Revision as of 15:33, 18 January 2011

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:Dr. Persi's uncivil behaviour

• Dr. Persi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Uncivil behaviour of Dr.Pesi in using "asfghanestan" instead of "Afghanistan" in his talk page on 10 January 2011.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Artacoana (talk • contribs) 02:42, 12 January 2011

Looks like a typo to me. Trivial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well putting it between quotation marks. Do you still believe it's a typo or intentional ? --Artacoana (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide some edit diffs? I'm just not seeing how this is a wikiquette issue and I tend to agree with Andy that it appears to be an issue of typos. Also, you need to alert the user to this notice. --13 04:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a typo to me given the rest of the edit, which repeats the typo. Dr Persi also has a typo in 'father'. I'll notify him. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow to find this here, hidden, only to be informed of it by user Dougweller, is disappointing to say the least. 1 ) I am, as those of you who know me and read the pages I created, particularly my medical pages, notorious for making spelling errors, particularly because I often type fast and am prone to making errors. I often go back and correct those, if this is a public page, but since the comment that Artacoanna has quoted is in my own page, I did not feel the need to proof read. In fact let me give you a bit of history and you may better understand why Artacoana would feel the need to complain here instead of simply asking me. The issue really has started since I brought to Artacoana's attention that the change he/she made to the page "Avicenna" and the source she/he has cited are not related; in other words, I realized that he/she made a claim in the page, that was not supported or even mentioned in her source. Naturally, I reverted her/his edit citing my explanation and even leaving a "mediation" request in the Avicenna page's discussion section. You can go back and read our conversations in our discussion pages and you will see I have been nothing short of professional with him/her as I try to be with pretty much every individual in here or in real life. Just to give you a sense of how this author (Artacoana) treats me I am going to cite one of his/her statements which you can find on my page:

<quote> Are you trying to threaten me?! AliWiki believes that Avicenna was a Shia so he MUST be a PERSIAN (like most of today's Persians of Iran)! And you insist on this ethnicity of Persian. Well, let me tell you that Misplaced Pages is not the Iranian books where your regime can fabricate the fact. It's very clear that you're trying to steal the cultural heritage of the region (only because the region is not within your political borders or the people have different religion). Do whatever you want, tell admins. I have sufficient references.--Artacoana (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC) </quote>

In just one response, she/he has judged my religion, has made a (racial) assumption (whether right or wrong) about Aliwiki, has generalized the Iranian people, has put words in my mouth ("you insist..."), has insulted me by equating me with the Iranian regim's agendas, not to mention bringing in personal views and biases to beging with, and has accused me ("it is very clear that you are trying to STEAL the cultural heritage..."), and lastly clearly ignored what I had originally brought up which was the fact that regardless of his/her message, he/she should always cite a source that backs his/her claims (Dougweller here can attest to that, as we have had quite a discussion on this). That is all! I have not in any way made a point of pushing one POV over another, neither have I in any form of response to Artacoana, breached the rules of conducts as set forth by common sense and wikipedia.

2) I was not able to respond earlier as I just returned from a 24 hour shift at work and having read things, if I may make a personal note of what I see, I would have to say that I believe that people often view the world, through their own eyes, and see others in the context of how they perceive themselves. In other words, if you believe that everybody is a theif, it is most likely because you either are a theif or have the potential for it. So when he/she accuses me of pushing a POV clearly ignoring my message and points, Artacoana is really in some ways revealing her/his own personal issues and reflecting them on me.

Lastly and 3) I am not a muslim, I am not in any way supporting one user over another, and I am not even fully Persian. To have to even state this here is sad, but it begs exposure to shed light on some of the assumptions mades. I just wish that Artacoana would have told me if this error "bothered" her/him so much instead of making a claim of my "lack of civility here." In some ways, I am even tempted to think that this might be a strategy by Artacoana to divert attention on me, since most admins and authors who revised the "Avicenna" article agreed with me and prevented him/her from pushing her/his own agenda, and that there is still considerable amount of unsupported, unsourced data in that article initiated and well concealed by Artacoana which he/she pushes for. That is all! Cheers! Dr. Persi (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is some more of Artacoana's quotes that by her standards are "uncivil":

<quote> dPersi! if you open your eyes, you will find the following: -He was born in Afšana, a village near Bukhara. His father, who had moved in from Balḵ (BALKH, Afghanistan, NOT IRAN) a few years previously, Sorry he is not born in your counrty and neither of his parents originates from your country. This fake ethnicity won't be here for long! The time will solve everything. I have sent an email to Britannica. This won't take long, I promise you Pesi!--Artacoana (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC) </quote>

You can find this quote on his page. Notice any problems in this? "dPersi" instead of Dr. Persi? "Sorry he is not born in your country", "This fake ethnicity" refering to "Persian" for Avicenna which Goodman and E. Iranica both support, and lastly he ends by saying "I promise you pesi"...Pesi? Sounds a lot like a denigrating phrase... Dr. Persi (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Incivil comments by Ashot Arzumanyan

• Ashot Arzumanyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:Aram-van (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The User:Ashot Arzumanyan has to be warned against incivility. Please see his comment here : Regardless of who your opponent is and how stupid his arguments are, please try to be as much polite as possible. This will be a pure benefit to your argumentation. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised to see this message here without preliminary notice and discussion. Whatsoever, is it uncivil to call for politeness regardless of anything?? I do not think so, but am open for reasonable criticism (if it is at all appropriate in this case). -- Ashot  16:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In the thread above, we have an admin calling a specific editor's comment "stupid": Ashot's comment was very generic and not incivil. Calling a specific editor "stupid" would be incivil, but the "bulk" of his message is good advice, really. I think this is a bit of an "overreaction" to file a WQA based on the one comment. Are there other "examples" of "incivility"? Because this diff is not an example of it. Doc talk 16:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ashot, discussion on what? About you being incivil? Do we have to discuss anything so that you understand you're not supposed to be incivil? Will you not be civil without discussion? I did give you a notice

Doc9871, so you're saying calling someone stupid is admissible in Misplaced Pages? Tuscumbia (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, calling someone stupid is not "admissible". Generically calling any potential editors' edits "stupid" is not incivil. I don't see him addressing anyone in particular with that comment - do you? Doc talk 16:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Doc, his comments are related to me because of the AN report I had filed. The user Aram-van has been edit-warring and is a party to an SPI. He's been adding his comments on talk pages questioning my judgement, etc. Hence, the "advice" of Ashot Arzumanyan on his talk page in reference to me. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Why taking upon yourself? Why wouldn't you ask me first? -- Ashot  17:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be twisting the issue, Ashot. We both know it was addressed to me. Why else would you ask for "preliminary notice" and accept "reasonable criticism"? I'm not asking anyone to ban you or anything. I just think you should be warned so that next time you comment about editors, you assume good faith. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ban me? or anything? Hmm... My comment was a pure good faith assumption towards Aram-van. I don't see any room for you in there. You have really overreacted. -- Ashot  18:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's right, I would ask administrators to ban you at a different board if the comment was severe enough. This section is just to get you warned, not banned. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it's going to happen. You two seem to have quite a thing going at the Talk:Heyvali (village) page. You both make comments that could be "construed" as "incivil". Tuscumbia, with this response one could easily construe you were referring to Ashot and that his responses routinely "make no sense". That's not very nice, now is it? Running to WQA for the diff you cite is not warranted, IMHO. Keep working out your issues as you have been, and if there's a pattern of incivility you can demonstrate, then a WQA is worth filing. Doc talk 18:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not sure what you want to say by posting that diff. Isn't it obvious what it refers to? And no, Ashot Arzumanyan's argument does not make sense, but it's not stupid. It's just his opinion. I never call anyone stupid in Misplaced Pages because unlike him I respect all editors regardless of their edits. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

He did not call you "stupid". You can read it anyway you want, but it's not there. To say your argument is stupid is no worse than you just now saying he doesn't respect other editors (without evidence). Tell you what: you don't want to listen to my take on it, so I'll just let others comment here. Don't be surprised if what I'm saying rings true, though. I see no reason to warn this editor for incivility based on the diff you provided. Period. Doc talk 18:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Doc, look. He was incivil (in my opinion) and I opted to go through mediator to warn him so that he does not make the same kind of mistake again. Period. I never asked to ban or block him. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@Tuscumbia - "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough...". This isn't even remotely close. Carefully read that policy, as well as WP:AGF. Doc talk 17:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Doc9871.

Tuscumbia, please take a look at WP:BOOMERANG. WP:CIVIL states, "In general, be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. If others are uncivil, be understanding (people do say things when they get upset) rather than judgmental, and do not respond in kind. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comment might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue."

This is more of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic-related disputing like Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Uncivil_comments_by_Xebulon above. The large-scale, cultural dispute needs to be taken to ANI where editors experienced with cultural-disputes can decide what to do. I'm sure some Arbcom restrictions can be applied. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, trust me, there was nothing retaliatory on my part. I just wanted for him to understand that calling anyone's comments "stupid" is not nice. That's all. Whether he does or not, it's really up to him. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why there are talk pages... I am really sorry for you took it upon yourself. If you simply have a look at that notice in a week or so with a fresh eye, you would probably notice that there is nothing to point out that you should take it upon yourself. -- Ashot  19:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand and that we're on the same page. Resolved. Thank you! Tuscumbia (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Are things done like that, man? As far as I read over, it is you who was not understanding the matter. Probably saying you are sorry for taking our time would be more civil way to close this discussion. -- Ashot  19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not sorry at all. That's why this board exists. You commented on "stupidity" of an editor, referring to me, but maybe not. And as mentioned above, I pursued this report to have a mediator make a warning. But I'm not insisting that you meant what you meant. It's totally dependent on an editor's conscience. I said I am glad you understand in reference to understanding that kind of remarks about an editor are not nice. Not sure what you're trying to do here now. It's been enough of exchange on this page. Are we all clear? Tuscumbia (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Would be great if you reread this discussion and come out with more understanding of what is what. -- Ashot  20:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Brendanology's comments

I hate to stir up drama, but Brendanology's comment at WP:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians (2nd nomination) (permalink here) is going too far. He makes a direct personal attack on me, telling me to "get a life". Now, being 20 years old, I'm far above such childish insults, and I would not normally bother to report this here. However, this topic (longevity-related articles) is currently going through arbitration, and his inflammatory comments are generating far more heat than light, which is extraordinarily unhelpful in what is an already heated situation. On his talkpage, he has refused to retract his statement; I think he needs an outside voice to remind him that WP:NPA applies to him as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And while I'm here, I suppose I should mention his repeated name-calling at David in DC's talkpage. David in DC is also involved in the ongoing arbitration, and Brendanology seems intent on labeling him a cabalist and telling him to behave, despite repeated requests not to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 08:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I responded directly on my talk page. I fully agree with the template BNL put on my page about all this. But I'm going to move it. It's my hope that these acts will tamp things down. David in DC (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and uncivil behaviour by Mattun0211

• User:Mattun0211
• Template:Green Brigade

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Green_Brigade

This editor does not have an NPOV as can be clearly seen from the comment below: "So, I have shown, I think in good faith, that there is a view that the Green Brigade is sectarian and that Celtic say in their charter, which I have reliably referenced, that they are anti-sectarian."

I have been able to deal with the user until now but I have recieved personal uncivil remarks and this is a user that has only signed up to[REDACTED] to edit this page! I have made significant contributions in other areas from Carlos the Jackal to the English Defence League I'm not an overenthusiastic contributor myself but joining purely to edit one page and abuse other users on that page trying to have a fair discussion takes the biscuit.

More examples of behaviour are:

general spamming of the talk page eg: "Omar, please see below for guidance on photobucket screenshots from chat sites. Whether you think the Herald article is rubbish is irrelevant. Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please,Please read the wiki guidelines and make sure you understand them fully. Otherwise you are just wasting your time, which is a shame as its great to see such enthusiasm from a young lad."

"One last thing, would it be possible to get the uplifted hand announcing the final warning on Omar's talk page changed to a red hand on a white background rather than the other way round - only kidding" A reference to the Red Hand of Ulster from the flag (as if I was supposed to be offended by that?

"I appreciate travelling may stretch your dole money a bit, but you really should get out of Glasgow more and you will see that there really is more to the world than fanatical hatred of other groups. ... No really, there is."

these are direct quotes from the talk page. I don't think I'm getting any respect off a user that only joined[REDACTED] to edit this particular page! --Omar418 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Omar, the greatest thing that you can do here is to look past these insults. I agree that the remarks you cited should not have been made, but anyone who looks at your joint history will see that they were made in a context: the two of you got off on a bad foot, and neither is without blame. Now, both of you have a choice: escalate or tone down. I hope you'll choose the latter, "you" being plural of course. Now, given that you all seem to be of the European persuasion, I'll refer you to chapter and verse in a reading exercise from John Milton: "explain how the end of Book 9 of Paradise Lost would have guaranteed a bad ending, which was fortunately prevented by both Adam and Eve taking personal responsibility in Book 10." To refresh your memory: "Thus they in mutual accusation spent / The fruitless hours, but neither self-condemning, And of thir vain contest appeer'd no end." From mutual accusation to accepting responsibility and moving on, that's the way forward.

Mattun takes back their ill-advised lashing out, Omar drops the etiquette complaint, we move on. Otherwise you'll keep on fighting and you'll both get blocked and I turn the Green Brigade article into an article about some environmental group. Soccer is for girls anyway. ;) Drmies (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you I've been dying for this to tone down for a while but this man's vendetta knows no bounds so I'm glad I can use this tool to show him theres people who wannt wiki to be more reliable than a tabloid. PS One of the beauties of Football is that you don't need to have testicles to play. I used to play inter-gender football when I was younger. --Omar418 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Profanity by Hammersoft on Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia

• Hammersoft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:The Chronicles of Narnia (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Profanity-laced tirade: --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Which 'tirade' of course was directed at me, not him. This was preceded by him calling me "confused" and later "under some delusion". I made no insult to Walter, and even expressed that he was welcome to his opinion. Walter has been and remains concerned about the deletion of File:Narnia books.jpg, which was a user created montage of non-free media. I don't particularly care that Walter insults me. It's fine by me; he can insult me all he likes. But to then take me to task because I insult myself, especially after he's made a habit of insulting me? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You used profanity. It has nothing to do with the object at whom it is directed. And saying you're confused isn't insulting. Saying you're delusion may be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Profanity isn't disallowed on WP. And it was self-defamation, and not directed at anyone else, so no personal attack. He certainly could have used less colorful language, but it's nothing that we'd expect any action about. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• And accusing someone of "lying or intentionally misdirecting" ? Do you consider that civil too? How about referring to me and others as a "bunch of copyright vigilantes" ? How about "I have no respect for you, your poor logic, or the ethics you espouse." (btw, love the edit summary). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And at no time did I use profanity. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And at no time were my comments on the talk page of a children's book series. Context is key here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• And how about wiping out Δ's edit notice , calling it "annoying". Do you think that is civil? How about referring to Δ's warning to you about that as "vandalism" ? How about calling me "obtuse" --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't read the first part of this ad homimen attack until just now. I wiped it out when I was editing because it annoying and if you check on the talk page here, someone finds yours annoying as well. I was about to restore it when I saw that I was cited for vandalism. You'll see that in the revert of that I commented to that effect. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Walter, what is your expected outcome in making this report? What do you want to see happen? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just reporting it. I don't expect or want anything in particular to happen. I've learned not to demand anything. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle asserts that I'm "crap", elaborates that I'm "scum"

• Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sayerslle said I'm a "crap Misplaced Pages editor." So, I told him that such language would not work well for him.. He responded by deleting my warning from his talk page, with this in an edit summary: "removed bad faith additions from scum".Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Glanced at the edits provided. At face value they do seem like pretty blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. Suggest a WP:CIVILity warning be posted by admin and that any future behavior result in block. NickCT (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

i was warned about 'name-calling', the 'crap editor' comment, by someone who then name-called -'crapmeister - himself. i call that bad-faith. i didn't realise it was illegal to remove edits like that, bad-faith edits, and the messages from editors that pain me. i call 'scum', back-biters, hypocrites, it was used in an edit summary to my own talk page, i wouldnt use the word in a namespace talk page, - what is this Stalinist russia? get me banned then anythingyouwant. i've finished on all sarah palin related articles which are censored pages. WP should worry more about that i think, tho' i do understand the desirability of civility and regret any lapses. i am leaving sarah palin to the POV crowd and expect my blood pressure will fall. Sayerslle (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I never called you a "crapmeister" (though another editor did rather than quote you directly).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What is this? Primary school? He said he would support you in any manner to get the 'crapmeister silenced'. i guess that is what this is. but i am so disgusted by the sarah palin articles that there is no need as i am leaving those censored pages. you two are linked and so i decided to delete your monikers from my talk page because it was unwelcome to me to see them there. yeaterday the other editor was saying 'name calling is never good..good luck' etc..why should I listen to editors like you two, breathtaking hypocrisy no?, take lessons in civility and etiquette from such? thats all i have to say. if I'm banned , i'm banned. good day to you , sir.Sayerslle (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: you're not "banned" or even "blocked". Whether you leave it in an edit summary or on a talk page, whether it's your talk page or not it's still the same insult and treated the same. Neither party should engage in childish name-calling because it really doesn't foster a "mature" work environment. So no "crapmeister" and no "scum" - we're all just trying to edit the encyclopedia. Like adults. Doc talk 17:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that , and like I said, I am leaving the article-area, Sarah Palin, that seemed to bring about my exasperation and sweariness. thanks. Sayerslle (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I just go an attack from Sayerslle on my Talk page with the accusation that they can tell what "side" I'm on in the Palin discussion because of coments I made on the ANI board. I find that offensive in the extreme, a violation of AGF, and totally inappropriate in a collegial and consensus-building environment. Especially from someone I have never had any dealings with in any forum. Corvus cornix_talk 19:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not terribly cool, but I don't see any serious personal attacks there. But I'm now a bit concerned with the other two of three edits he made between his visits to this board. This article you created, Sayerslle: if these massive content edits are not possible copyright violations, they are certainly original research; and neither are allowed (though the former is far worse). Where are the sources for these edits, please? "Speeches" are what they seemed to be based on: are they published? We must properly cite material we wish to include here. Doc talk 19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

They're not speeches -- it's a TV program. The Private Life of a Masterpiece -- see the 12/25/2010 entry at the bottom of the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My bad :> There are three citations and a hell of a lot of text put in "in chunks". Red flags should naturally go up with material this "detailed". Doc talk 19:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh gawd, this is at the 'kind of transcript ' stage, and when I've done that i would edit it to be less 'transcript' like - i did similar with botticellis 'mystical nativity' fully acknowledging my using the T.v programme - it is info when all is said and done , can the BBC copyright that Romuald founded a monastery in the 11th century..the narration says ..romuald founded a monastery in the 11th century.. the article says romuald founded a monastery in the 11th century - perhaps the article talk page is better for this conversation. i've always wanted to understand copyright anyhow. how much of a programme can you quote. Contributors etc. An editor whose opinion i would value actually for advice about this, an art specialist, is called Johnbod, get his opinion on the Botticelli article and copyright too Sayerslle (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I hear ya: I think this guideline section is a good place to start. Art articles aren't under any other standards or exemptions that I'm aware of; but I'm often wrong. At any rate it's a different issue from what brought you here and, as you correctly pointed out, belongs elsewhere. Back to civility? Addressing Corvus' issue before I rudely dismissed it is probably what will lead to closing this thread. Doc talk 20:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

At an article talk page, "comment on content, not on the contributor". If an editor can't make their comment without referring to another editor, they need to consider whether they should be making it at all. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I will read WP:PLAGIARISM. AS for Corvus complaint, I felt I was defending an admin I believe is in the right over an argument about OWNERSHIP tendencies,, but I had no business going to his talk page, he and I have never addressed each other and I was foolish to turn up like that at his talk page and address him like that. i don't know how much detail is required here , I felt a crowd were beginning to attack an admin I admired, thats that story. I will promise to never visit his talk page again.Sayerslle (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Boolyme

• Boolyme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is making personal attacks on me from the last few days, giving me fake warnings and also threatening to create multiple accounts.

See edit summary here - Managerarc 17:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That last edit summary of his you provided probably could use some RD#2 action. Totally uncalled for. Doc talk 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Looks like what we have here is a failure to communicate." Doc talk 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
• Worth noting is that Boolyme has only made 140 edits, and didn't wake up until very recently; see Boolyme's contributions log. HeyMid (contribs) 18:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This fellow needs a "time out", esp. after his last post to my talk page... Doc talk 18:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Boolyme has been blocked for disruption. If he continues after the block expires, take it to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--- Managerarc 18:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Constant personal attacks and harassment by Andrei_nacu

• Andrei_nacu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EraNavigator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Costoboci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Carpi (people) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dacian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Andrei_nacu, and to some extent EraNavigator are making constant personal attacks on me, User:Daizus and others, resorting to harassment, making various unfounded accusations and labellings, canvasing and general disruptive behavior after being pointed out the obvious original research and dubious agenda.

User Andrei_nacu even resorted to reporting and labeling the entire project (formed by a very neutral and diverse group people with various backgrounds, origins, interests and beliefs). He went so far that even that report (and the associated thread) which is suppose to be neutral and to the point, is filled with false accusations, harassment and a myriad of personal attacks.

• By Andrei_nacu: A blatant proof for the enjoyment over extending the conflict indefinetly and as well as personal attack:

• • severe personal attacks:

• • on a campaign (canvassing) to discredit and remove me:

• • and other personal attacks and unfounded claims ignoring all invitations to calm and collaboration (see below):

• • even more canvasing, tactics and personal attacks:

• • apologies (tactics?), unfortunately invalidated (including by the reply below) and followed by dozens of other personal attacks:

• • vandalism on a map, currently under discussion in NOR incident board:

• • also please review this very suspicious vandalism of User:Daizus page:

- unknown source, sock puppetry (?) - țigan mândru means proud gipsy a very offensive remark, especially when addressed to a Romanian

• • and personal attacks continue even after this report:

• One blatant example by EraNavigator:

• • and other personal attacks and unfounded claims ignoring all invitations to calm and collaboration (see below)

• An innumerable amount of attempts were done to calm the situation, bring dialogue, collaboration and stop the harassment:

• A large amount of attempts to calm the situation has been done from the project level:
  • Clarifying the scope:

• • Clarifying the neutrality and position of the project

• • Invitations to the collaboration on various theories regarding Dacian language

• • Some of the invitations to use user space or project drafts space for high conflict articles, to avoid edit wars and prolong conflict

Seeking help to stop the harassment. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Codrin, plese enlighten me as to what dubious agenda am I following? I'm waiting for an answer to your unsustained accusation. Instead everything tells me you are pushing forward a Dacian-biased Protochronist view of the Ancient History of Dacia. Some of your samples (User_talk:Codrinb):

1. 'I was just reading this blog about the large number of Dacian statues made by Romans (quoting from a well-known Dacomanic blog). Leonard Velcescu did a PhD in art on this subject and found over a hundred of them. One wonders why the Romans represented so many Dacians, and didn't do the same for Celts, Iberians, Illyrians, Thracians or Germanic tribes? One puzzling question, why are they not in chains?'

2. 'Here is very long List of Dacian towns and Davae. Many of them also coincide with most major cities in Romania proving continuity'.

3. 'You are trying to separated from being also anti-Romanian but is a very twisted way of thinking. Honestly, everyone will associate the two (Dacian and Romanian) whether you like it or not'.

Andrei (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I am also seeking help to stop you from harassing and acussing me of having hidden presumably anti-Romanian and anti-Dacian agendas.

Andrei (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Aleenf1

• Aleenf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We are engaged in a editing war on the article 2011 Asian Winter Games (look at Aleenf1's talk page) and he called me a "troll" on Looie496's talk page. Intoronto1125 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Looie496. Please provide diffs and links next time. Thanks. Fainites scribs 20:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So you and Aleenf1 edit warred on 2011 Asian Winter Games. You went to ANI on the 14th, (page protected and ticked off for edit warring with no discussion on the talkpage). You put no less than 3 increasingly strong vandalism templates on his talkpage between the 14th and 16th. He reported you to AN3 at 16.06 on the 16th, (page protected). He called you a troll at 16.49 on the 16th. He also posted on the talkpage of 2011 Asian Winter Games, to which you have not yet replied. He reported you for alleged sockpuppets at 8.09 on the 17th, (case dismissed). So you came here to WQA at 20.07 on the 17th 16th. Is that about right? Fainites scribs 20:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

At the moment it looks like both of you are throwing everything you can at each other. He may have called you a troll, but you called him a vandal. Neither of you is getting anywhere by running to ANI, AN3, SPI, WQA. What you need to do is discuss it on the talkpage first. If that doesn't work, then try WP:DR. If one of you actually is a troll or a vandal it tends to become apparent when the other attempts civilised discussion.Fainites scribs 23:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Not quite I came here on the 16th. Intoronto1125 (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I also notice you have apologised to Aleenf and offered an olive branch and to discuss things on the talkpage. I also note that so far this appears to have been rejected by him.Fainites scribs 07:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

personal attacks and uncivil comments by User:TimothyRias

• TimothyRias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#wikipedia_is_a_great_source_of_info_for_just_about_anything.2C_with_one_exception:_mathematics. Kevin Baas 23:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

an example from the discussion: " is a case in point, it is basically a troll. It appears wanted nothing short than a flame war for his own entertainment. If not, he just has very poor people and motivational skills."

my grievances (the more applicable ones):

• personal attacks
• bad faith
• incivility
• discussing editors rather than content

and on a more personal note i brought up these grievances with him and asked him to stop and he refused to even apologize.

Kevin Baas 23:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(note: the following was posted after cyclopia commented, after i saw i'm supposed to give diffs:)

diffs: here's an example of what i'm talking about:

i expressed my grievances and what not:

declined:

Kevin Baas 23:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• I had a look at the discussion and I have to say that TimothyRias is partially right: Kevin Baas is probably in good faith, so not technically a troll. But posting vague, hardly constructive complaints and then taking great offense at basically every criticism of his posting and calling a link to WP:SOFIXIT as a response "wildly out of proportion" is close to disruptive. Kevin, please learn the distinction between standard criticism (even if a bit blunt) and personal attacks and yes, it appears you have poor interpersonal skills (which is not an insult, but an observation: I have quite poor skills myself, but I try to learn at least). --Cyclopia 23:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• clearly there are some more distinctly left to be made. which is not an insult, just an observation. (to give but one example, as i've already made clear in that discussion, expecting me to fix all of wikkipeida is ofcourse wildly out of proportion. there is nothing disruptive about saying say, it is simply a statement of fact. certainly if such things aren't allowed than there are much bigger problems.) i thought this was the place to get some kind of helpful mediation when people are violating social rules of wikipedia. (to put it somewhat plainly) i know what those rules are and i have stated them and i have given examples. i guess that means i can't take criticism and can't simply accept being treated uncivily and having my person attacked when of course i should. Kevin Baas 00:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Likewise, I have to side with Tim and Cyclopia here. You come in WP:MATH and basically says "Math articles suck", and not much else. This is pretty much a textbook case of trolling. Even though you might not have meant it that way, that's how it comes across. Compare "wikipedia is a great source of info for just about anything, with one exception: mathematics as if there are a number of people who are actively making it worse." with something like "I browsed several maths article (examples) and I found them to be very dense and hard to understand, is there a way to make maths articles more accessible?" Likewise, you're very quick to jump on the WP:WIKILAWYERING train, as examplified by your reply ("i don't know who you're talking about, unless "OP" refers to "original poster", which is pretty transparent, i.e. you might as well use the person's name. it doesn't make it any less of a personal attack, which is strictly prohibited.) to an innocuous statement that's as far removed from a personal attack as it gets ("As for the discussion at hand, the OP's original comment was certainly not the best way to approach this issue.") So yeah, in a nutshell, be less abrasive / more constructive, learn to collaborate with people who don't agree with you, and if you want others to WP:AGF with you, you need to WP:AGF of others as well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  i acknowledge that the way i started came off a bit brash. and i regret that. but two wrongs don't make a right. certaintly you don't mean to condone his behavior? but that is what you are effectively doing. as to "wikilawyering" well i am just saying i would like to be treated like a human being and if there's something wrong with that; if you find that objectionable, well then i have clearly come to the wrong place. i told him what i didn't like and asked him to stop before elevating, and for having done this diligence you accuse me of being petty. i have held my tongue and for quite some time and continue to do so. i have also been accused of not being able to take criticism. but you look at the very section of the talk page that i refer you to and you can clearly see from my interactions with others that that is not the case. in spite of timothy's attacks, bad faith, and incivility, which you apparenlty dont have a problem with, i am having much more productive discussion which people who are being much more civil and polite and -- if i may -- much more mature. in fact, that such interaction leads to more productive behavior is precisely why we (and society in general) have such rules! so go on condoning that behavior and i will go on finding more fruitful discussion with people who don't behave that way. (oh, and i have gone out of my way to assume good faith, holding my tongue quite a bit, where others lacked such restraint.) Kevin Baas 00:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• you don't mean to condone his behavior? : Yes I mean exactly that. Usually I wouldn't but what you did was very easy to understand as trolling, and your conduct in the discussion was overly tiresome. So he is entirely justified.

no. that is never justified.

• i would like to be treated like a human being : And everyone did that. If you don't understand the difference between taking criticism and being treated inhumanely, that's your problem, sorry. Grow a skin.

no they did not. i do understand the difference. apparently you do not. fortunately there are others on the talk page in question who do. maybe one day you will too.

• you can clearly see from my interactions with others that that is not the case. : Yes it is. You look like, from that interactions, that you are utterly unable to take criticism.

and he doesn't even look! wow. utterly pointless.

• oh, and i have gone out of my way to assume good faith : I don't dare to image what happened if you didn't, then. --Cyclopia 00:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

you need not imagine, only to see what other parties have said where i could just have easily said the same thing and be far more justified in doing so but choose not to. from what you said, from what you condone, suffice it to say i do not have high esteem for your moral reasoning ability. and i really don't like talking to you. you certainly don't make for a very good mediator. frankly, you don't sound like a very nice person, either. i think it would be more constructive if you let someone else take the wheel. Kevin Baas 01:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to mediate. You're wrong in this case, that's it. --Cyclopia 01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

oh, if only the world were ever so clear and simple! "but beware, most of all, of convictions, for they are worse enemies to truth than even lies!" - paraphasing Nietzsche (the aphorism, by the way, is an allusion to the fact that a lie can be discovered and corrected whereas a conviction, by definition, cannot.) anycase i'm well aware of your opinion. you stated it plainly right away befer even looking at all the facts, and the ones you have aren't even correct. so forgive me if i don't give it much weight. Kevin Baas 01:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) oh, and the most ironic part of all this is that i am one of very few people who is actually engaging in constructive discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics with others and yet i'm the one with "bad people skills" and "bad motivational skills"! if that's "bad people skills" and "bad motivational skills", then i'll take it any day over the alternative. Kevin Baas 00:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

oh geez, and i just noticed, you're not even looking at the right person's comments! Timothy, not RobHar! I posted the diffs! Robhar is the one i'm having the constructive discussion with! Kevin Baas 01:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

frankly, you don't sound like a very nice person, either. - And now it is you engaging in personal attacks (even if mild ones). Cool. And I don't get the "right person's comments": I am talking of you and only you. --Cyclopia 01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

hey, i said i was being frank. and i'm just saying how you are coming off to me right now. so i am only _now_ engaging in personal attacks? i thought you said before that i was just vicious, that you'd hate to see me not being polite! well now you have seen me not being polite. scary, right? okay. well i am talking of timothy. you were talking before about robhar, who i dont have a problem with. i'm sorry if i confused you but posted this notice was not my invitation for you to start saying mean things about me and only me. the intention was really for people to look at what other people have said to me, and in particular timothy (not rob, who i don't have a problem with). so now that we've cleared that up... well, i don't think there's much left to say. except it would be nice if somebody else with a more constructive approach, who actually has an interest in considering the diffs i presented, would "take the wheel", as it were, as this clearly isn't going anywhere. Kevin Baas 01:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:BOOMERANG. --Cyclopia 01:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

why should i read anything when you don't even look at my diffs? when you don't even care that you're demonstrably wrong about e.g. how i responded to other criticism (e.g. i responded to robhar's criticism with "you make some good points", certainly not indicative of "thin skin".). sorry, you're not even listening anymore (if you ever were) so if it had any relevance it would be accidental, anyways. and due to your failure to get the facts straight - or care - you've lost all credibility with me. Kevin Baas 01:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

though i might just out of curiousity. oh... curiosity. not good for cats. Kevin Baas 01:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WHAT?!? oh please. you are incorrigible. you're not even listening. Kevin Baas 02:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This report is out of proportion to the comment made by TimothyRias. I noticed this report after reading WT:WikiProject Mathematics#wikipedia is a great source of info for just about anything, with one exception: mathematics., and I saw that the discussion there got a little tense. However, that tenseness seemed justified to me, given the lack of information provided in what amounts to a complaint that the vast majority of mathematics articles are poor. Of course there are many mathematics articles which are not accessible to general readers (due to the nature of the topic), but there was no case made about such a problem in an article which we may hope could be made significantly more accessible. People who robustly report a claimed problem without providing details should expect some robust replies. The report that "he refused to even apologize" is not a correct summary of the reply. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, how basically one remark can be blown completely out of proportion. In my defense, if you consider the plaintiff's open post of the thread at WT:MATH — which consisted of a generic complaint without any particular constructive input and a blanket insult to the community he was addressing — and his consecutive behavior, which consisted mostly of aggressively attacking responses that did not agree with him, the conclusion that this poster was in fact trolling seemed by far the most logical.

My response was to another user (user:WhatamIdoing) that commented, that the WP Math community is generally not amenable to this type of criticism. My response to him was that, the response of the community is hardly surprising, given the general tone with it is brought, for which I brought up the present thread's starting post. I probably should have just not said anything at all.

I, however, contrary to the plaintiff's claim, did offer to apologize, on the condition that he do so as well for issuing a blanket insult to the community. Instead of doing so, he instead decided to go straight here.TimothyRias (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Tim, perhaps you should have just not said anything at all. That's what I decided to do when, shortly after my comment, I noticed this and this and this, looking more like Usenet trolling than like Wiki-collaboration—highly inappropriate. Of course you could have known that offering an apology on some condition usually doesn't work, but, on the other hand, sometimes even an unconditional apology fails to register. Anyway, I think that coming here was not a very good idea. DVdm (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Harassment by User:Jehochman

• Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Allegations of Jewish control of the media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Jehochman has continued to attack and harass me with a mischaracterization of my current views based on a 7.5 year old off-Misplaced Pages email rant made in 2003 when I was upset because of getting documented death threats from a pro-Iraq war/pro-Israel individual. He has brought this up several times on the talk page, plus other venues, including a WP:ANI complaint, which he was chided for. Please advise me if I should bring this to WP:ANI and/or Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, especially since he is an administrator who is supposed to set an example not engage in harassment activity. Or feel free to take relevant steps if you are an administrator who thinks it can and should be handled from here. (Note: Since I'm banned from User:Jehochman's talk page, I have posted notice of this on the relevant talk page.)