Volunteer instructions

Are you in the right place? Click in the corresponding box if you want to report:
3RR or edit warring	Ongoing vandalism	Requests for Page protection	Sock- puppetry	Biographical article issues (BLP)	Content issues	Requests for Arbcom ruling enforcement	Other incidents that need administrator intervention
For difficult communications and civility problems, use this page.

This noticeboard is an early step in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. It is an informal non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors. Uninvolved editors are encouraged to give their perspective, advice, offer informal mediation, or refer a report to an appropriate noticeboard. IMPORTANT: Read the overview and instructions before posting your alert.

Shortcut: WP:WQA

[edit] Overview

• Generally, see the dispute resolution process and the helpful advice found here.
• If you would like to get one-to-one advice, feedback or counseling from another editor, then you should consider editor assistance.
• If two or more editors have warned another editor about his/her behavior, and the problem has continued, then an alternative to posting here is to make a request at WP:Requests for comment/User conduct.

Dispute resolution (⇛)
Negotiation
Article talk pages Discussion Compromise Editor assistance (⇒) Third opinion (⇒) Request comments (⇒) Wikiquette alerts (⇒)
Mediation
Mediation Cabal Mediation Committee Request mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee Request arbitration
Remedies
Editing restrictions General sanctions

[edit] Instructions for posting an alert

This page is not formally monitored; all helpers are volunteers and therefore it may take some time to receive a response. If the circumstances change since your original posting then please update your alert.

If you have not received help and the problem escalates, then please refer to the list above and post your alert to a relevant noticeboard. Please edit your alert to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere.

Before posting an alert:

• Ensure that you have followed the directions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Avoiding disputes. Politely, in a non-judgemental way, raise the issue with the other editor; emphasise the desire to move forward constructively; and address how to move forward on the outstanding content issues whilst assuming good faith.
• If the issue is a one-off episode (tempers can run high!), or only a mild breach of etiquette guidelines, then consider whether it would actually be helpful to post here.
• If you are sure making a report here is really necessary, then please try to phrase it in neutral and non-judgemental language. Posting in haste and anger could add fuel to the fire, rather than helping to improve matters, thus try to avoid posting while upset.
• Always keep in mind that the aim of this page is to solve ongoing problems, not to punish misbehaviour. There are relevant noticeboards for that.

How to post your alert:

• Be sure to post your alert at the bottom of the page — Click here to start a new section
• A single posting per alert is sufficient. Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page, instead supply a simple explanation of the problem, along with the involved parties and a link to the page(s) where the problem is happening. A concise way to do this is to include diffs that show the problem. (A guide to creating diffs is here).
• Remember to describe the problem or issue as neutrally as possible. Avoid emotional content that could lead to unnecessary escalation or continuance of the dispute on this page, both of which are to be avoided.
• Be sure to sign your report by using ~~~~ or the signature button in the edit bar.
• Notify the reported user(s). Place a short and polite statement on their talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved. You may wish to use the template {{subst:WQA-notice}} on a user's talk page.
• Do not continue your discussion in detail here. Instead, continue discussing it at its original location. As long as your alert contains a link to the relevant discussions it will be seen.

When to avoid filing an alert:

• When your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere.
• If you're filing a report to complain about the same issue that was already closed here. If this is the case, then please read why that report was closed and if appropriate consider taking your issue to a relevant noticeboard.
• If you're filing a report to complain about an editor who responded to and possibly closed your previous WQA alert. You must realise that people action alerts voluntarily, and are unlikely to have a personal connection or involvement in the issue. You should talk with them to get their reasoning on why your alert was closed.

[edit] Instructions for volunteers wishing to assist dispute resolution

See volunteer instructions.

[edit] Active alerts

[edit] Regarding User:Brown Hair

[edit] Comment by Brewcrewer

Brewcrewer recently reverted Tiamut's edits to the Muhammad al-Durrah incident article. Discussions on this page have often gotten heated, so I was surprised to see the comment in Brewcrewer's revert summary that "Jews aren't that bad". This struck me as a failure to assume good faith, since Tiamut's previous edit and edit summary didn't indicate that Jews were bad in any way, and I'm worried that such comments can fan the flames of edit wars in articles on controversial topics. I haven't notified the user, and I'm not seeking any punitive actions against them. I'm just looking for a neutral outside opinion on whether such a comment can be considered a failure to assume good faith, to see if I myself am failing to assume the assumption of good faith. ← George ^talk 13:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen WP:AGF invoked about a thousand times, and I don't think I have ever seen it produce a positive result -- as the policy itself states, asking somebody to AGF is itself a failure to AGF. The comment is unnecessarily provocative, and it would be reasonable to say so, in my opinion. Bringing WP:AGF into the picture is not necessary or helpful.Looie496 (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary does strike me as odd but I don't know what to make of it. So it seems appropriate to ask Brewcrewer what he meant by that. Per WQA policy I've notified him of this discussion. Gerardw (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at Tiamut's diff [4] to which Brewcrewer was responding. It included the edit summary: "(copy edit and remove reference to Jewish New Year - its irrlevant to the calling of the general strike, which was related to the Second Intifada, not the New Year)" I would imagine Brewcrewer's reference to Jews had more to do with Tiamut's removing the reference to the Jewish New Year as "irrelevant". Maybe a bit of a non-sequitor, but hardly an issue of good or bad faith on Brewcrewer's part, in my opinion. Stellarkid (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, though Tiamut didn't label the Jewish New Year as irrelevant, he said it was irrelevant relative too the general strike, which, as far as I can tell, it was. Per Gerardw's suggestion, I've asked Brewcrewer to explain what he meant by his edit summary. ← George ^talk 22:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Assume good faith" (AGF) Discussion

A general comment regarding "AGF": I agree with Looie496 above that invoking it as a rule is pretty much never a good idea. (That is, I don't think it tends to produce positive results.) If someone "seems to be failing to AGF", the best response is to explain one's motivations, and make one's good faith clear. In this case, Tiamut might wish to explain that he's got nothing against Jews, or he might decide that's clear enough without explanation. Geogre, not being the party whose faith is (or is not) called into question, might very reasonably ask Brewcrewer, "What did you mean by that?" without ever mentioning a behavior policy.

I find that a good rule of thumb is to consider AGF a standard by which to guide my own actions, not to evaluate others'. Otherwise, people think they're being accused of breaking a rule, and that very naturally tends to provoke defensiveness regarding that "rule", which is a step removed from the actual content being discussed. Just my passing thoughts; feel free to ignore... -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Highly agree with the above. I'm ridiculously careful in how I word things as I never, ever want to sound downright accusatory, since that's not really in Wikipedia's philosophy to ever do, and I'd be very hurt if anyone came screaming at me about an honest mistake or misunderstanding. If I ever accidentally slip on warning type in Huggle to hit the wrong "restore" type from Twinkle I will fly to the user's talk page to explain the mistake. Accidental or questionable marks as vandalism = bad. Stay calm and more often than not you'll get reasonable replies. Hell, some ANIs even die on the spot if someone comes up with a detailed, neutral, summary and suggestions on a controversial matter. Some I've posted at simply ended after I took a page from a few other editor's playbooks of writing up an extremely informal agreement on user-enforced minor restrictions on a minor squabble gone out of hand, really simple stuff people forget likely defuse content disputes in a majority of areas ... like a voluntary 3 day 'vacation' from the topic, not posting on the opposing editor's talkpage, or directly addressing the other party at all unless a matter of critical policy such as BLP, NLT, etc. Even a reminder that one ANI listing makes any possibly AGF breaches/Civility issues fair game to blocks or other "real" sanctions from an admin with no further notice gets people to shape up. All about tone and a huge majority of even somewhat "troubling" editors seem glad to sit an talk it over. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While AGF can be used inappropriately "pretty much never" is a bit overstating it. It is quite appropriate to gently remind someone AGF, especially when done by a third party, and especially here at WQA when someone is responding to a poorly phrased comment. Gerardw (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I guess I like for my gentle reminders to include the essential content of the guideline, without ever actually name-checking it. Sometimes, people reply with, "Yeah, I guess I should AGF," coming up with the reference entirely on their own! I might be over-careful in this matter, but I don't think that it hurts me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF has always confused me a bit. The wording of the guideline itself seems to indicate that failing to assume good faith is more reprehensible than actually editing in bad faith. It's also confusing because it's a behavioral guideline, but it seems to be much more closely tied to content disputes than editor behavior. Can someone edit in bad faith without a content dispute? For instance (unrelated to my query), can someone pushing a particular point of view in talk page discussions be considered to be editing in bad faith? Or how does one define bad faith editing? ← George ^talk 09:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't define it, unless in application to myself. If I were to get mad and start editing the Wiki in ways just to piss people off, that would be bad faith, but I would never accuse another editor of it. Ever. If someone is doing something wrong, it's wrong in itself, as an action, and not because of how they might or might not feel about doing it. We can neither dictate, accurately read, nor punish motivations, and that's what "good faith" is about. There's no situation I've ever seen where drawing a conclusion about someone else's intentions is either helpful, nor really possible without presumptuous speculation. Just comment on the content; never on the contributor.

As for the wording of the guideline, I think that the best advice out there regarding our policies and guidelines is DON'T READ THEM! If you have to read a page called WP:AGF to know what it means to assume good faith, then you've already missed the point. That's doubly true for our civility policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette request on User:WeisheitSuchen

User:WeisheitSuchen has continued to accuse me of forum shopping over a span of a few months now. The legacy refers to a mistake I had committed at the very start of my usage of complaint forums when I had posted on multiple forums. On being pointed out by another user, I had corrected that and apologised. However, the accusations against me have continued by WeisheitSuchen.

• Here: [5] WeisheitSuchen says

• "Makrandjoshi's view isn't disruptive; you are the one who has done the forum shopping and is attempting to undo the previous decision on Careers360 because it didn't go your way" (For information, Makrandjoshi is another user who repeatedly harassed me and got warned here,[6] and here[7] by the administrators.)
• "I said it was the end of the discussion because you've been making the same arguments and forum shopping for months."
• "I'm sorry that you don't realize that the time difference between August and November constitutes "months." Forum shopping (here + RSN twice + Wikiquette etc.) isn't discussion; neither is continuing to argue for something long after productive alternative solutions have been suggested, repeatedly, by several different people."

• Here [[8]WeisheitSuchen says:

• "I'm referring to your penchant for forum shopping and bringing arguments up repeatedly."

• Here [9] Weisheitsuchen says

• "Forum shopping is the name of the specific behavior, as it is known in Wikipedia. How is referring to a behavioral guideline uncivil? If I called you stupid, that would clearly be uncivil (and untrue--I often disagree with you, but I don't think you're stupid). If you really think that referring to a specific behavioral guideline is uncivil, by all means take me to the Wikiquette board. I'm confident about what others would say about it, so I don't mind you getting an outside opinion."

In all the above links, I have told Weisheitsuchen politely yet firmly to stop making the accusations. He has not. My request is that WeisheitSuchen should stop making such accusations and stop using words like "forum shopping" again against me.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My question for others is this: is Wifione correct in stating that "The term 'forum shopping' is uncivil"? To me, it seems that doesn't meet the requirements of a personal attack. I'd like to hear some other opinions though. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing problem with Chhe (talk)

[edit] User:BilCat's uncivil behauvoir

I am experiencing some problems with user BilCat. some days ago i did an edit in Bell 222; Bil reverted this edit one hour later. I asked to him the reason about this revert [17]; i told to him to take care to not delete stuff potentially relevant (and i am sure it was)[18]; he, instead to answer me, simply deleted my post, with this nice words Took out the trash - my, it's sure funny to by lectured to by people who can barley speak English!. Note 'barley'.

Well, trial n.2: i re-tried to talk to him asking when and what he answered to my questions. Instead, he deleted again my post in his talk without any answer: [19].

I am not saying i'm right to edit and he is not; but he, first reverted my edit, and after that, refused to answer to my questions. I only want to discuss that, and avoid edit-wars; but, refusing any discussion with other editors, he displayed how he rates the wikinette. Is it a civil manner to act here? Regardless of the rights and the edit counts (that, let's say cleary, 'sometimes matters'), i don't think it's the right way to act.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to post something on his talk page about this discussion. Plus have you looked at the talk page of the article for a reply? Dmcq (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your post on Bill's talk page ([20]) wasn't very polite - accusing someone of edit warring, article ownership, arrogance and bias because they removed some material you'd added to the article is uncalled for (particularly as you didn't provide a citation for most of the material you added and Bill very clearly explained his rationale in his edit summary in the article). While Bill was justified in removing your rude post from his talk page (editors can do more or less what they wish with their talk pages) and ignoring your subsequent messages, his edit summary could have been politer - though given the rudeness of your behaviour it's fully understandable. I see that Bill has now responded on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes i wasn't that polite. But this is xxxx time that i see such editing style, and this is the primary reason that led me (and many others) to quit more and more the project. Once it was atleast requested the 'Citation needed' if some info were debated, today it's not: just came, delete and run. So understand me, i wouldn't miss an hour of work just to see it destroyed from the first that cames; it's not that my edits are untouchables, no, but atleast ask me for sources, that i hold (but if someone don't ask for them, i do not necessarly give them, there are many wikipedia articles without sources at all). In the interest of wikipedia, it's better to discuss than fire. And finally, my first mex wasn't that polite, but still, the second was; why understand BilCat when he is frustrated, while my frustration is not considered? I don't enjoy such manners. Regards.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point: Stefanomencarelli's behaviour can never be the reason for BilCat's (or anyone else's) incivility. BilCat has quite the history of incivility (as you very well know - this is not the first time you defend him) so don't act suprised if someone stops assuming good faith on his part. He also consistently refuses to discuss things with persons he does not like very much; reverting one's own talk page is not a breach of policy, but in his case often is perceived as a breach of civility. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Now in the Bell 222's talk page was answered to me that 'comparations are not needed in an encyclopedia'. Well, this is a typical praxis about wikipedia, it's not written in any xxxxx policy, but is imposed without discussion (as thumb-size images, absolutely awful as well..). Let's say this, as i wrote in that discussion page: 1- if comparation are not 'needed' in wikipedia, then explain me why there are comparations between Bell 222 and Bell 230; it's not allowed to compare Bell 222 and A.109, when the same page explains that they are 'comparable aircrafts'? What, it's impossible to compare models 'comparable', while it's possible compare Bell 222 with its successors? Frankly speaking, it's laugable. 2- I have, and many million have, a very slow connection. The answer is: 'open the next link', so you'll find your datas. Let's say i need to find datas for: Bell 222, A.109, S-76 Helicopters, then compare them and guess why A.109 had the upper hand in the market. Well, inspite of 'user's friendly', wikipedia obliges me to open tree pages instead of one, to find the datas. Why i must loose two minuts to open other webpages? Why other users should lost billions minutes to open what it would be reasonable to add in a data-table? I could open one of these pages, and find out what i need. Instead, 'comparation tables' are not needed. Unrationale and non-userfriendly argument, since tables are used but only to compare versions of the same project, that, teorically should not be admitted as well. And in this aspects, what you meet is, usually, a sort of Holy Bible defenders, that absoletely delete all what they thinks is 'unnecessary', regardless the rationality of their ideas, that usually they are not ready to discuss (just fire). This is, for myself, not the best way to run a young project like wikipedia is, and thus with a very long phase of debugging. It's a bit too early to have not only zillions wikipolicies, but also 'praxis' that blocks the change in the layout of the encliclopedia. And if you insist, instead to have a bit of 'discussions', you would be banned as 'uncivil'. That's why i, and many more, am less and less interested to contribute, and not because i am a troll or a vandal..--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me. Please see WP:Dispute resolution. If there is just one other person in the dispute you can ask for a third opinion, otherwise you can request a comment and there there's various dispute paths if there is no agreeement after other people have looked at the problem. Dmcq (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Plus I do agree that edit comment by BilCat on their user talk page was disrespectful. There's no need to give offence and cause hassle when writing an edit comment. Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BilCat is making a WP:POINT

BillCat is making a point twice, reverting some white space-only edits I made before. In both cases, the result leaves the article in an inconsistent state, so I doubt that his edits are done in good faith.

We struggled before about white space edits, the last time he used personal attacks against me. His behaviour has more cases of gross incivility against me and others.

Please let us know what you think about this. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never edited an article edited by this user before yesterday, as they have no edits before yesterday. The civility accusations by an editor with a similar IP were dismissed, and I've not been uncivil in regard to thes edits. However, this use has made accusations of bad faith, IP hatred, and misrepresetation of my edit summaries in both diffs. I did admit I reverted a verticle space that should not have been reverted, which was not accepted by this user. The issue that was at the core of the previous row involved edits such as this one Per the result of the discussion on that issue, I did not revert it this time, though User:Denniss has reverte it since then.

Finally, this user appears to be hounding me now, and has take issue here with my removal of an unneeded gallery fro a page which has heretofore not been edited by this user or anyone from his IP range for at least a year. Note that all the articles in which I have interacted with IPs from this user's range have been ones on my watchlist, with the exection of a film article where I thought that user's edit was vandalism. - BilCat (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any rebuttal, only history. So you admit that your edits are disruptive?

It's not important if I am this other user or not, important is your consistent incivility towards other users. Since I do see repeated attacks against IPs out of the blue, I don't think it is far-fetched to assume a certain animosity, whether or not you'd call it hate.

"[WP:AGF] does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." You have proven more than once that you are not interested in a constructive dialog with IPs.

My accusations were not dismissed, the discussion was closed because a barely related discussion was going on elsewhere. (Yup, that's the reason given. Nope, makes no sense, but that's the way complaints against "established editors" are dealt with.)

I think your consistent incivility warrants a closer look. Notice the difference between your actions and mine though: You reverted my change with a personal attack, without having an inkling of knowledge about the topic; I started a discussion. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no incivility by BilCat that I can see. Please do not raise wikiquette complaints against other editors without good grounds, doing that repeatedly is considered harassment. Dmcq (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be no real points raised above the previous complaint which the complainant raised also at WP:AN/I and then complained about their treatment by people there and argued with admins. Reraising it at WP:WQA without anything extra doesn't seem very constructive. Dmcq (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't threaten me. I simply don't believe you that you looked closely but couldn't find PAs, unless you are talking about this very alert. In that case, the incivility is in making a WP:POINT by making disruptive reverts just because the edits were made by me: Note that his edits make no sense otherwise as they leave the articles in an inconsistent state.

I won't make a WP:POINT, but you and I both know that an IP would never get away with the stuff BilCat pulls. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I never raised anything about BilCat on WP:AN/I. Please keep to the facts. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're different from 91.55.204.136? Sorry it seemed rather a coincidence such a similar IP. In that case you seem to have no case on your own at all, you're trying to complain on behalf of other people. You can raise a WP:request for comment on a user if you believe a number of other editors agree with you. Dmcq (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My case (if you want to call it that) is BilCat's consistent incivility. I was 91.55.204.136. If you continue to claim I made a case about BilCat on AN/I, provide diffs. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just blocked this editor for disruptive behaviour. Based on the IP address and editing pattern it's clear that they're the same person who raised the complaint at ANI (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Bogus PA warning from User:MBK004) and was told to drop the matter and move on. Based on their history of edit warring and claiming to be a victim I have no doubt that they'll be back under a new IP address to complain about me shortly... Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

== Wikiquette request against User:WeisheitSuchen ==

User:WeisheitSuchen has continued to accuse me of forum shopping over a span of a few months now. The legacy refers to a mistake I had

committed at the very start of my usage of complaint forums when I had posted on multiple forums. On being pointed out by another user, I had corrected that and apologised.

However, the accusations against me have continued by WeisheitSuchen.

• Here: [21] WeisheitSuchen says

• "Makrandjoshi's view isn't disruptive; you are the one who has done the forum shopping and is attempting to undo the previous decision on Careers360 because it didn't go your way"

(For information, Makrandjoshi is another user who repeatedly harassed me and got warned here,[22] and here[23] by the administrators.)

• "I said it was the end of the discussion because you've been making the same arguments and forum shopping for months."

• "I'm sorry that you don't realize that the time difference between August and November constitutes "months." Forum shopping (here + RSN twice + Wikiquette etc.) isn't discussion; neither is continuing to argue for something long after productive alternative solutions have been suggested, repeatedly, by several different people."

• Here [[24] WeisheitSuchen says:

• "I'm referring to your penchant for forum shopping and bringing arguments up repeatedly."

• Here [25] Weisheitsuchen says

• "Forum shopping is the name of the specific behavior, as it is known in Wikipedia. How is referring to a behavioral guideline uncivil? If I called you stupid, that would clearly be uncivil (and untrue--I often disagree with you, but I don't think you're stupid). If you really think that referring to a specific behavioral guideline is uncivil, by all means take me to the Wikiquette board. I'm confident about what others would say about it, so I don't mind you getting an outside opinion."

In all the above links, I have tried hard to tell Weisheitsuchen to stop making the accusations.

My request is that WeisheitSuchen should stop making such accusations and stop using words like "forum shopping" again against me. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am confused as to who (Wikione? Thejadefalcon?) is posting what here. Gerardw (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems there was an edit conflict at some point which caused oddities... I must admit looking at the page history I am confused as to who posted what here too. It looks like one of them filed, an edit conflict occured, and the other restored the lost information. Could we get some clarification? Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Wifione is the filing party, however I am unsure as to where the initial statement ends, and Thejadefalcon's comment begins. A signiture needs adding in somewhere to clarify. --Taelus (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it be OK to just strike this duplicate version? It appears that Wifione did get his complete complaint against me above. I'm not sure what Thejadefalcon's contribution should have been though. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• There does seem to be an edit conflict. I have struck out the complaint from here as it is listed above here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Wikiquette_request_on_User:WeisheitSuchen. Kindly leave your comments above. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Simanos and personal attacks

Simanos has continuously attacked myself and other editors. Moreover, he believes that he still hasn't attacked anyone, and done nothing wrong. User talk:Simanos is full of personal attacks from him, as well as my page User talk:Warrior4321. Further attacks are even found on Talk:Battle of the Persian Gate. warrior4321 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User Simanos protected a page from a vandal, a proven sock-puppet IP who was banned and blocked several times and kept evading his blocks by changing IP and using the same insults on various editors (not only me). All I did after reverting the vandalism several times was to provide info on the talk page about the IP-hopper's racial slurs and aggression and also logic behind the reverts (not that it was needed against such an obvious vandal, but I did provide it, along with others like Ministerforbadtimes and Nev1 and others). Then I told the evader to go away and that we editors of wikipedia would remain vigilant against his abuse and to get a life. Warrior4321 went on a crazy spree of warning various editors for inexistant crimes/aggression, not just me. And I called a spade a spade. That is all. He's embarrassing himself by continuing this charade really. Not to mention his past on that kind of pages either... Simanos (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that you repeatedly attacked other editors and myself. Fine, the IP editor is now a banned-sockpuppet, that doesn't explain why you constantly attacked me with insults. You were directed to Wikipedian guidelines such as (WP:NPA) several times, yet you never really understood it or just plainly ignored it. You still don't understand that you -are- attacking editors and you need to stop, that is why I am requesting support from the community, so that further events as such won't occur. So, no I'm not "embarrassing myself" just because I'm asking support from the community. Rather, you are embarrassing yourself when you don't know what being civil and personal attacks are after constant explanations.

Furthermore, please do not state what you do not know. I did not go on a "crazy spree" and give various editors warnings that they did not deserve. Every editor which received a warning deserved it. warrior4321 04:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Be the IP user a proven sock, it doesn't justify your inappropriate behavior, like attacking this User:Warrior4321 who at the beginning did nothing apart from placing a warning template on your talk page, believing you are overdoing it. You could do much better than calling him "crazy", IMHO. And you are still using words like "crazy spree" here. Seriously, That's not really very civil. Also, if you disliked the sock(neither do I), you could have reported him @ ANI earlier, instead of flaming at him. Others might not be very pleasant to see you two flamming on each other.Blodance (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not attack the sock-puppet, did you even read the talk-page? I did not call him any names or insults. Warrior4321 is the only one flaming and not leaving this to rest. He shouldn't even have started it. Simanos (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole first paragraph of this section is a joke. Warrior4321 says I continuously attacked him and other editors(plural) when it's only one other editor in this whole matter (the banned sock-puppets, all of them). Even if I had attacked them (which I didn't) he's just using here another impression tactic by using a vague plural "editors" weasel word. Then he goes on to link entire pages instead of specific examples to show off again, but there is no substance in his accusations. That is why other editors like Nev1, MFBT, etc actually supported me in all 3 pages he linked. Warrior4321 jumped the gun in warning me, he shouldn't have. And he's not being a man and admitting he was wrong so we can drop this. That is all. Simanos (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I did read the talk page, and I think although that sock is a major dick indeed, calling him a "Iranian POV pusher" and telling him to "get a life" is still not very civil. His wrong does not make you right. As User:Warrior4321 did not seem to be involved in the argument between you and the IP sock, I don't think there's a ground to assume bad faith. So, to be honest, you really look more like the one who's flamming than him. Look, you already started to abf on me, and maintained that he is exclusively responsible for this. This is not very cool. Chill, dude. Blodance (talk) 06:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a POV pusher is common is Wikipedia and not a personal attack or insult, especially when there's ample evidence to prove it as is the case here (and when there's proven banned sock-puppet involved). I'm sorry but you're stretching your credibility. BTW Warrior4321 does have a past with me and with the article that you missed. You're not doing a good job so far mate. Warrior4321 jumped the gun in warning me and should apologise. He should also apologise for wasting our time and for creating this preposterous wiki alert here. I'm only calling a spade a spade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPADE Simanos (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:IMatthew

[edit] MisterWiki editing on an uninformed basis, reverting unwontedly, not replying

I know this person is a repeat appearer here but I am having trouble with a newly created page on a musical instrument, the Guitaret. He began by declaring it to be spam (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guitaret&diff=334913746&oldid=334856302) then a hoax ({{db-hoax}}, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guitaret&diff=334913746&oldid=334856389 ) then a removal of what he considered unnecessary paragraphs (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guitaret&diff=334913746&oldid=334856460) then a whole lot (adverts, notability, npov http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guitaret&diff=334913746&oldid=334856556). My attempts to discuss this have not been replied to. I realise that he is a Spanish speaking 15 year old for whom English is a second language, so I took this under consideration when I went to discuss this with him, but he is simply not engaging in discussion in either his talk page or on the discussion page on the article. Bearing in mind the advice given on these pages about dispute resolution I replaced the pages with shorter sections, which he then again removed with the briefest of comments. This is in the very least completely contrary to the spirit of tolerance and support towards first article writers, and doesn't encourage me to create more articles. DiarmuidPigott (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please continue dialog on article talk page. If unable to come to consensus can use WP:THIRD or article WP:RFC. Gerardw (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Argument going on about my review.

Hello, there is this incident that has been going on today about my reviews, well it all started when i was on WP:HUGGLE. When i reverted one of User:MiRroar edits by accident. Then User:MiRroar overreacted and starting writing rude things about me on my review page. Note i told the person sorry. Then i decided to undo those rude things. However one of the rollbackers User:Favonian, rollbacked the page, when i told the rollbackers in the summary not to rollback the page, because i will not tolerate any rude comments on my review page. Then, i undid Favonian's revert. Then Favonian decided to post a vandalism warning on my talk page when i did not even vandalize, then IShadowed came in and said that we should stop arguing. Then i contacted IShadowed in the IRC Chatroom and he said to come leave a case here and see what you guys can do for me.--GeneralCheese 01:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

While I see MiRroar may have been a bit forward in calling you "inexperienced", they have a point in that you might benefit by taking more care in reverts, even if you miss some to more experienced patrollers who can distinguish vandalism faster. However, you probably should not have edit-warred over the comment or threatened to report Favonian. I see that you seem to have resolved the dispute betwixt yourselves, so I hope you won't mind if I mark this resolved? Intelligentsium 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That wasnt a threat i seriously reported him.--GeneralCheese 04:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Damiens.rf should be told to stop his rudeness and Wikihounding

When I first came to Wikipedia in 2004, I was attracted to the fact that this wonderful site can serve as an educational forum. I was right and enjoyed making contributions with the goal of using this forum with the intention of educating others as to the contributions made by Hispanics to society. Some of the pleasures which I received was having a version of an article which I wrote used as the background for a Bill signed into law by President Bush. I have also received recognition's from the Pentagon and Government of Puerto Rico for my work here.

Recently, I feel that I have become a victim of Wikihounding by User:Damiens.rf. Damiens, mass nominated several images which I uploaded, which is his right, however some of the discussions turned personal with his rudeness, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 7, Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 8 and 1and among other things his behavior was discussed here:[38]. In what became an obvious pattern of Wikihounding, he suddenly showed up here. As soon as I created the article Maria Luisa Arcelay and he shows up again Damiens and nominates the image for deletion. He began a discussion of an article of which he had never participated in here: [39] and also nominated one of my articles for deletion as a result. He has continued in his Mass deletion nominations of images which I have uploaded once more Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 29. As you can see he has targeted me [40]. Let me remind everyone that this complaint is not about his mass deletions of images, Damiens is good at what he does. It is about his rudeness, in Wikipedia we are to be "polite" and "civil" with other editors. It is about his "hounding", we are not to target anyone as to be disruptive and lessen the enjoyment of contributing to this project. I myself am not perfect and have made mistakes, I know that, however his behavior should be condemned and he must be told that his actions will only discourage others from participating in this project. I, for one, have decided to no longer contribute to the project and will take a leave of absence as a consequence. I wish you all a Happy New Year. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf has a pattern of this and it needs to stop. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Second. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the user is being rude. Ill try to talk to him on his talk page, if things work out fine then i will mark this case as resolved, if not i will have to get an sysops involved in this case. Anyways ill add a work in progress template for now.--GeneralCheese 04:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

GeneralCheese, we generally keep the discussion here. The goal is to get both parties to amicably resolve their differences without involving admins. So let's let Damiens respond before taking any further steps. Gerardw (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed!--GeneralCheese 05:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

He responded as if he dosent care about this situation at all look here [41]--GeneralCheese 05:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, "highly sarcastic" or "egocentric" just doesn't begin to describe the manner that he responds ([42] [43], etc.) to virtually every action/reply related to him. His personality is just outright acid, clearly not the one needed to deal with anything controversial, never mind deletion nominations. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There also appears to be a problem with his activities regarding this image, which he persists in tagging for deletion as being inadequately sourced, despite policy (WP:NFCC 10a, reflecting the outcome of this policy discussion) saying the opposite; and the fact that the image has been upheld on nomination at WP:FFD, which is looking likely to be upheld in a discussion at DRV which is still currently open. Against that background, putting a speedy tag on the image, and resisting all attempts to remove it, looks horribly like disruptive editing. Jheald (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to those trying to help. Hopefully Damiens.rf will reform very quickly. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, Damiens.rf’s attitude & conduct does not represent a good example of how authors should conduct themselves on Wikipedia. FieldMarine (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I agree, as I noted here. I didn't check back to reply before the discussion closed, but the diff he posted is where Tony is quoting myself (Unfortunately, I think my message did more harm to Tony than good). It almost seems as if he has some kind of vendetta, or he seems to think that he has to "fix" everything Tony does. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:DocKino http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States#Miscellaneous

Situation speaks for itself, I'm not involved in the thread, have no opinion on it, just read the last post to the thread and reporting it here. Lycurgus (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] From: Michael Hardy

I just received this unwanted, unwarranted nastygram e-mail from Michael Hardy, bashing me for declining to respond

"Kinetsubuffalo", your gratuitous disrespect is noted. You are a boor and a coward.: Obviously I am a far more experienced Wikipedian than you, having done more than 130,000 edits, editing daily for more than seven years. I inquired about the reasons for one of your edits to an article to whose content my professional expertise is relevant.: I have been consistently polite and respectful to you.: You should be grateful for the opportunity to work with me. -- This e-mail was sent by user "Michael Hardy" on the English Wikipedia to user "Kintetsubuffalo".

I was not disrespectful, I simply removed from my own talkpage information I felt not germane to me, and then did not respond to the immediate followup from the above user. The above user seems to think it is the only busy user and only its issues matter. Conceit here I can deal with, when rudeness and conceit follow me home and turn into personal attacks (boor and a coward), it's time to bring in the admins. Whatever you admins do would be appreciated. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kintetsubuffalo&diff=prev&oldid=335064680 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kintetsubuffalo (talk • contribs)

The word "putz" is indeed disrespectful; it does not express declining to talk about a subject that one has nothing to say about. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So are your provocative threats, which are unacceptable as an admin. ZooFari 08:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record "boor and a coward" is name calling, so not WP:CIVIL, but not threats. And "putz" isn't any different. Now, I urge both of you gentlemen to rise above this level of discourse and resolve the actual contents dispute on the article's talk page. Pcap ping 08:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think someone with Michael's credentials should be respected as a Wikipedian; thus frivolous complaints should not be made against him. In the highly unlikely case that there is general consensus that he is behaving inappropriately (that is, if multiple complaints by multiple users are made), then there is reason for consideration. But taking into account that he has interacted with all sorts of characters on Wikipedia, and that most of this interaction has been extremely productive (as I have noticed, being a frequent contributor to WikiProject Mathematics), it is statistically unlikely that he is responsible in the slightest for any incident in the small percentage of non-peaceful interactions. Sure, Michael could have avoided his "insults". But considering how much time and effort he spends for this encyclopedia, it is natural that being confronted with frivolous issues can be tiring. We can make his (and everyone else's) life a lot easier, and the encyclopedia more productive, if such complaints are avoided. In any case, complaints of this nature should be reserved for the many inconsistent administrators we already have; not Michael. --PST 10:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly, being a respected and/or respected user does not give one a right to ignore policy nor to insult others. The concept of Vested Contributors/Divas is actually harmful to wikipedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I believe that nobody is perfect. In particular, Michael Hardy is already doing a tremendous amount of work on the encyclopedia. Although it would be nice if he was cool in disputes, just skimming through his contribution history shows that he encounters such frivolous issues time and time again. It is not in the least abnormal for him to agressively respond at least once. That said, he can (and should) improve his actions, but hopefully not at the cost of the productivity of his contributions to Wikipedia (thus I would not be in favor of de-sysoping, for instance). --PST 13:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Providing Michael realises what he did was wrong (It is silly to get all pretentious because one has edited wikipedia, after all), then I don't see the need for anything further. Experienced users lose their head sometimes, providing they acknowledge their error any 'remedy' serves to do more harm than whatever small bits of good it might do. If it becomes a pattern, then do something about it. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kintetsubuffalo

I have edited Wikiepedia articles daily for more than seven years, accumulating nearly 140,000 edits, none of them involving bot-assistence, and I have a Ph.D. in statistics and have taught mathematics and statistics at five universities, one of those being MIT. User:Kintetsubuffalo is a far less experienced Wikipedian than I am. Therefore I think its fair to say that if I ask User:Kintetsubuffalo to explain the rationale behind his tagging of an statistics-related article as looking like a "personal reflection or essay", my inquiry is not simply that of a crackpot who came along to pick fights. His response was this, and so I continued to inquire, posting this and later this.

I have been consistently respectful to User:Kintetsubuffalo.

His response was this.

Putz means (according to one prominent online dictionary) an idiot or fool.

User:Kintetsubuffalo is very boastful, as will be seen by looking at both his user page and his talk page. In particular, he says "I work well with those actually working". Few can match my voluminous contributions to Wikipedia, yet he is unwilling to work with me. Doubtless it makes him feel good to say "I work well with those actually working", as opposed to actually getting along with those actually working.

User:Kintetsubuffalo has a problem with being engaged in respectful discussion by more experienced Wikipedians, and he deals with it by means of gratuitous disrespect. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've posted an AVI here regarding Michael Hardy's inappropriate behavior when reacting to an incident like this. ZooFari 07:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is inappropriate forum shopping. Pcap ping 07:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The AN/I has been closed as inappropriate and the matter is being left to this discussion here on WQA. Did Kintetsubuffalo do more of this marking as essays after being asked about it? Some people have problems answering questions about what they do if they originally thought it was okay but will at least stop doing it if people complain. Dmcq (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Putz" is a Yiddish term that is considered highly offensive. As per The Joys of Yiddish, it can mean fool, ass, jerk, simpleton, yokel, easy mark. The best English equivalent I can think of would be "dickhead". No admin should be using terms like that, especially against a regular contributor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you got that the wrong way round somewhere. Michael Hardy is an admin, Kintetsubuffalo is a regular user and used the term. Dmcq (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Pcap ping 11:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's me that's the putz, then. In any case, it's a highly insulting term, even though it kind of sounds cute in English. According to The Joys of Yiddish, it's considered worse than its somewhat-synonym, schmuck. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Who volunteers for "boor and a coward" then? :P (See related thread above) Pcap ping 11:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And all of those insults were in the edit summaries. Nice touch. I especially like Michael's "You should be grateful for the opportunity to work with me." I should add that to my list of quotes. Neither of those guys is particularly taking the high road here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In a similar vein, Lex Luthor to his henchmen in Superman (1978 film): "Doesn't it give you a shudder of electricity just to be in the same room with me?" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was reminded of a joke about tenured faculty, but it would be inappropriate here for several reasons. Pcap ping 12:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

K's not innocent in this but Michael's starting off by bragging about his time and edits on wiki and claiming we should be grateful to work with him is merely pompous arrogance. See my post in the above thread, which this thread is obviously related to. BB's stmt that neither of these two users is taking the high road is spot on. Both users need to learn from this experience and move on. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get into who started this. Drive-by tagging without engaging in discussion is seriously frowned upon by some editors here, in particular by some experienced math editors. There have been recent complaints at WT:WPM about mathematics articles getting tagged as essays (archived discussion). Pcap ping 13:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about who started the incident, rather just how MH started his opening post here. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)