This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NE Ent (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 7 March 2010 (→User:Malke2010: Remove hat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:Grenzer22 is posting the same text everywhere

User:Grenzer22 is posting the same text in different articles of Misplaced Pages ;;;;.

The text is a copy of what is writen in the source. There are several genetic studies about Brazilians, with different conclusions, but this user only post this one everywhere, for some reason I don't know. Opinoso (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am posting genetic studies relevant to the subjects discussed. You are trying to own the articles, but the encyclopedia is free. I have done nothing wrong. You erased my post out of nowhere. I am Brazilian, and I have a right to post, and I post correct information. I have not erased anything like you did. Grenzer22 (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Opinoso behaves arbitrarily. Trying to own Brazilian topics

I posted relevant information on Minas Gerais, a genetic study, which was deleted arbitrarily by Opinoso. That's wrong. And he should be watched please. I am a Brazilian who posts correct information. Unlike Opinoso, who said that Nelson is a Portuguese name, I am well educated and informed.

Arbitrary behaviour of Opinoso: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Minas_Gerais&action=history

And here as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rio_Grande_do_Sul&action=history

For his level of education, one can see it here, where he said that Nelson is a Portuguese name (!):

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

Grenzer22 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Please refrain from edit-warring. I would suggest that both of you look for a neutral person to give an outside opinion, if you can find somebody who can look at this without falling asleep. Looie496 (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am seriously worried as he should not be allowed to delete my messages as he has been doing. It is a serious matter. Thanks Grenzer22 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Looie, this is not the first time that Opinoso gets into trouble with other editos for inapropriate behavior. He has been warned and blocked several times for that. You should ask him to stop and warn him that he is not helping at all by owning articles (which he does) and preventing other editors from participating. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to arguments about which Brazilians have more white blood than which other Brazilians, I can't help but feel that the whole thing is a dead loss and the encyclopedia would be better off without any of that stuff. There's just nothing good on either side here. Looie496 (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the subject is boring. Which means it isn't subjected to systematic review by many editors. Which means that it is easy to place misinformation on these articles, and get it to stick (so, there are two possible solutions: erase everything, as unworthy of an "encyclopaedia", or hold your breath and deal with the sewage. Telling people nobody cares, and allow it to stay, shouldn't be an option).

Is it really just a matter of content dispute? I don't think so. There is something else involved. Here is some of what Brazilian editors get when they come in conflict with user Opinoso:

On the other hand, some of it has to do with content. Here is some of the content that user Opinoso has managed to place in Misplaced Pages:

In short, among others:

• Sicilians have nothing to do with immigration to Brazil;
• people do not celebrate Carnival or Festas Juninas in Mato Grosso;
• Jesuits and slaves have nothing to do with Rio Grande do Sul's history;
• Xuxa Meneghel isn't of Italian descent;
• Tyra Banks is not African American;
• the IBGE's July 1998 monthly research on employment has no credibility.

Is it necessary to say that all those ideas are utterly false? Ninguém (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Brazilian "races"'s articles became a long and boring dispute about DNA and "who is white and who is black" endless discussions. So, an article about White Brazilians, pays no attention to culture, language, distribution, etc... They should be removed indeed. --Lecen (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of all that stuff about race in Minas Gerais looks WP:UNDUE to me. I believe anything that talks about DNA should be stuck into a central article about races in Brazil. I believe only peoples self-identified race statistics should be stuck into the articles about the states and the section should be much shorter. They can point to the central ancestry and DNA article for a fuller story. Dmcq (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is a content dispute, they should seek outside editor to advise as per WP:DISPUTE. The Misplaced Pages:Content noticeboard or a request for comment might help. Dmcq (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Chelo61

I have concern regarding User:chelo61. Chelo61 has begun a constant trend of creating non-notable articles that end up as AFDs or Speedy Deletes. Often, recreating articles that have been deleted. I have communicated my concerns to him and attempted to steer him towards Misplaced Pages policy pages. However, he has either ignored me or doesn't check his Talk Page (which is highly unlikely because he has responded to two previous blocks). I've attempted to contact him again after seven days of no response. But I now am adding an alert because just recently he has recreated another of his articles that is now being speedily deleted. I don't know what exactly what to do being that he is unresponsive. But it has been made clear time and time again to him that there are other editors on wikipedia, and his disruptive editing is not tolerated. I'm considering opening a Request for comment. What should I do? Cutno (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like chelo61 (talk · contribs) has been given a final warning by an admin, so I don't think there is anything more that needs to be done at this point. Further offenses ought to be reported to WP:ANI. Looie496 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Nableezy (summary from WP:ANI)

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Upon the recommendation of User:Sandstein, I have summarized the WP:ANI post by User:DrorK, which two administrators refused to act upon because apparently it was not posted on the correct page (I disagree, but do admit that WQA is a more specific forum for etiquette problems, as the name implies). Here are the basic points:

• Personal attack by User:Nableezy against User:Drork
• Personal attack by User:Nableezy against User:Shuki

I am notifying the people who posted at WP:ANI as well. —Ynhockey 17:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yn, the edit summary directed at Shuki has already been brought here. An honest oversight no doubt, but perhaps you should modify your original post. And I am not sure that anybody refused to act on it because it was in the wrong place, perhaps they refused to act on it because it such a minor, trivial thing. nableezy - 19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Does asking somebody if they've had a blow on the head (when they've made a pretty silly claim) really constitute a personal attack? No. -- ZScarpia (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Do you have anything more to say than "no"? Breein1007 (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Drork said something that could not, under any sane reading, be called rational (that "everyone" agrees with his edits, excepting everyone who had commented on his edits). I asked a question that if the answer was yes would explain this irrationality. In fact, I assumed good faith that Drork was not simply lying, that he had a reason for saying such an irrational thing. nableezy - 19:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, no matter what Drork said, but IMO it would have been nice, if you are to apologize on his talk page for what you said to him.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, yeah, you should strike through and apologize for that comment. Among the many reasons is that someone who has just suffered a blow to the head probably won't be able to remember it. More importantly, the editor may just be a normal silly editor, the kind we have lots of. Suggesting a mental impairment, whether acute or chronic - that's really not on here. Franamax (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility, such as that indicated, is contrary to Misplaced Pages guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I cant strike out something that is funny, just cant do it, but I will promise to never again pose such a question when somebody says such a ridiculous thing as "everybody agrees with me" when nobody had. Ill just ask why that person is lying. But what I wrote is not a personal attack. Sarcastic incivility, sure, but not a personal attack. nableezy - 22:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I, at least, note that calling someone whose opinion you disagree with a liar will most certainly be wp:PA. While I agree that your post was rude, it may have skirted the rather odd definition of personal attack used by many here in WP, but calling someone out for lying when you simply disagree about who agrees with them won't be iffy.- Sinneed 22:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC) And yes, you can strike it out. In this case you can simply redact it under wp:talk. It adds no value and is offensive to some.- Sinneed 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that is why I did not do it. But, when somebody says something plainly bogus, such as "everybody agrees with me" when everybody who had made any comment at all about the subject disagrees with that person, what should be the proper response. Inquiring about a specific cause for the delusion brought me here, calling that person a liar would be a personal attack that might merit a block. What should be the response when somebody claims that "everybody" agrees with him when nobody actually has agreed with him, and then tries to use that "agreement" with "everybody" as proof that there is consensus for his edits? nableezy - 22:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to cut through the wikilawyering her. First, incivility is not appropriate here. Second, if you believe that what someone said is not true, simply say that. As in, "IMHO, that's not true", or "I don't agree," or "I don't believe that to be true", or even "that's not true". React to the statement, and share your opinion. No need to react in such an instance to the editor, and call him a liar. It adds nothing, needlessly inflames passions, violates wikipedia guidelines, and leads to discussions such as this one which can easily be avoided affording you more time to engage in article editing.--Epeefleche (talk)

As you seem to take civility so seriously, is it civil to say another is wikilawyering? Good thing I dont mind that sort of thing, or we might need a new section on this page. nableezy - 22:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

nableezy, I agree with Franamax that you should strike your comment and apologize to DrorK. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Malik et al. As to Nab -- I gather you are not appreciating the distinction I am making between our commenting on an edit (calling it untrue or wikilawyering) and our commenting on an editor (calling him/her a liar, one who has been dropped on his/her head, etc.). I commented on your edits. If you limit yourself to comment on edits, you may find that time spent here is likewise reduced. I assume of course that that is your preference, but I can't know your mind.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You gather incorrectly. So would it have been fine for me to ask why Drork had made a delusional comment instead? And in my example I said I would ask why he was lying, not why he was a liar. Both are personal attacks (they both assert an intent to mislead by the party), and the distinction you are making is a false one. Im not going to strike out the comment, but if somebody wants to remove it I wont restore it. I will not say anything like that, or anything more acerbic, again. nableezy - 00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007, it does say what you've quoted in the rules. However, interpreted directly, as, presumably, you intend, it would mean that anything that could be construed as insulting is a personal attack, which, to me, does not make sense. Here is a comment far more insulting than what Nableezy wrote, yet it hardly raised a reaction. Do you think that is a personal attack? -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(intended)For the record I am 100% agree with Drork on the subject, I'm just sorry I could not have been there for him to say that he was absolutely right on the subject. I am sure many other users would have agreed with him as well. What do you mean you did not call him a liar?You just did at that very thread.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Where? And the point is not that some people agree with Drork, Im sure many people may. But the idea that in a discussion with 4 people, with 3 people opposing, to say that "everybody" agrees with that 1 person is quite plainly ludicrous. Hell, it is a ludicrous thing to say even if all 4 people agreed with the edit. nableezy - 22:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Listen, it does not really matter what you think or what I say, what matters here is Drork's perception of what you said to him, and his perception is it was PA. That's why I suggest you apologize at his talk page. I am sure you yourself will feel much better, if you do.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My perception is that Drork doth protest a little too much (and operates a double standard). -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. --Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 -- No, Drork's perception does not matter. Drork is merely interested in continuing his pattern of harassment of users who oppose his viewpoint on Israel-Palestine articles. He does this every few days, and everyone who has to deal with it is extremely patient with him. A mildly sarcastic and abrasive response to such an illogical comment is not worth wasting everyone's time on. Seriously -- maybe he could wait a week between filing petty complaints, so that everyone here could work on improving the encyclopedia in the meantime, instead of arguing here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Note by Jaakobou
I had my own very recent NPA run in with the Nableezy as well.

• - "And you would have long since been banned." - Feb 26, 2010
  • (original) - ,
  • (resubmit) - .

With respect, Jaakobou 01:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, on that page you have repeatedly implied that other editors are antisemites with edit summaries such as this and this or comments such as this. Pardon my French, but if Misplaced Pages was properly constructed bureaucracy-wise you would have long since been banned. nableezy - 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nab--perceived injustice is not reason for you to engage in incivility. I offer you a cup of tea, and a pleasant day.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Perceived injustice"? Interesting. nableezy - 02:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Even injustice would not warrant incivility.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Comment: Nableezy seized the moment -- a note that was not addressed to him -- to be incivil as usual. An earlier 2 month ban in November-December 2009 did not seem to promote the desired change and when it was clarified to him that he's in violation of NPA, he couldn't care and resubmitted. Also, if I'm not mistaken, he's now repeating the same insult once more (per "you would have long since been banned"). Jaakobou 07:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

<- This is incivility "u guys are all anti-israeli fucker why dont you and your anti-semitic freinds fuck off so that we could show israel tyo what it really is" and it was simply removed without drama. What Nableezy said wasn't even close to incivility. He tried to deal with some commonplace partisan nonsense with a bit of humour. It seems that prissy timewasting civility complaints are now just another weapon cynically used by editors who consistently demonstrate that they don't care about mandatory compliance with wiki policies that govern neutrality, verifiability, due weight etc etc or even being civil themselves. Reports like this are about constraining or removing a perceived opponent in a battle. The discretionary sanctions are willfully and repeatedly ignored here and almost nothing is done. The righteous-battle-bots continue their nationalist/ethnic/holy information wars sometimes in very civil manner, sometimes not. Either way, the content suffers and the editors grow tired of having to deal with all the neotribalist bullshit and hypocrisy. It's nonsense. There is no point of having the discretionary sanctions when mandatory compliance isn't enforced on the numerous POV pushing editors that willfully and repeatedly ignore them. Imposing some sort of semblance of compliance with the sanctions shouldn't be left to non-admin editors like Nableezy trying hold back the tide of partisan nonsense. Etiquette is not the problem here. The problem is lack of admin support in dealing with partisan editing and editors. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- this is just more partisan Israel-Palestine article "waste time snitching on editors with opposing viewpoints, for the pettiest and most insignificant of incivil behaviors, instead of working to improve the article" type behavior, unsurprisingly involving Drork. Nableezy responded to an inane and completely illogical comment with a bit of humor, which would have been ignored by most editors elsewhere, who have better things to do than harass people who don't agree with them on the WikiQuette board. In my opinion, I'm sick of having Drork's petty bickering about user behavior pop up on this board more than once a week. I'm impressed by the patience of Nableezy, Tiamut, harlan, and other editors who have to put up with the incessant harassment about their behavior, taking away their time for improving articles (which they are constantly doing). Drork's comment was abrasive and idiotic, and I don't feel that a bit of sarcasm was unwarranted in response. No apology needed, no harm done -- except for all the wasted time on another petty Drork whining session. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what Drork has to complain about here. The statement he made to Nableezy immediately before the comment in question ("I hope you are not suggesting the the entire editors' community is the three of you... ") is a facetious, unnecessary, patronising comment that doesn't even make any sense. If Drork wants to be treated with kid gloves then he should post politely and sensibly in the future. As it stands, the pot is posting a Wikiquette alert about the kettle. Factsontheground (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I personally withdrew a request based on civility because he apologized. He then went on to say that there were "too many stupid people here", told another editor to "fuck off". and made a silly comment about another having a head injury. Funny or not, it was not acceptable. There was a point where I was being a complete jerkoff and called one of Nableezy's buddies here a dirty liar. After thinking about it I jumped back on Wikipeida and apologized profusely. I was lucky to not receive a block even with that. Nableezy here could not strike out the "fuck off" comment since it was an edit summary but he could strike out the immature and unnecessary head comment as suggested multiple times by admins. There should not be a fourth pass on this. If he thinks it is funny and should stay then he should be blocked. It doesn't matter what the other editor did first. Open up a report on him if you want to discuss it. The fact that Nableezy continues to believe this behavior is acceptable is why a block policy exists: "Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated." Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Following on from what Nableezy has said above, I have struck-through the comment objected to by Drork. Since, apparently, anything which may be construed as an insult to an editor is a personal attack, perhaps Drork would like to remove the word hysteric from his reply. -- ZScarpia (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy refusing to do so and you doing it only emphasizes the need for a stronger reminder. He has gotten away with incivility enough times that it appears that he can do whatever he wants. You can also open up a request against Drork if he has not been civil.Cptnono (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It treats the issue with the casualness and disinterest it deserves. These kind of non-events happen everyday in numerous pages and life goes on. Perhaps Nableezy was 'hysteric' because he has a head injury from banging his head on the keyboard repeatedly. None of it really matters because it doesn't address the root causes. There isn't a collaborative editing environment when it comes to many editors, there probably never will be and turning the politeness dimmer switch to create a nice ambiance won't make the slightest bit of difference because this isn't really about innocent civil people deserving of sympathy genuinely caring about civility. Insults, apologies and other assorted amateur dramatics are just people being people, letting off steam. Why buy into the drama ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of diverting this hopefully dying thread to further irrelevance, it might be worth noting that on this page - where Nableezy may well be a lone voice of sanity and in defence of basic WP policy - he has been variously and repeatedly accused of being "brainwashed", a "fascist apologist" and "in denial". It kind of brings one flippant response to a manifestly absurd comment from someone who by their own admission thinks 3RR somehow magically does not apply to them - even though they clog up noticeboards arguing that 3RR and other policies have to be rigorously policed against everyone else (see noticeboard archives, endlessly) - into perspective, you might have thought. N-HH talk/edits 23:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE: N-HH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently asked for a new username. Knowing the history of the editor and ban-evasion I expected one to be coming shortly (see: WP:DUCK). N-HH, was topic banned from "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted" and from "commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles." I'm not in the immediate intention of opening an AE thread over this, hopefully, single violation but I advice that it should not be repeated nor that fellow editors edit-war over keeping such comments where they are not allowed.

Cordially, Jaakobou 00:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC) fix 00:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa ....... you might like to rein in your horses a bit. There has been confusion over the position of the editors affected by the "West Bank / Judea and Samaria" case with regard to articles, such as the State of Palestine one, which are not directly about the Arab-Iaraeli conflict but which contain detail relating to it. Accordingly, I raised a question about whether Jayjg should be editing the Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial articles. FloNight, who was one of the arbitrators involved in the case, told me (see the "Jayjg and the Antisemitism and Holocaust denial articles" section on her talk page) that, in such cases, in her opinion, the affected editors may edit the articles and their talk pages so long as they didn't touch the parts of them that were specifically about the Arab-Israeli conflict. It may be, of course, that the other arbitrators involved have a different opinion, but, until you find out whether that is the case, I would avoid writing in such definite terms. Of course, if the latter is the case, then Jayjg will be affected by the judgement as well and it would surprise me if you earn his undying gratitude. -- ZScarpia (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I figure WP:NOTTHEM describes how I feel about your note. N-HH can't support editors with a viewpoint he sees as "a lone voice of sanity" in an area he was banned from. Jaakobou 04:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is not in the A/I topic area. And even if it were, AE is thataway. nableezy - 04:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

See my comment marked 03:30, 5 March 2010. Jaakobou 04:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, can you follow the logic of my argument, which described how the case affects another editor who is under exactly the same sanction as N-HH? Unless you can see a hole in it or unless you can show that FloNight's opinion was flawed then it means that N-HH is not banned from the State of Palestine article (and consequently from here). -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My comments, which discuss general talk page conduct, are very clearly not in breach of any ban, and it is not up to Jaakobou to decide if they are or not anyway. Edit warring to remove them, while accusing me of having a "history of ban evasion" and of changing my username in order to get round such a ban, however, are fairly obviously personal attacks (not least because they suggest that I am pretty thick), probably best avoided on the WQA page. Now let's just drop this aspect of this thread. There's enough drama here as it is. N-HH talk/edits 10:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ps: for what it's worth, I'd say the SoP article more likely than not would fall within in the ban, at least in respect of most of it. Not that I have edited, or wish to edit there at all. Pan-Arabism would not, for the most part. Not that I wish to get involved there either.

Cptnono, perhaps the attempt to stop Nableezy doing "whatever he wants" has become so relentless and so focussed on fairly trivial things that it has begun to look like persecution and one or two editors to look a little too fanatical. Unless symptoms are very malign, it is easy for the cure to become worse than the disease.

Open a case against Drork? And make myself look like a prissy girly-man editor? No thanks.

-- ZScarpia (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I don't mind calling other editors stupid and telling them to fuck off if we are all allowed to do so now. Sounds like it will add an interesting dynamic to the project.Cptnono (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But why would you want to? You'd only make yourself look foolish and lose the respect of other editors. And so, to a certain extent, would any editor it was aimed at if, instead of shrugging it off, they ran to one of the noticeboards to report it, especially if they gave an exaggerated, inaccurate account, say by claiming that you'd called them stupid when you'd done no such thing. As to writing "fuck off" as an edit summary on his talk page, perhaps Nableezy can clarify whether it was aimed at and intended to be read by Shuki or whether it was just a general curse which it was hoped would "pass under the radar." -- ZScarpia (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dont get sucked in. This is a tried and true tactic, raising things from the distant past or that have already been addressed. I was told to take down the "too many stupid people" comment and it stayed down. The "fuck off" has already been addressed. I have already said I will not tell anybody "fuck off" again. I've already said I wont make such jokes as asking if somebody has been hit in the head recently. If an admin feels my refusal to apologize to Drork, a person who has repeatedly accused me and others of lying and hijacking articles, merits a block that admin can block me. nableezy - 01:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For myself, I'm sure that you wouldn't have committed small incivilities if you'd realised they'd produce the amount of mental anguish they obviously have. Perhaps you're worried that apologising will be humiliating, but, I have to say that, I think that in the eyes of people looking at it the right way, it would, rather, make you look bigger, willing to compromise and to listen to the good advise of editors like Malik. Of course, if Drork was equally as big, he would apologise for any hurt done to you. -- ZScarpia (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that it would be humiliating, it is that it would be dishonest. I'll say sorry when I am sorry for something, this aint one of those times. I recognize that what I said may not be acceptable here so I wont say things like that again. But sorry? Not really. nableezy - 03:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"I recognize that what I said may not be acceptable here so I wont say things like that again." Well, that does sound like an apology to me. There are many "honest" reasons for giving an apology: indicating flexibility; complying with somebody's advice; allowing everybody to pack up and go home for tea. -- ZScarpia (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

His exact words were actually "Too many stupid people here" so no that is not an exaggeration. He at least realizes that was not one of his finer moments and it was during a stressful point a couple months ago so it is much less of a problem then the head comment or edit summary. In regards to respect, he has tremendous support so it seems to be acceptable now. Maybe it is time to propose scrapping Misplaced Pages:Civility over at the Village Pump if that is the way it is. And I am sorry to argue so much. It just really gets under my skin that this continues. I'll back off and hopefully an admin will decided one way or the other on this.Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

When the rules start being used for the "pursuit of war by other means" (which I suspect might be the case here), then, at the very least, care should be exercised in the way they are applied. -- ZScarpia (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There's really quite a lot to shrug off with Nableezy (e.g. see edit summary and comment). Jaakobou 00:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with either of those diffs? nableezy - 01:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jaakobou, honestly, I think it would take more effort to get worked up over anything in those diffs than to ignore it. Just think, by shrugging things off, you earn the right to expect others to shrug off any lapses you yourself might make. And, you know, in ten years you'll be missing the times when you could have a rumble with Nableezy to set yourself up for the day. -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well,

Edit-wars to resubmit Nableezy's violations (see

With respect, Jaakobou 03:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, a tried and true tactic. But the only person who has edit-warred here is you in removing the comments twice (and it is not up to you to determine what is and what is not a violation of N-HH's topic ban, go to AE (arbitration enforcement) if you feel he has violated his topic ban and want the arbitration decision enforced). And you have yet to say what it objectionable in the two diffs you cited above. And "incivil insinuations of malice"???? Please, there are multiple diffs above of you implying that multiple users are antisemites. nableezy - 03:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is an insinuation of malice in the above diff]. I requested you take a step back in tone but was unsuccesful. I reiterate my request here. Please take a step back in tone. Jaakobou 04:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Says the person who has no problem insinuating, and coming right up to the point of outright saying, that editors are antisemites. Forgive me for giving your request the consideration it deserves. nableezy - 06:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

See my comment marked 07:00, 3 March 2010. Jaakobou 18:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please drop the stick

It's been a long drawn week now, time for everyone involved in this drama to take the hint, drop their stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Note that Misplaced Pages is neither a soapbox nor is it a drama series (read also → Misplaced Pages:Mind your own business), we can all learn to agree to disagree and disagree to agree. Please stop the name callings and go back to what we as editors do best – EDIT~! If nothing further comes up, I motion for this case to be close and to be referred to either WP:DR or WP:RFC for further comments. --Dave 19:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that gaming the system here worked again, and that Nableezy is free to continue with his reckless beahviour? If I told you to F-off, would you think the same way? (and it was not his first time either) --Shuki (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note per WP:CIVIL, You might want to read up on baiting another editor and reflect on the words you just said. --Dave 23:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I am confused too. This was brought over from ANI since it was supposed to be here. Now it is supposed to be somewhere else? I see a simple question posed to the Admins: Was Nableezy's behavior acceptable? Yes or no?Cptnono (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Dave1185,

I haven't seen any baiting attempts here. With respect, WP:SOAP and WP:RFC have no relevance either. I also think you're wrong about bringing Misplaced Pages:Mind your own business into the discussion.

There's several diffs that require admin to review. To request this is not exceptionally dramatical.

Warm regards, Jaakobou 00:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Get off the high horse, Cptnono. What do you want, nableezy's head on a platter? At least two admins and a number of other editors told nableezy he should apologize and strike his comment; he said no. We can't force him to apologize, and if we could, you and DrorK would complain that it wasn't sincere. You were told a week ago that this wasn't "actionable", so why don't you pack up your tent so you'll be ready to throw gas on the next flame of this drama, wherever it may be. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 00:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Something like that. The admins coddling him is encouraging this repeated behavior. I can understand maybe not blocking him but when he spits in everyone's faces by saying it is too funny to strike out then it is time for you to at least give him a proper talking to as opposed to laughing along and doing nothing. So don't dodge the question: Is his behavior acceptable? There is no high horse about it. Yes or no? Cptnono (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Malik has stated his perspective about this, though I'm not certain he's really gone over all the relevent diffs. I myself skipped a few of the notes and missed the part about Nableezy citing an offensive comment as funny, refusing to strike through it. I looked it up and found it here. Jaakobou 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've gone over all the diffs, and I've read every one of the comments. Unlike Cptnono, who has consistently missed what I've written repeatedly. So I'll type real slowly this time so even Cptnono can follow along: What nableezy wrote was inappropriate.

Now, unless we adopt WP:incivility blocks and unless there is consensus that a comment like this is uncivil (please note that there was no such consensus at AN/I), I won't be blocking anybody for making a comment like this any time soon. Or one in which he attacks other editors by calling their changes lies. (Oh, wait. That was DrorK.) And if we ever do adopt incivility blocks, Cptnono, you might want to advise Jaakobou to stop insinuating that other editors are antisemitic. Just a suggestion. Lukewarm regards. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As an admin you should be telling both Drork and Jaakobou to stop being uncivil also. People keep on passing the buck on this by pointing fingers at other people. And just a reminder, I was guilty once of calling someone a liar. The difference is I have taken the warning to heart and not said it since. So Nableezy has had several warnings and keeps it up. So if his actions are acceptable we all need to know now to save any future confusion.Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh LOL, MS typed real slow and I still missed it. Boy do I have poo on my face (seriously my bad). So users cannot be blocked for incivility and we are all on the same page now. Can anyone clarify if this impacts the AE thing or do I need to go over to the clarification board to find out? I don't want to tell someone to screw off just to find out the rules are tighter due to the sanctions on the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So dont tell somebody to screw off. Im not your role model. nableezy - 07:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you are! In all seriousness, if we are allowed to tell people to screw off and the like regardless of the sanctions I would like to know now. I would love to say some mean things sometimes but more important I don't want to go through the effort of filing a pointless AE if this situation occurs again.Cptnono (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just mind your own business. I for the life of me cannot figure out why you have commented so many times here. What does any of this have to do with you? Are you trying to be helpful or are you just trying to get me blocked? nableezy - 07:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A little of both. I opened up an AE awhile back on your civility and then retracted it after you apologized. I felt that your continued actions were a slap in the face and detrimental to the topic area which was therefore worthy of comment. Another problem is that people who consistently raise the issues with your behavior do it in a way that gets em blocked or retired. People have a problem with you and you know it. Unfortunately (in my eyes at least), they are not as organized as other editors are to stamp out a continuing problem. I really am not trying to wikihound you and I assume you know that. You do also know that there is some mutually crummy feelings. I am also assuming that you get everything I just said. Most editors can't be that pointed with each other without raising some hackles so that is a good sign at least. You stop being uncivil and I'll stop commenting on it. Sound alright?Cptnono (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz,

No disrespect intended but I noticed Drork was sanctioned for his misconduct while you were somewhat protective of the tag-team he faced. I have complete good faith in your intentions here but Nableezy already gave his statement and I'm sure he has enough friends that would love to agree with his misinterpretation -- and it is a big one. You can exmine the diff in question; his extremely personal response to a generic statement that did not involve him is quite personal, as was his following me around to remove a comment of mine from a year ago, as all the other issues I've raised. Moreso when only recently he returned with a fuck-all attitude after a 2 month ban. No, I did not make any allegations towards Nableezy which should have elicited any of these dramatics.

With respect, Jaakobou 05:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s don't take this comment in bad faith - I'm just thinking that you've defended Nableezy enough in previous instances, which means that if even a friend finds his comments inappropriate, there must be some operative suggestions on resolving the problem. Nableezy refused deletion of his personal comentary (either by reverting or by stating he finds them amusing) and to ignore the issue at this point serves nothing but to promote further disruptive conduct by everyone involved. Jaakobou 06:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That was not a fuck all attitude, that was a fuck some attitude. And that was quite a while ago. Obviously I realize why you continually bring this up, and while I am tempted to bring up the many, many times you have said and done blatantly offensive things, I'm bigger than that. I'll just say that what you think is disruptive has absolutely no bearing on anything that I do. If somebody else were to say that the edits you are seeking redress for are a problem I might listen to them. But, surprise surprise, nobody else has. I've already said that I will not ask anybody about their mental state again. If there is something else to do here I'd be happy to know about it, but as it is the usual names saying the usual things so there is not much for me to do here. I already know the script, but by all means, keep playing your parts. Mighty entertaining this is. nableezy - 07:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, truly. Whether or not Nableezy will heed this complaint in the future remains to be seen, but this WQA isn't going to accomplish anything further. I reiterate Dave's above suggestion to close this with future complaints handled with an RfC. Swarm 08:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: How about, instead, we start with a removal of this? Nableezy just promised to not ask anybody about their mental state again. That is a good start. Another, would be to remove my mentioned NPA-vio. Jaakobou 17:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not a violation of WP:NPA. It does not matter how many times you assert that it is, it is not. And I did not "just promise", I wrote the same thing a long time ago. You and a few others just wanted to keep this going so it was ignored. nableezy - 17:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ashkenazi intelligence

At Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence User:A Sniper is repeatedly removing im,proval-needed tags disregarding the viewpoints of at least two other editors (many editors have expressed similar concerns on the talk page previously) - his rationale is that the tags are old and therefore should be removed as nothing has been done about them. User:Aprock and myself maintain that the tags must stay in place untill the problems has been solved as the tags are a warning to readers that there are potential problems with the article - not only a tool for internal categorizing of pages needing attention (which it also still does however). Could a few people comment on what proper wikiquette perscribes for removal of tags like this?·Maunus·ƛ· 11:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A similar wikiquette about possible ownership issues by User:A Sniper was filed by me in august 2009, but it received no attention from uniunvolved users. The problem of course has not been solved. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• You should notify the editor and posts diffs of examples of incivility. The only example I found while quickly scanning is this ]. Beyond that the dispute seems more like edit warring than incivility and should be addressed at an:3rr. Gerardw (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Gerardw: Uh, the only person you just showcased as being not civil with your example is Maunus. He accused me of writing a 'crappy' article when, in fact, I didn't write the article. By the way: the tags keep being removed because users simply aren't discussing the issues these two users keep raising. Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned because of incivility but because of failure by A Sniper to observe the best practice of tagging and removing tags. A Sniper seems to think that tags have automatic expiry date when in fact they do not expire untill some one corrects the problem. Placing a tag does also not make the tagger responsible for fixing the problems at hand, nor is there a certain time limit within which the problems should be adressed.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is your opinion. However, it doesn't appear to have generated any discussion, either at this page or at Ashkenazi Jews. And, by the way, I didn't write the article, so it would be nice if you would retract your diatribe. A Sniper (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Malke2010

User Malke2010 is alleged to repeatedly engage in uncivil conduct. The latest series of uncivil exchanges began when the editor was reported at WP:AN3 for a disputed edit by another editor, Izauze (talk). User:Malke2010 then accused me on the 3RR noticeboard of edit warring as a plank in his/her defense. I requested a retraction and apology. None was forthcoming.

On the Tea Party movement talk page, the same editor then blanked a reference I provided to support an edit and accused me of: biting, "singling me out as a disruptive editor," and implied I was dishonest in my interaction there. After informally warning him/her there that I viewed such accusations as uncivil , User:Malke2010 then accuses me on the article talk page of uncivil conduct and asks a leading question implying an WP:SPI (please also see here and here where he/she seeks an editor's help in "fishing" via WP:CHK). In a subsequent discussion, User:Malke2010 again raises the same WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT/WP:SHARE allegation against Izauze (talk) in a leading question .

After admins found the WP:3RR complaint did not meet criteria for sanctions, User:Malke2010 then unceremoniously gloats on the article talk page of "vindication" and accuses the said editor of disruptive editing .

User:Malke2010 has been afforded numerous opportunities to both apologize and strike uncivil comments but instead continues the same pattern of baiting and badgering other editors. I'd like to see if we can change this sort of behavior--Happysomeone (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that Happysomeone can probably state the case better than I can, so I'll try not to add any clutter, but if anyone regarding this inquiry wants any information from me, I would be more than happy to participate. Malke's previous temporary bans for disruptive editing seems to display a history that she is repeating here. She has AGAIN (I believe) crossed the WP:3RR threshhold in the last 24 hours (after my last 3RR report a few days ago), but I have not as of yet filed a report because I don't want it to interfere with my current attempts to extend an olive branch and ask for a truce both on the forums and privately via email. Wishful thinking, though that may be. Thanks. --Izauze (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be forum shopping WP:FORUMSHOP. Their 3rr frivolous complaint did not succeed so now we're here. I did not violate 3rr in the frivolous complaint being referred to that the administrator dismissed as no violation. However, the administrator did find that Izauze did violate 3rr, but felt that since the posting had gone stale that he would not block Izauze. And removing uncited material and violations of policy are not part of 3rr. The Tea Party Movement article is about living people and the rules of WP:BLP also apply, as does WP:NOTE WP:SYN WP:NPOV to name a few.

It appears that this is harassment and as Izauze has said in his many posts on his talk page and the administrator's page, he would like for me to be blocked so that I will be discouraged and leave. Asking an administrator about sock puppetry is not a violation of anything as far as I am aware. And this complaint seems like another attempt to get me blocked because the other notice board did not give them what they wanted. I asked Izauze on the article talk page is he has edited under another name. There is also nothing wrong with that. Editors leave and come back with new user names.

Please note also, Happysomeone and Izauze cherry pick diffs to craft a scenario. They also always agree and support one another on the talk page and in their edits. For example, yesterday I was asking about a comment made by Happysomeone about an earlier collaboraton between himself and Izauze. I could not find such a collaboration and asked. Immediately, Happysomeone signed on and under my question said it was time to look at something else.

The impression given is that I shouldn't ask about that. This is just a content dispute that they are taking to an inappropriate level. Please allow me time to collect diffs. Thanks.Malke2010 22:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I'm not going to respond right now to your (in my view) deceptive assertions above, because I don't have the energy to chase you in circles... And I really don't know how many different times and in how many different ways I have to say it - but I want to make it perfectly clear that this is NOT a content dispute. I would gladly make that paragraph the exact way you want it, if it meant we could continue developing the rest of the article in a calm civil productive manner. At the end of the day - no matter via what method of dispute resolution - all I want is to work alongside good, neutral, civil editors who generally understand what the idea of being an impartial collector of existing information is about. If I were able to get you to agree to be that with me, all of this would be history. We'd both be happier. And the article (and wikipedia) would be better. Sounds like a good deal to me. --Izauze (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor

The three editors above are working on a somewhat contentious article. Mostly they get along well enough under the circumstances. Recently, their discussions have been a little overheated. I recommend that all three editors pause a couple of days. Do not collect diffs to bolster your arguments. That is likely only to inflame passions further. I think that all three editors are able to edit in a neutral, civil fashion and can get past their current problems. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sbowers. I came to this same conclusion and this is why I haven't posted diffs, nor have I filed a complaint with AN/I, which I would be justified in doing. The project is what is important here and the ultimate goal for the article is neutrality. If everybody keeps that in mind, there shouldn't be a problem with differing views.Malke2010 19:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the only diff I have to offer: look to the left, and note the page it's on: .Malke2010 19:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I'm glad you've now come to this conclusion and agree that all of us can work together civily and productively for the sake of the project. It may take a little time, but I think we should be able to collaborate just as before.

I would ask as a first gesture of good will in this new truce, that you either file an AN/I claim against me (I will not be mad at you for this if you feel it is justified and a valuable use of your time) OR not bring it up again. Because it is things like that and your dif to a piece of vandalism that seems in no way connected to this dispute that understandably can make the other editors feel defensive about being personally attacked.

I would appreciate a response to this so I know where we stand. I think that's reasonable.

--Izauze (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The following message has been delivered to user:malke:

Malke, I have posted a reponse for you at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts. I will have to assume this matter remains unresolved until I recieve some sort of response from you. Thanks --Izauze (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing an apparent refusal to directly respond to any of my good faith attempts to extend an olive branch (including a very sincere private email), coupled with a series of what seem like agressive deletions/blanking of contributions, I have little reason at this point to believe that the matter is resolved and Malke is able to stop her disruptive editing practices. I would like to believe we can return to civility, as Sbowers does, but I am beginning to lack faith in that possibility, though I remain hopeful. --Izauze (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is some advice I've already taken. It comes from a well respected admin who once gave it out in a similar situation. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.Malke2010 01:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I just wanted to make sure (for the sake of the project) that we were on the same page, and I didn't think a response was too much to ask. Here's to hoping to move on -- Izauze (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A good place to stop

Yes - here's hoping to move on. This is a good place for both sides to stop (as Happysomeone appears wisely to have stopped). Nobody has won; nobody has lost. At worst you agree to disagree. At best you put this behind you and spend your energies on the content of articles. All three editors have made useful contributions to a difficult article and I hope will continue.

And so that nobody can complain about another having the last word, let me have the last word. Please. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - I have just become aware of this section. I do not pretend to be uninvolved with the user, whose edits - from what I have seen - push a highly opinionated POV, to the point of obsession. My interactions with him on the Karl Rove page have been some of the most unpleasant of my considerable Misplaced Pages experiences. I find this user to be highly disruptive and difficult to work with, uncivil in the extreme (to the point of corrective measures taken against him by an admin last summer), and I am not surprised in the least to find him being brought here.

In short, I suggest a more in-depth overview of this editor's edits and talk page interactions. I have moved on from my previous encounters with this unpleasant chap and do not intend to pursue this further, but I feel that I cannot remain silent in the face of complaints by other editors, and need to back up those with concerns for the sake of a complete overview. My thanks to those bringing this matter to community attention. Jusdafax 18:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

An Even Better Place to Stop

Sbowers3 if you read my posts above, I had wisely added a final comment, but Izauze kept coming back and demanding more comment. He hounded me on my talk page and here making more and more claims. To put a final stop to this, I gave him a suggestion that seems to have finally got him to stop. And then you come along and add your comment which is not helping, I'm sorry to say.

Please understand that while I appreciate your efforts, your comments above are not helping anything here. This 'event' had already resolved itself. Whether you realize it or not, you appear to be assigning blame and making a value judgement. If you read the above posts made by me I am clearly trying to end this. Izauze would not stop until I posted WP:STICK. You should have left it alone when you saw him signing off. I put a hat on this thread to stop you from doing this again. And now you've come back and opened it again. Please stop. I will ask an administrator to now hat this. Please don't post again, and please do not open the thread again. Read this: WP:STICK and follow the advice there. Malke2010 17:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• WQA is an informal, non-binding forum. If you don't wish to participate, just stop participating. Gerardw (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Mad Hatter

Chavdar Likov, known as User: Mad Hatter was noticed by me on March 1, 2010 to be engaging in clean-up edits with User: Harout72. A comment he made here makes a reference to me using illegal drugs, which is very far off from what I do being the son of two highly respected and wealthy physicians. It was crude commentary that shouldn't be welcome on Misplaced Pages. This comment by Harout72 "slightly" bothered me as he shouldn't have made any further reference to it, even if my response to User: Mad Hatter on his talk page bothered him: "Does this mean I should start believing in Mad Hatter's first statement/suggestion in this section?" I have recognized the two users as a duo edit articles sufficiently, but "snap" at other users' additions. Whether or not the users add sources to their additions, in my eyes I saw it as insulting and belittling to these other users the terminology used to refer to them. I believe the actions taken by him towards other users inclusions prove to me his lack of civility. They are listed here: . This user has been previously gotten into severe trouble and began to make a large amount of removals to the Backstreet Boys article from January 31 to February 12, 2010. This user made these changes in an abrasive manner and needs to be called on by his behavior. Signed by James--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please notify user of WQA Gerardw (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the comment made by Mad Hatter was posted immediately after I notified Mad Hatter about Carmaker1 accusing him and I of Sock puppetry in here. While I realize that Mad Hatter's comment may have been somewhat harsh in nature due to responding in the heat of the moment, Carmaker1 has no right going around and accusing two other editors of Sock puppetry (which is equally offensive) only because Carmaker1 sees similarity in a style of language in edit-summaries.--Harout72 (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution