This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NE Ent (talk | contribs) at 12:34, 7 December 2011 (diff explanation). 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 discussions

Persistent personal attacks over content dispute, reopened

Regarding reopening, it is really beyond WQA's remit to do what you're asking for. If actual admin intervention is required, then WP:ANI is thataway. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. All I'm asking for is that an admin ask the user to stop making personal attacks and explicit assumptions of bad faith, which the user continues to make, both in edit summaries and on the talk page. If a request for such seemingly minor intervention is beyond the scope of WQA, what is within the scope of WQA? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

While I've some evidence admins occasionally stalk this page, it's mostly mostly non-admin editors who help out here. The first diff you present is a very mild personal attack, as these things go, and the second diff not a personal attack at all. I went to Bloodofox's talk page to ask him to rejoin the discussion but I see that before you initiated the WQA you called him a dick? Twice? That's certainly more offensive than 'ideological user.' I'd advise you to tone it down and focus on the content dispute resolution. Gerardw (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Relentlessly accusing another editor of dishonest motives as a substitute for simply arguing about content and policy is not even in the same neighborhood as merely calling somebody a couple of names in two brief comments, spanning about 10 minutes, complaining about those persistent personal attacks (which continue even now). It's a little hard to focus on a content dispute when the other participant insists on making pointless accusations about my character, motives, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:Gray Area. While not unsympathetic to the situation, in my experience, few editors are willing to audit the history of two somewhat uncivil editors to ascertain which is being more uncivil than the other. My advice is to first ensure your own behavior is scrupulously correct and civil and to ignore the pointless accusations. Gerardw (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, now I wonder exactly why I wasn't notified of this being reopened? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It was never "reopened" because it was never "closed"; just archived by a bot. And I didn't say anything new, just asked for comment on what had already been said. Not like this could have somehow taken you by surprise, so plz. don't pretend I was trying to ambush you or something by making new complaints that you had no opportunity to respond to. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You "reopened" it and didn't notify me. And I was supposed to find that how? That speaks volumes. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't reopen it. No one ever closed it. I didn't add anything new. I didn't ask anything new of you. I asked for comment on what already had been said. The fact you're now trying to paint me as dishonest for seeking comment on an arbitration that I notified you about, after already having persistently accused me of dishonest motives, speaks "volumes". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You absolutely did "reopen" it, and days went by before I found out about it. Nice. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Days"? Try again -- more like 1 day, 10 hours. Stop trying to trump up trivial nothingness into something you could conceivably have a legitimate right to complain about. It's appalling that you would nitpick on silly details like this (and quibbling about how often I use the "outdent" tag, and reposting a comment from your Talk page on article talk) after making dozens of uncivil and snide character attacks. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Weaseling around your lack of notification will get you nowhere. Equating crude name calling (which you blame me for) to referring to you as ideological also isn't helping your case. My "quibble" about your usage of the outdent tag, again, referred to your using it every few posts. Your spite post on my talk page was also very dubious. It's all here for the world to see, there's not much more I need to say about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I tolerated numerous insulting and rude comments from you, going beyond merely saying I'm ideological, before having a moment of anger and calling you a profane name and referring you to a Meta article that is redirected from WP:DICK. Since that brief outburst, I have said nothing about your character yet you continue to speak to me as one would speak to a dishonest and vile con artist. And yes, you quibble about trivial junk in an effort to make it look like you have anything legitimate to complain about other than the brief outburst in which I called you a profane name. Ask yourself: whether or not I "blame" you for making me angry enough to use profanity, do you really think it is in keeping with core WP policy—on how we're supposed to be polite to one another and ignore our differences—to constantly berate and act uncivilly towards someone you're having a content dispute with? Do you recognize that this treatment is going to do nothing productive, but merely make the other person upset and angry? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never called you any names. I've referred to you as ideological and accused you of heavy POV; that's hardly a personal attack in my book, but I have agreed to refer only to your actions. Your anger is your own issue to deal with, and there's no excuse for calling others names, no matter how angry you get. Nobody pressed those keys for you. I have the right to call you out in a Misplaced Pages-acceptable manner; i.e. I did not appreciate that you called me base names, that you did not let me know about this reopening, and I did not appreciate you spite-spamming on my talk page. Further, you should have taken the olive branch on the talk page when it was extended by another user (which I immediately agreed to) rather than coming straight here. In addition, you've repeatedly violated the revert rule you've placed on your talk page. All of this says something about where you're editing from and you need to really consider adjusting your approach for when you come across an editor who won't simply roll over. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to name a couple instances, it should be obvious to you that it's not "Misplaced Pages acceptable" to tell another user to "try to feign a little neutrality" or say "I guess the cheap shot was just too tempting for you", or accuse another of an "attempted hit job", or suggest I am a paid astroturfer, etc. Yeah, you made personal attacks; even now at the OWS talk page you can't even say 10 words on the subject without talking about my alleged political leanings, which you have no clue about, and which are irrelevant to the discussion. And what the hell is "spite spamming"? It seems you don't even realize how uncivil you're being and how far all of this is from being an acceptable and normal discussion of a content dispute. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop referring to Factchecker as ideological -- comment on the content not that contributor Gerardw (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I can agree to that for civility purposes, albeit I believe otherwise, and I think other users should be aware of his strong pro-Fox, anti-"far left" stance, and I don't see that as a personal attack, but rather a neutral observation.

So what happens when a user refers to another use as a "dick" and an "asshole"? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Usually an editors own actions make any biases apparent to the community so labeling the user isn't necessary; in any event, simply referring to the edits is a far better option in the long run. e.g. "Remove POV edit"

As for the personal attack, see ]. Gerardw (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Sections Retitled as Personal Attacks

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

I and another editor have expressed concerns to User:Goodwinsands about his editing history and possible multiple accounts since he started editing in January 2011. He now has renamed all those sections of his talk page to mock our concerns. He collapsed the entries under one title: Under the green bars: documentation of a tag-team harassment campaign. He renamed our section titles, per below. I think someone needs to explain Misplaced Pages policy on personal attacks and misuse of talk pages to Goodwinsand and encourage him to either revert to original comments or archive the whole mess.

• POV Warrior #1 tries: false accusation of sock puppetry (Was at this diff “Your editing history?”) Details of why I was suspicious are in a later WP:SPI link below.
• POV Warrior #2 tries: don't call a Holocaust denier a Holocaust denier (Was at this diff “BLPN Israel Shamir”) Regarding Goodwinsands adding a category to an article when that subject was currently under discussion at BLPN.
• POV Warrior #1 tries again: bogus redefinition of 'revert' in attempt to pin a false 1RR. (Was at this diff "Gilad Atzmon: Edit warring notice".) Per this discussion (at this diff) Goodwinsands inaccurately stated and perhaps still holds that "No, a revert means undoing the actions of another editor within the last 24 hours."
• POV Warrior #2 tries again: false allegations of sock puppetry (Was at this diff "Multiple accounts.") User:Off2riorob asked him about the possibility of multiple accounts.
• POV warriors #1 and #2 tag team in false accusation of sock puppetry, no not sock puppetry, erm, er, er, give us a sec and we'll come up with it... (Evidently Goodwinsands split up the "Multiple accounts" section.) Seeing I was not the only with suspicions, I decided to investigate further and at this diff discussed which editors on one sock puppet plagued article Goodwinsands possibly might be a sock or multiple account of. I was told by an administrator at this diff that if I had suspicions I should take it to Sockpuppet Investigation.
• POV Warrior #1 tries: another false accusation of sock puppetry Per administrator's comment I did so, whole discussion here. I guess it didn't present enough details and an admin closed it calling it a "fishing expedition."

Needlesstosay, this kind of mocking behavior discourages people from trying to deal with real concerns. Anyway, since he has barred me from his talk page I can't announce this notice. Thanks for any help. CarolMooreDC 05:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a very easy solution to this problem, though I strongly suspect you will not want to go along: Stop bothering him on his talk page. Make whatever comments you want about him on other talk pages (like this) where he can't change the section header. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Civility says "It applies to all interaction on Misplaced Pages, including on user and article talk pages..." This is the civility noticeboard. I'm just asking for someone to clue him in so the next person who has a legitimate concern isn't driven away by the mass attacks on those who have had past concerns. CarolMooreDC 05:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're worried about the next person, perhaps you should just wait for the next person to have the same problem.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So, just to be clear here, because I have kept the evidence of your campaign of harassment against me on my talk page, and because I have labeled it for what it is, you continue your campaign of harassment here by complaining that I have dared to complain about your campaign of harassment?

One more for the list, then, isn't it. Goodwinsands (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please ignore Brewcrewer as his advice is neither helpful nor appropriate. One does not tolerate uncivil behaviour until it bites another user. We talk to the editor and inform them of their behaviour in order to avoid future confrontations. Brewcrewer also appears to be involved with the accused having left a welcome message on the user's talk page. Not sure what the association is.

With that said, have you notified Goodwinsands of this discussion? The behaviour described, and some other behaviour not mentioned, is not at all civil, but I would like to hear the editor's side of the story. I went to the talk page and did not see a notice there.

Also, the behaviour of the other two editors is not civil. One does not allude to or hint that another editor is a sockpuppet. With that said, incivility does not call for further incivility.

As a result of the edit conflict, I see that Goodwinsands knows what is happening here and continues to attack rather than comment on his own behaviour. This is for discussion not attacks. There was no campaign of harassment so there's nothing to complain about to. They were trying to engage you in conversation, which you don't seem to like to do. Perhaps a cool-off period would be a good first step--walk away from the article you're having contention over and come back in a week or two. If you're still planning on editing the same articles, discussion would be a good second step. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz is correct. I looked at this report earlier but decided not to post because the refactored headings at User talk:Goodwinsands were not knock-out examples of incivility, and I thought my comments would be misinterpreted. However, the "One more for the list, then, isn't it" comment above shows that involvement is required. A good way to understand why Misplaced Pages's procedures is as they are is to contemplate what the inevitable outcome of not having those procedures would be. For example, if a civil and relevant comment at a noticeboard can be dismissed as "one more for the list", what is to stop those on the other side from responding in kind, with a downward spiral into what is seen at all unmoderated Internet forums. Please just stick to discussing issues related to improvement of article content. If unwelcome comments appear on a user's talk page, that user is entitled to simply revert them (and if wanted, a pointy but polite edit summary such as "misguided" can be used for the revert). But it is not helpful for community collaboration for editors to refactor the headings of posted comments and to add commentary about those who posted them. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The talk page headings are personal attacks and it would be best if Goodwinsands changes them. 11:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardw (talk • contribs)

Just to clarify, as I wrote above: Anyway, since he has barred me from his talk page I can't announce this notice." I should have asked someone else to. But frankly he monitors all my edits so I knew he'd find out. CarolMooreDC 16:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No editor can bar anyone else from commenting on that editor's talk page. Only an admin can lock a talk page and they have to have very serious reasons from doing so. The "barring" in an of itself is not civil. The best one can do is request that an editor not hound you on your talk page and open a case for hounding. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

As Goodwinsands' reply here indicates they are aware of the discussion, it's a moot point. I concur with both the interpretation that a "ban" is not supported by policy and the wisdom of respecting a request not to post a notice. I periodically post the WQA-notice myself if a poster has missed the instruction to, or, as in this case, made a conscious decision to avoid escalating the conflict. Gerardw (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on no provision for "banning." I certainly comply when it's a matter of just discussing things on their talk page. But when it is a matter of alerts that need to be made, I'm glad to see we still have that right. (I also just remembered that "Retired" User:Spaceclerk also banned the same two editors as Goodwinsands because of our suspicions and an SPI. Will have to write that factoid down somewhere.) CarolMooreDC 21:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment As the issue of a user "banning" another user from their talk page seems to be a perennial issue, I've created WP:NOBAN to link the existing policy statement. (It's easy to miss as it's on WP:User pages instead of WP:TPG. Gerardw (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll refer to it should the need for some official notice to User:Goodwinsands arise again. CarolMooreDC 14:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor becoming increasingly uncivil

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

Editor has become increasingly hostile and uncivil during Talk Page discussions and in edit summaries, resulting in unwarranted personal attacks against me. Diff links:

• Diff 1
• Diff 2
• Diff 3
• Diff 4

This seems to have started when I spoke out against the editor's use of forum shopping and Wiki-lawyering when not getting the answers he was looking for at two forums. On his talk page, I asked him to step back for a bit and allow things to progress naturally at the noticeboard RfC's he's filed today rather than trying to force them to progress. His responses are in the diff links above. The latest personal attack from him that was the last straw for me: "I don't think I want to be a bullying editor who assumes bad faith like you are and reverts as a way of life."

The incivility from this editor has gone beyond anything appropriate and/or necessary, in my opinion. In the future, I want to be able to edit cooperatively and collegially with this editor, but the hard feelings and atmosphere he's creating and perpetuating as demonstrated by the above diffs are making that more and more an unlikely scenario. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything more? The four diffs show pretty ordinary back-and-forth on a user talk page. When I did a quick skim of User talk:MathewTownsend I was surprised to see MathewTownsend say he is new as he seems to be discussing the BLP issue in an appropriate manner. If there is an article accusing living person X of having caused the death of Y (yet X has never been charged), it is highly inappropriate (laughable actually) to respond with "There is no deadline in Misplaced Pages". I do not think it is a WQA issue for an editor to talk about "your article" after reading "If you change the article right now, I will be forced to take this whole thing to another level". It may well be that some inappropriate behavior is going on somewhere, but WP:CIVIL is not a guarantee that editors will not face frank opinions when raising an issue at a user talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) Yes, your comments do sound "grumpy" (as you stated in your edit summary) and aren't exactly helpful. But I can overlook that. :-)

(2) There's more, but thanks to your astute observation, you already found the "more" I was hoping someone would notice. He does seem to be not so new, actually......

(3) There's nothing in the article in question (Natalie Wood) that suggests/implies/names anyone as being culpable in her death. This is - essentially - a fabrication by the named editor above and another editor who are reading way more into the article than actually exists.

(4) Charges of ownership by this editor have no basis in fact. I'm not the only editor who feels MathewTownsend is being hyperbolic and too quick to react in regard to the article in question.

(5) WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are standards to be adhered to at all times.

(6) I came here in an attempt to get the air cleared and give the above named editor a chance to rethink his own "grumpiness" because I want to be able to work with him now and in the future in an atmosphere of collegiality and cooperativeness. The direction he's going is making that less and less a possibility.

Lhb1239 (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Response from MathewTownsend

• I agree with Johnuniq's comments above.
• Lhb1239 has filed simultaneous charges against me at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Who are the other editors who feel that I'm being hyperbolic and too quick to react, as Lhb1239 states above? On the noticeboards I have received nothing but support, except from Lhb1239.
• If he feels my comments violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, why does he edit war and revert my attempts to redact and withdraw my comments?
• Lhb1239 has bombarded my talk page 29 times with threats and warnings within the last day or so. I am very rattled by this and don't know what to think or how to handle this antagonism. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting, Mathew. In so doing, you're only making more of a case for your personal attacks and incivility. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Lhb1239 should drop the WP:STICK, stay away from MathewTownsend's talk page, stop reverting MathewTownsend's talk page comment, especially trivial reversions like , and listen to the advice given by AussieLegend on the 3RR report. Gerardw (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Lhb1239 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing dispute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Wikipedian1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The People's Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

About two weeks ago I opened a debate discussing whether this page should be merged or not. Controversy surrounding the Occupy Movement and questioning of notability has made this somewhat heated. Both "merge" and "don't merge" have about the same amount of supporters.

Near the beginning of the debate several users voted for merge. They never contributed again afterwards. Naturally this discussion attracted large amounts of don't merge users; OSW is a pretty popular page due to its real world relevance. I was practically left by myself to argue with the endless amount of don't merge users. I proceeded to post these messages on the original merge user's talk pages:

• User_talk:Kelly: "Opposition to merge is rising. Would appreciate your continued participation in this debate"
• User_talk:Arzel: "Would appreciate your continued support for pro-merge."
• User_talk:Amadscientist: "Would appreciate your continued support for pro-merge."
• User_talk:Reywas92 "Would appreciate your continued support for pro-merge."

They continued to not reply or contribute. By that point I had given up and wished to move on. Several days later an IP accused me of canvassing to those editors, claiming "they expressed anti-OWS sentiments and were therefore likely to vote his way". I knew of no such agenda when contacting them; I simply wanted them to contribute to a discussion which they already voted in. I attempted to justify my actions though to no avail.

Came here to verify whether this violates canvassing policy. If I have, it was an honest mistake. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC))

Please ask at Misplaced Pages talk:Canvassing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Active "hunt & attack" by editor

Attacker

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

Battlefields

• Floppy disk hardware emulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• San Severo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lega Nord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Blackvisionit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:137.204.148.73 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:130.136.4.212 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User:Guy Macon doing a lot of misbehaviours, angry editing

• "Plan of attack..." - explicit edit warring
• "Drop a hammer on him..." - explicit edit warring
• "Pizza connection fancies..." - the Italian conspiracy
• "I'm going to allow..." - enforcement-like editing
• Witch hunting through Misplaced Pages
• Reverting-only interaction , rejecting even grammar fixes.
• Involving admin User:Qwyrxian in active reverting-only interaction .

Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

• Brief neutral advices about misbehaviours, direct dispute avoidance.
• Floppy_disk_hardware_emulator - Failed dispute resolution

How do you think we can help?

Get attacking user understand that "which hunting" and "worst faith assumption" are "wikipedia time wasting". 137.204.148.73 (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you stating that you are not Blackvisionit (talk · contribs)? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

List of recent administrative actions regarding IP Address 137.204.148.73

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Blackvisionit

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173#User:137.204.148.73 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: No action right now.)

Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Floppy disk hardware emulator (Closed)

Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance#Active "hunt & attack" by editor

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The complaints posted above by 137.204.148.73 (which, by an amazing coincidence, faithfully mirror the writing style of Blackvisionit) are simply a result of my attempts to protect the encyclopedia from an editor with a severe conflict of interest and ongoing behavior problems. When he was given some quite reasonable COI restrictions by an administrator, his response was to engage in blatant sockpuppetry. The biggest behavior problem is a total refusal to work collaboratively, a refusal to discuss controversial edits despite being asked again and again to do so (instead choosing to re-revert without discussion), and a refusal to seek consensus. The sad part is that he obviously believes that the rules don't apply to him, that he doesn't need to explain his edits, and that the real problem is anyone else who questions his ownership of the pages he edits.

As always, I welcome a close examination of my own behavior, and I will take any criticism or suggestions to heart. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You're definitely being uncool. As previously suggested to you , the only place you should make an SPI accusation is the SPI page. And it does appear you're following 137 around tracking their edits. Let's AGF and be more welcoming to a new user. Gerardw (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe my monitoring of 137.204.148.73 is within policy. I have read WP:HOUND very carefully, and it says "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." To that end, I have limited myself to only fixing those edits of 137.204.148.73's that are clear violations of Misplaced Pages policy, such as being unsourced and controversial, and I have consistently invited 137.204.148.73 to discuss these edits on the article's talk pages. I do the same whenever I see a clear violation of policy such as adding spam links or changing British English to US English on a page against policy - I look for other pages where the editor may have done the same thing. It certainly is not my aim to "create irritation, annoyance or distress" to 137.204.148.73. Given his pattern of behavior, there are several things I could do that I know would either totally piss him off or bait him into more misbehavior. I have carefully avoided doing any of those things, because my goal is to get him to stop being disruptive, not to become more disruptive. I bear 137.204.148.73 no ill will, and sincerely hope he will decide to start following Misplaced Pages's rules on consensus and discussion of controversial edits.

As for the claim that "the only place you should make an SPI accusation is the SPI page" I have carefully reviewed Misplaced Pages's policies (primarily WP:SOCK, but there is also a wealth of information in the archives at Misplaced Pages talk:Sockpuppet investigations) and I don't see where it is forbidden to point out that two accounts pass the duck test. While it is an essay rather than policy, Misplaced Pages:Signs of sock puppetry says "The more signs that are present, the more likely sock puppetry is occurring, though no accusations shall be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain." Well, I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt. I would also note that, as suggested, I opened a SPI. Alas, I got no answer. If there is a policy or guideline that specifically says that one cannot mention suspicions of sockpuppetry other than on the SPI page, please supply a link to the policy. It certainly is possible that I missed a policy, but I have looked. Sometimes an obvious sock is obvious.--Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You asked for criticism or suggestions. I said you actions were uncool; I did not saying they specifically violated any policy. WP:AGF and WP:Civility suggest limiting SPI accusations to SPI. That said, I do think the admin community is not being very timely on the SPI. Gerardw (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fair criticism (the part about me -- I have no opinion regarding the criticism of the SPI admins). --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll concur that it's appropriate to keep discussions in the right place. I also think it would be extremely helpful if another admin took action on the SPI, as I believe that Guy Macon's following of these edits is completely appropriate if, in fact, another admin agrees that they are the same person. I have now doubt, but I'm not sure if I've crossed the line over into WP:INVOLVED territory, so I need a second pair of eyes. If Guy Macon is correct, than we have an editor intentionally editing under an IP to avoid scrutiny. Blackvisionit proved very conclusively that xe cannot edit pages on this topic neutrally, and I told xyr quite clearly I would block xyr for attempting anything other than the most trivial edits on this topic. If the IP is the same person as Blackvisionit, they've violated that several times over, and thus need to be blocked in order to prevent disruption to the page. And, furthermore, if this is Blackvisionit, this WQA is an attempt to distract other user's from the problems xe has as an editor, to get criticism leveled at the person who is legitimately trying to protect these articles from POV inclusions. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I would add that, even if 137.204.148.73 and Blackvisionit have no connection at all, there is a consensus among the other editors that the undiscussed edits by 137.204.148.73 to Floppy disk hardware emulator, like the previous edits by Blackvisionit, bias the article towards one particular type of emulator. 137.204.148.73 refuses to discuss his reasons for making these changes (or anything else: his claims above in answer to "Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?" are fabrications). If only he would discuss why he wants to make changes when another editor challenges them, the possibility exists that a consensus could be reached that satisfies both parties. His refusal to discuss breaks Misplaced Pages's cooperative editing model, and leaves the other editors no path that could possibly lead to agreement.

The same problem with 137.204.148.73's edits can clearly be seen in the edit history for San Severo. He removed what appears to be relevant and properly sourced material, and when asked to explain, engaged in edit warring while refusing to discuss his edits. I don't know anything about San Severo, while we know from geolocation that 137.204.148.73 either lives there or in a nearby town. His insight could be very valuable. Could it be that he correctly identified something that should have been removed? It's possible, but we will never know because he refuses to discuss his edits. All I can do is what I would do any time I see what appears to be relevant and properly sourced material removed without explanation on any article; revert with an edit comment encouraging discussion and place a warning -- also encouraging discussion -- on his talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see new content at .

Ingresar entrada Horacio González (diputado)

Can you help in dispute resolution for an entry in spanish wikipedia?

Protection from two editors who are rude and degrade articles

• Anotherclown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Battle of Romani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Battle of Magdhaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Battle of Rafa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• First Battle of Gaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two editors have a rude and threatening style which is apparent in all their posts. They have repeatedly made edits to the pages listed above which have for the most part degraded those articles. I have tried to incorporate as much as I can of their work but so much of it limits general readers' understanding of these quite complex battles. For example cutting 'infantry' from the name of a unit makes it difficult to know whether they are infantry regiments, brigades or divisions when both infantry and mounted units were involved. Both these editors have also been rude, made threats, attempted intimidation and harrassment. This has occurred on the talk pages of these articles and on my own talk page. What I need is some protection from their negative edits and rude behaviour. Rskp (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I notified the two editors. I do see one edit where what is obviously not vandalism being called vandalism when it appears to be a content dispute. And this edit where discussion is made about an editor. Both incidents would require a discussion, but RoslynSKP, you will have to provide diffs to show what you think the uncivil behaviour is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

One thing further, we can't offer you any protection, but we can suggest that the editors cooperate with you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. What are 'diffs'. --Rskp (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:DIFFs are the differences between two versions of a page, such as this one which shows an edit I recently made to "talk page guidelines." Misplaced Pages:Simplest diff guide gives instructions for how to make them. Gerardw (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution