pro-Chilean bias after virtually every edit I've made to the article. I have abandoned any attempt to improve it as I have wasted too much time already trying to make you understand that conjecture and original research don't belong here and asking you to stay civil to no avail. King of the North East 20:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet you continue the incivility. Now you're calling me a "POV pusher" and keep accusing me of having "ownership" issues. Let me reply to each of your points in a list:

• You have accused me of "Original Research" before. Yet, as everybody can see here and here, there were plenty (almost 6, I believe) neutral editors that examined the "Peruvian Claim" section and gave their "OK" to it. If you do not agree with almost 6 other editors, 7 counting me, your conclusion has little to no foundation.
• This topic was not caused by your edits in the bicycle kick. This topic was caused by your incivility against me, which to this point you continue. Instead of directing your response to your incivility, you completely threw this into an Ad hominem of my past actions, and go on to ramble about how you think the bicycle kick article is in "a poor state."
• The grammar is poor in here. Why did you never fix that? Why did you constantly focus your edits on the "Peruvian Claim" section? Your actions speak for themselves. I haven't done it because I have been improving other parts of the article, and because I have been waiting to see if you or anybody else would bother to do it first.
• You say the references are "raw," but the vast majority of those "raw" citations come from here. Why did you never edit those? Why did you constantly focus your edits on the "Peruvian Claim" section? Your actions speak for themselves.
• "Random Wikilinks"? Wikilinks are meant to be there as support for futher explanation on a word or topic. Setting one on "Investigation" is by no means useless. Some people do not know what an investigation is. I'm glad you consider yourself such an "knowledgeable" person that has no need for such links, but the common person is not that wise.

Thereupon, approximately 6 editors have agreed that the "Peruvian Claim" is an acceptable section, "King of the NE" only focused his edits on the "Peruvian Claim" and never helped improve any other part of the article, and "King of the NE" keeps using Ad hominem to divert the point of this topic (which is to check his incivility).-- (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this topic has really run its course. Marshal will not concede (whether he should or not) that KOTNE's edits to Peruvian claim are at all legitimate, and KOTNE will not concede (whether he should or not) that Marshal's edits are valid. KOTNE has stated his intent to walk away from the article, which is the right move if he feels trying to reach a compromise or collaboratively edit with Marshal will cause him too much stress, so I don't see what else either of you could hope will come from this alert. Marshal seemed to extend a good faith, if conditional olive branch in your direction KOTNE, which you rejected. You had every right to walk away, and Marshal you should respect his decision to do so. KOTNE stated he will no longer edit the article, so there should be no further source of conflict, and no need to keep this dispute active. Theseeker4 (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Theseeker, I agree with everything you say apart from the idea that he extended a good faith olive branch, he accused me of hatred against the Peruvian claim in the same comment. I also draw your attention to the fact that the edit warring between this user and Seleciones de la Vida is still going on. If this user does not understand that wikilinks are not supposed to go to disambiguation pages maybe someone else can explain it to him as he clearly has an issue with me giving any opinion on the article at all. King of the North East 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Theseeker. I really did try to seek peace with "King of the NE," but he apparently does not want to take any sort of peace settlement. In the comment where I offered a peaceful solution, I simply wrote a sincere (and non-insulting) suggestion: However, I do not agree with your apparent hatred towards the "Peruvian Claim" of the bicycle kick article, and would greatly appreciate it if you could try to improve the rest of the article instead of making edits that attempt to delete or distort content from the "Peruvian Claim" section. If "King of the NE" saw that as a negative sign, that was by no means my intention. The "edit war" between me and "Selecciones de la Vida" is non-existant; I am using Misplaced Pages's resources to resolve that problem without an edit war. I'd be glad to work with "King of the NE" in the article, but as you can all see he constantly uses belittling terms when attempting to refer to me (always attempting to make me look ignorant). I do not find that an effective way to discuss things with anyone, and I can guess this user has gotten and will get into other arguments other than this one due to the "airs of grandeur" he likes to attach to himself. However, since he wishes to walk away and no longer contribute to the article, then it is his life and his option. I find this dispute resolved, but the argument is still without a solution.-- (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You asked for me to give reasons I see the article as poor and then respond as if I was attacking you instead of pointing out the problems with the article. You keep saying that I should edit other sections of the article, (I wont be dictated to about what I can and cant edit) but every change I've made to it to date (except the removal of POV that sparked this thread in response) has been fully or partially reverted by yourself and resulted it claims that I am bias, a liar, arrogant, abusive, hate filled, colluding offwiki against you, having airs of grandeur etc etc. Even if you consider chasing me away from contributing to the article a successful resolution, I don't. If anyone is fooled by the false consensus you like to cloak yourself with it's their problem not mine ("there were plenty (almost 6, I believe) neutral editors that examined the "Peruvian Claim" section and gave their "OK" to it". An examination of the links provided shows that none of them explicitly agreed that the Peruvian section is OK from a POV/OR perspective, they are discussions about other issues completely such as the famous players section and branch off articles). I do not wish to continue arguing with you, hopefully someone else will address the OR/POV/Ownership/civility issues without allowing you to intimidate them. You are fully aware that I want nothing more to do with you and I would appreciate it if you would avoid Wikistalking me, you have shown no interest at all in CfD to date, until trawling through my contributions led you to this debate in which you jumped in to oppose my position. King of the North East 11:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You started out your response with: Look anyone can see that you are a POV pusher. As far as that concerns me, it is by no means a civil response to why you think the article is wrong. In addition, you basically repeated everything you have been stating, but gave no premises to your argument. Without actual, and supported, premises, your conclusions make little to no sense. You keep using false premises for all of your arguments, such as stating that this discussion started because you deleted "random POV." I did not revert your edit, because it was POV. I started this article because you were not civil when you discussed the matter with me. Next you state that I am "stalking" you because I posted at CfD. Well, the truth is that I was looking at Freddy Adu's article; from which I saw the category of foreign-born soccer players; from which I went looking to see if a Peruvian player had played for the United States; which led me to see the large (and flashy) sign that the category was going to be deleted; which led me to the argument in which you happened to be involved. I cannot deny that seeing you in there made me even more determined to post an opinion, but it was by no means a matter of "wikistalking." Just because we both happen to like football, these kind of things are bound to happen eventually. In other words, you keep adding "airs of grandeur" to yourself: I don't care about your life, so don't think yourself as being important enough for anybody to stalk you.-- (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Noclador 1 thru 1,000,000

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere – We don't take kindly to retaliatory filings 'round here, especially ones unrelated to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL

for abuse of the alerts... =) Icsunonove (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Gnevin

My edits on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons) and User_talk:John are continually be referred to as uncivil. Can you please review Gnevin (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Gnevin appears to be WP:OWNing the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (icons). Quickly rejects any edits that make the guide more reasonable without consensus or discussion. He is using the guide as weapon in own edit wars, and using the WP:BOLD an excuse to be uncivil in the process. His latest episode is an attempt to make the discussion Ad hominem by using a false accusation smear in the title of the subsection that is now under RFC— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oicumayberight (talk • contribs)

Escalating incivility from both parties, mostly a content dispute, additional comments at article talk page Gerardw (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it fair for users who didn't put in the Template:demote tag to remove it before discussions are resolved? . What gives them the authority to deny the seriousness of this issue? It's not like the tag is some sort of penalty. It's just a suggestion and an alert that demotion is being considered. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Klassikkomies

Klassikkomies uses unnecessary "warnings" (about normal consensus-based editing) as weapon in my discussion page, forcing his opinion aggressively by that way. Both me and Klassikkomies are discussing in talk page of Jussi Halla-aho. So my view is, that it is unnecessary and uncivil and against the policy to make those messages in personal discussion pages, if the case is about normal discussion about relevance of Misplaced Pages's content. Klassikkomies accuses without the cause. --Thi (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please notify Klassikkomies about this alert on his talk page, and please provide diffs for the specific warnings. Thank you. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Thi has been constantly removing relevant and neutral information that have been published by reliable sources from the article Jussi Halla-aho. Thi's claims about normal consensus-based editing are lies. See: Talk:Jussi Halla-aho. Klassikkomies (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Normal discussion was going on. There weren't any need for any use for personal talk pages. Klassikkomies just wanted to show aggression. Discussion was about Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. "The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." "Misplaced Pages's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias" etc. Klassikkomies forgot all these. False claims about lying makes this thing just worse. --Thi (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Klassikkomies describing edits as 'vandalism' and characterizing Thi's claims as 'lies' are uncivil. Thi's describing Klassikkomies edits as 'spam' is uncivil. Klassikkomies posting standard warnings on Thi's page is not inherently uncivil. Thi is allowed to edit his talk page, including 'deletion' of warnings -- they're still present in the page history. See Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments. Recommend both users use article dispute resolution procedures. Gerardw (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Thi constantly removed the following notable facts from the article (sources are provided after the sentences):

• "In 2008, Google Inc. announced that "Jussi Halla-aho" is the fifth most popular Google search of all Finnish people excluding music personalities."
• "In November 2008, Helsingin Sanomat asked its readers "Is Jussi Halla-aho right in his immigration criticism?" (it was Helsingin Sanomat's the question of the day). During 24 hours 11,473 people participated in Helsingin Sanomat's survey; 66% answered yes and 34% no."
• The names of Halla-ahos children: Hilma (born 2003), Kerttu (2004) and Veikko (2008).

See discussion for more information. Klassikkomies (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing is not uncivil. The discussion of whether they are notable or not goes here. Please. As long as it's mostly just the two of you, you're unlikely to get anywhere. Please see article Dispute Resolution. Gerardw (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The first fact has also been presented in Misplaced Pages's front page on 2 January 2009. See User talk:Mifter#DYK for Jussi Halla-aho. Klassikkomies (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the article in the Third opinion page. Klassikkomies (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I ask you to remove User:DGG's inappropriate warning from my talk page. Klassikkomies (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see it's not inappropriate. Template warnings are polite ways of advising of policy. You would do well to learn from them, and stop being so contrary to those who try to help. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DGG claimed that I used YouTube and blogs as a source and that is not true. Because of that DGG's template warning was inappropriate and there were no reason to warn me. Klassikkomies (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No comment on this case, but re: your claim above DGG appears to claim correctly: in this edit you apparently used <ref>http://youtube.com/watch?v=3mEMClPAc0s</ref> and <ref>http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2008/09/the_man_behind_vpilfcom.php</ref>. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That was 1 Rv. after DDG removed large amount of properly sourced information from the article including all information about Sarah Palin and Who's Nailin' Paylin? - Adventures of a Hockey MILF. Those two sources were not originally added by me. I was just trying to save the article. Klassikkomies (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I realise you didn't add them originally; my point was that you did insert references from YouTube and a blog. It would have been better to partially revert. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 17:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is really unreasonable that I made 1 tiny mistake trying to save the article and contributor who was trying to remove properly sourced information from the article gives me my only warning. Klassikkomies (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

user:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick

I've been accused many times (at least 5) by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick of being a 'sockpuppet' and he even went so far as to issue a checkuser request and he had the nerve to tell me to "promise that I will never do it again" , I believe this is unacceptable in Misplaced Pages. He also said it in a wikipedia article . Also last time he issued a checkuser request on me and he said he would apologize if I was innocent of being a sockpuppet but he never did, can you admins tell him to please behave? his insults are not justified. Thank you.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your evidence he requested checkuser? (Note: most of here are not admins, just follow editors trying to help.) I'll make a note on his talk that sockpuppet accusations don't belong in article talk pages. Gerardw (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All I want is for somebody to please tell him something, this has been going long enough. My evidence...well he told me he would issue a checkuser request if I didn't acknowledge my sockpuppetry (but I'm not so naturally I'm guessing he did., thanks.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Check his talkpage. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Bwilkins :) (funny comment btw lol)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This editor has just come off two back to back blocks for 3RR violations and mysteriously I am seeing a page that he has been reverting being simultaneously edited by an anon IP. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Other editors may also be interested in these posts on EHT made here a few weeks ago His behaviour has not really changed much since. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Case in point - please see the "LOL" comments most recently posted on my talk page by this user since he filed the WQ alert. I am removing them, and he is reposting again and again. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed, request to stay off posted on his talk. I apologize for providing the catalyst, feel free to delete. Gerardw (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, I have done so. Incidentally, message for the WQ responders here, I don't think people who follow up on WQ alerts should be posting on other users' pages to do something or "STFU". It's an expletive even in abbreviated form. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, the smiley after the STFU shows he was not berating you, and the point is still valid, you should NOT threaten an editor with a checkuser, etc. multiple times yet never post the request. If you did post the request, this does not apply to you obviously, but if you are really concerned he is a sock, post the checkuser request. If you don't post the request, it looks to neutral third parties like you are just trying to intimidate another editor. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did indeed post the request, before all the above comments were made. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good, you made the request. Do you have the results yet? Part of Euro's complaint was that you said you would apologize if you were wrong and you didn't; did the checkuser come back yet? If so, I would assume Euro was not the sock you suspected him of being, but obviously if it did not come back yet we all would have to wait for the results. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was declined so we will never know. My case is outlined there, I'll let others be the judge. All I can say is that I have been editing at WP long enough to have encountered my fair share of sockpuppets, and to know the types of behaviour that they indulge in. I'm sure that others will agree it's mysterious when a user has just come off two back to back 3RR blocks and then an anon IP with a similar edit history starts making the same edits, and then we see a post on the talk page from the user in support of the edits... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, looked at the case, it does look suspicious, but unless this IP and EHT cross paths again nothing obviously is going to come of this. EHT was warned not to post to your talk page anymore, and to avoid situations like this in the future I suggest being a little more conservative with your warnings to users; even when you suspect them of being socks, let the checkuser request go through without posting too inflammatory of warnings on their pages. Not that notifying them is wrong, but if the warning provokes the user, like yours to EHT did, then it serves to escalate, not resolve the dispute :-). Good luck and happy editing. (I know this section was already resolved, but thought I should at least leave a final comment after challenging The Red Hat as to whether or not he posted the check user request.) Theseeker4 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your sensible comments. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

user:Donadio

The user was already blocked because of his bad behave at article White Brazilian but keeps doing the same mistakes. He keeps erasing sourced informations and including non-neutral personal point of views. He claims there are 15 million "Italian Brazilians", while the Embassy of Italy in Brasilia claims 25 million. He said the Embasy is lying and "exaggerating". He's also claiming the Embassy of Lebanon figures are fake. No sources on the Internet say these government figures are fakes, but this user does not respect the Verifiability rule of Misplaced Pages. He takes personal conclusions based on informations that have nothing to do with the subect. He has a clear "pro-Portuguese" point of view, and is obviously trying to diminish the influence of Italians, Germans and Arabs in Brazil.

Misplaced Pages asks us to ask another user's opinion when there is a conflict. User Lehoiberri agreed that Donadio's changes based on non-neutral opinions are not allowed. However, Donadio keeps changing the information, even after being blocked and after a third opinion. I already told him several times not to include unsourced and non-neutral informations, but he keeps ignoring my warnings. Opinoso (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this does look like a major problem regarding the need of an administrator and more arbitration. I would suggest you went to this page Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration, and get the opinion of neutral parties to the conflict. If what you claim is true, they will surely agree with you and then you'll be able to take the situation to ]. Once you get to this last point, administrators will enforce the decision made by the arbitrators.-- (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would post on WP:RFC as the arbitration committee will likely reject the case at this early stage. The arbitrators only accept cases that have been ongoing for a long period of time and every other attempt at resolving the conflict have failed. For obviously disruptive edits post to WP:ANI, for comment on the article or the user's conduct, use WP:RFC. Unfortunately, this is a content dispute and an edit warring issue, not a civility issue, so bringing it to the admin noticeboard or an RFC would be the best option at this point. Theseeker4 (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted it at the Request for Arbitration. I think I cannot post it again in other places, or they will think I am flooding Misplaced Pages with the same text. I hope they can aceept it on the arbitration, because I feel this user:Donadio will keep with the same mistakes. Opinoso (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I doubt they will accept it, but I might be wrong. If they don't, they will probably suggest a forum to bring it to, so if you wait for them to reject it and bring it to that forum, no one will accuse you of forum shopping (or at least no neutral third party will). Good luck, closing this notice now. Theseeker4 (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:DR ..it gives the escalating process for dispute resolution. To take this to arbitration was inappropriate, and if it is rejected, as I expect it will be, you cannot go backwards. Content issues are recommended to go to for a 3rd opinion, and/or resolve matters on the article Talk page. Arbitration is not required at this point. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

::::: I'd go there right now, strike it through with a comment like 'withdrawn per advice of other editors', and post on article RFC. Gerardw (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Arb has been declined. Gerardw (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

user:PiCo

Repeated uncivil behaviour and accusations of bad faith over more than 6 months (I can't provide diffs for some of these, since they're in archived pages):

• 'Lord, don't rell me I find myself on the same side as that idiot Taiwanboi!' (09:47, 19 January 2009), diff
• 'By the way, Taiwanboi really has read all those books, he just doesn't get the big picture, being blinkered by his somewhat oddball religious heritage' PiCo (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC), diff
• 'There's no need to be ashamed about being self-educated - I'm sure there were good reasons that prevented your getting a degree' PiCo (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC), diff
• 'Taiwanboi, please stop mischievous edit-warring on this page' PiCo (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2008, diff
• 'It hardly seems worth arguing with someone who misunderstands his books so completely' PiCo (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC), diff
• 'The edit is an attempt to introduce a particular pov by stealth - namely, that the Ark story was composed by one person.' PiCo (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC), source

Interjecting -- diff is still available on history even if page archived. Gerardw (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make a note of that. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• 'I'll be happy to accpet any edits of yours that I think are good, but at the moment you're simply pushing a personal agenda.' PiCo (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC), source
• 'Why do you insist that the 2-sources-in-theFlood-narrative is contested, when it's universally accepted? Ah, but of course, I already know the answer: you're an OEC, well out of the mainstream yourself!' PiCo (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC), source
• 'That, and more, is the story in Genesis. Please stop inventing your own version.' PiCo (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC), source

--Taiwan boi (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the clearly uncivil ones are 1 ("idiot"), 2 (defaming a religion). The might be is 4 (unless you were actually edit-warring, then it's a fair question). The others could possibly be attempts to dissuade participation. I see the two of you have a long history...can you please advise what was the results of your mediation? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm surprised he's allowed to say things like 'There's no need to be ashamed about being self-educated - I'm sure there were good reasons that prevented your getting a degree', insinuating that I wasn't able to get a degree (when he knows I already have one and I'm currently doing my Masters). This is a slur on my intellectual capacity.

As for the mediation, that ended up stalling completely. An edit war over two sections of the Noah's Ark article prompted me to seek the advice of 'third party observation, with a view to developing into informal mediation'. Third party observation was given, and an offer for dialogue was made to PiCo by the third party (here). I subsequently extended an invitation for informal mediation to PiCo, and the third party agreed to be mediator(here). As can be seen from the subsequent discussion, the third party later withdrew from the position of mediator. PiCo suggested he was prepared to enter into mediation discussions, but did not reply when I answered his request for information on exactly what I wanted. Thus both User:Alastair_Haines and I attempted to find a resolution or compromise, and both of us contacted PiCo in the process.

I next sought editorial assistance. PiCo was notified of this, but chose not to respond in any way, leading the assisting editor concerned to inform me that no action could be taken:

• 'I suspect that someone's not read the message or isn't responding. I would suggest WP:3O or WP:RFC at this point as there's not much one can do if only one hand is clapping.' x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

At this point PiCo went very quiet for a while, clearly not wishing to get on anyone's radar, and very probably trying to establish at least some history of non-confrontation. Since he was now 'being good', and since I had tbeen told that 'there's not much one can do if only one hand is clapping', I didn't take the matter any further, but the familiar pattern of behaviour began again later, and has continued ever since. I have been documenting our history here for my personal reference, and in case it was ever needed (I was recommended to build up extensive documentation for this purpose). --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You see, I felt there was indeed nothing wrong with being self-educated, and nothing wrong with not having a degree ... so I saw no incivility there. You will note, however, that the editor was provided a Level 4 warning against personal attacks. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment about being "self-educated" when the editor knows you do, in fact, have a degree is insulting and pretty childish really. I agree that it would be potentially civil if the editor believed you did not have a degree, but in the context that they know you have a degree, it is certainly uncivil and insulting. Considering the editor has been warned, any further personal attacks the editor makes should be brought to ANI citing this alert and his entire history, including warnings. If he won't respond to attempts at discussion and alerts such as this one, the only thing you can do is take it to the next step, which would be WP:3O or WP:RFC for disputes and WP:ANI for attacks. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I note that in response to your warning he said 'As for calling taiwanboi an idiot (edit summary to Exodus, it's a simple truth' (diff), which doesn't look particularly repentant to me, nor particularly civil. I don't think he's going to change his ways any time soon. --Taiwan boi (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I don't think he will change his ways, but maybe I am wrong. I would be half tempted to report him to ANI for the comment you quote above, but my suggestion is to let it go and assume he will no longer engage in that type of behavior. If he does so again, as long as you don't do anything to provoke him that you shouldn't do, you can request an administrator deal with it as this is an informal forum, so most people who help out here are not admins and cannot block, etc. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User: ThuranX Use of a swear word that begins with an "F" and rymes with "Duck"

Uncivil communication .

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution