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 Wikipedia: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:

This user is consistently attacking me and getting rid of sourced content in articles. Statements like Denying this makes you come across as foolish, you look like a child. You are clearly not happy with the fact that I edit any article and want to revert any change I make based on your petty quibble and most recently and most likely the most offense so far want to dick me around. He has also used personal attacks against User:Blackmetalbaz noted with statements like: *The both of you look like fools for trying to back up claims, Stop pretending that this is an actual genre. Also he called User:WesleyDodds disruptive despite the fact that Wesley was just restoring sourced content which Ibaranoff was consistently removing on the heavy metal music page with these edits: [1] [2] [3] . He seems to be disposing of sourced material that mainly ivolves the term "nu metal" and in the process pushing POV: [4] [5]. Even when there are both sources and a consensus in favor of certain music styles he removes them because of this personal beliefs [6]. I can't take this harassment and vandalism anymore. RG (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like both of you are trying to edit cooperatively, but neither is willing to give way and consequently both are on the verge of losing your tempers. What you really need is a third opinion that you would both respect. Is there any possibility of finding one? Looie496 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated repeatedly, I'm not removing "nu metal" in which the sources substantiate its inclusion as a dominating genre of any album or band article I edit. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yet again Ibaranoff removes sourced material. And with Roots me and User:LUCPOL already had a consensus in favor of the nu metal label, so he has now gone against Wikipedia:Consensus. Also another example of him intentionally bashing me he claimed I should editing completely. This needs to stop is breaking Wikipedia policy and he is being very uncivil. He has a clear POV against the term nu metal, calling it a a useless catchphrase. It is clear Ibaranoff is pushing his own opinion and doesn't want artists he enjoys to be lumped with the style. He even wanted tried to put "this dog of an article to sleep" twice despite the fact that there is clear evidence it exists. RG (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to believe that one source dictates that you can add a genre based on your POV. Clearly you have an attitude towards me, and have certain opinions about certain artists that conflict with what is actually sourced. You are violating Wikiquette - as well as edit-warring. Cut loose. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If you have a source it isn't POV(and I've have used multiple sources on Kid rock's page), removing sources that's POV and that's exactly what you have done. Might I add that I have still not received a simple apology from Ibaranoff for his hurtful remarks. Oh and to add on to that, now apparently my edits are a waste of time. RG (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content dispute is irrelevant here, as are the sources. Ibaranoff, I'm inclined to say that your most recent comment on RG's talk crosses the line into incivility. You've been around the block enough to know that there are a multitude of ways to deal with an editor who has hearing problems. --King Öomie 19:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RG, I wasn't referring to your edits. I was referring to responding to me with this attitude and continuing to discuss me behind my back in the same attitude. If we were to refer to specific edits, let's refer specifically to some edits that clearly are a product of your own POV, since the claims of POV on my part are absolutely false. "Nu metal bands used rap. Sorry but deal with it" - this is not POV-pushing? Or "He wasn't really ever traditional metal, nu metal would be more appropiate because most of his '90s stuff was just that", where you are clearly stating an opinion, rather than referring to what is actually sourced? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• I started a MedCab case in regards to RG's edit-warring. I am very unhappy to have to continue dealing with this - I had thought that this case, as with all of RG's previous edit-warring endeavors, had been resolved. The consensus, editing guidelines, and sources are there. He simply refuses to listen to reason or pay attention to any of the points made by other editors. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Look right now at the history on Kid rock's page you will see that Ibaranoff reverted three times in one day, yet he removed the warning on his page and put the waring on my page despite the fact that I did nothing wrong. It is behavior like this that is not acceptable and I have still gotten no apology from his user. Also, I stated numerous sources on Rock's talk page as I have previously stated, so I have used no POV. This is incredibly offensive. Oh and let's not forget that I suck. So now we have uncivil actions, acting against WP:CON, and him completly denying that he did anything wrong. RG (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users are allowed to remove warning from their talk page. They are allowed to put warnings on yours. If they're not applicable ignore or delete them. Gerardw (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misrepresent my statements. I clearly said that your attitude sucks. That was not a personal attack. It was a clear statement of your behavior. Secondly, I did not revert that article three times. Clearly, there is a difference in the edits that constitutes against a clear revert, which is what you have done, several times. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Well you shouldn't be characterizing RG's attitude either. Remember, comment on content, not the contributor. Gerardw (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct, but users are not allowed to post warnings on other user's talk pages with another user's signature. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget that I put no effort into writing anything on this site. So I don't work hard, I suck, I'm a total d**k, I'm a child, a fool, even when I have legit sources they are all POV, is there anything that isn't wrong with me? And again, I still haven't even gotten the simplest, little apology. RG (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said any of these things. I'm not apologizing for what you perceive as a statement on your behalf, rather than a direct statement which I've never provided. I never called you a dick or said that you suck. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You have directly attacked me and I rightly deserve an apology. You have called me a fool, a child, a d**k, and that my attitude sucks, and you denying these claims when the edits show you have, just tells me that you refuse to be civil. RG (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely have not called you any of these things, and the edits clearly show that I have not. Anyone who would bother to read what I write would know this. I am being civil. Your repeated accusations and attacks against me are uncivil. Re-read my previous statements. Scrub. Rinse. Repeat. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Outside view by User:PeterbrownDancin: After spending some time reviewing the links and articles involved, I myself see no substantial breach of "Wikiquette." I'm sure you can understand how editing in the oft-contentious topics regarding Kid Rock can really make tempers flare. Let's face it, next to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Kid Rock is probably one of the most controversial topics in the world today. So lets give both our valiant editors a warm reassuring pat on the back and thank them for having the fortitude to work in the trenches of a certainly intense field. Kudos! PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another outside view by User:Diannaa: Ibaranoff, when you are critising someone's edits or behavior please be careful not to use loaded words like "ridiculous" and "sucks". You hurt people's feelings. Rockgenre: I have been following this case since it first appeared on the Wiki. You came on the scene in August 09 and have made hundreds, possibly thousands, of edits that changed the genre of albums, bands, and songs. Most of these edits have gone unnoticed but occasionally you are changing an article where the genre decision has been reached by thoughtful discussion by a group of editors who have reached a compromise. If you come in afterwards and chage the genre to something else, you make people angry. At that point it doesn't even matter if you are right; you are overriding the edit reached by the consensus of folks who want to cooperate. Second point: I notice that nearly 30 % of your edits in the last two months have been "undos" of someone else's edits. That kind of percentage is very high! People don't like it when you act that way! There are better ways for you to contribute. You have created some nice articles. Maybe you should move away from the genre-changing project for a while and work on another aspect of the wiki. Just a suggestion. --Diannaa (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me asking for an apology, uncivil? No someone repeatly attacking someone and pushing his POV, that's uncivil. "You came on the scene in August 09 and have made hundreds, possibly thousands, of edits that changed the genre of albums, bands, and songs" I admit that a lot of my early edits were unsourced, but I wasn't intending to stay here very long, I was only going to make a few simple, little edits. I even hate the name Rockgenre. "Maybe you should move away from the genre" there really isn't much else I think that I can do here that would be helpful. RG (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a series of helpful suggestions in regards to your behavior. Could you please try to work with other editors, not against them, as long as you are editing on Wikipedia? I don't care how long you intend to stay (and, for the record, you can change your username if you please). As long as you are editing here, the goal is to work with other editors, not to make changes based on your opinion or a dislike of other editors. There has been no attacks from any side, and you are the only editor pushing POV. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"There has been no attacks from any side, and you are the only editor pushing POV" You have got to be kidding me. As I have stated before this user is consistently offensive and removing sourced material, I want an apology. And also let's not forget that Mr. "Sugar Bear" has edited talk page archives even though the top of each archive page specifically says not to edit them. RG (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editing the archive accusation is disingenuous: Sugar Bear simply unarchived a discussion archived by a bot which RG subsequently contributed to. Gerardw (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear to me that if I have ever posted any attack, then certainly this counts as an attack as well. But it doesn't, and my previous comments in regard to you were not attacks. Secondly, as Gerard stated, fishing a conversation out of the archives and adding further comments to it is not the same as "editing the archives". Furthermore, there needs to be a consensus in the sources themselves, and of other editors. Your editing against consensus and clear sources is more "offensive" than anything I have ever done. If one source says that, say, Rage Against the Machine are "pioneers of nu metal", that doesn't mean that every critical assessment of RATM's music agrees with this statement, nor that you are allowed to put that sole source and statement in that article's lead. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Gentlemen, this page is for discussions of interpersonal conduct. Don't rehash the content dispute here. --King Öomie 19:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an attack at all. He claimed there was a consensus when there was none, so I asked simply whether or not he considers his opinion greater than the opinion of anyone else. And still I have gotten no simple "I'm sorry, I was wrong for attacking you." RG (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there never was an attack. And there clearly is a consensus - I posted the revisions in which users offered opinions on this issue on the article's talk page. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, have to clarify that the last post was made on a public computer, so there are edits by other people in the IP's history. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Obviously, this has gone far beyond a simple content dispute. RG, in my opinion, seems to be editing against any decision I make (including edits I've made that have agreement from other editors), in an attempt to get me to attack him, so he can claim etiquette breach. Apologies for not providing what you needed. This is childish. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sugar Bear, WQA is a voluntary process; you're not required to continue to respond. It appears the only third party editor editors who had a (resonable, in my opinion) suggestion for you was were Diannaa and PeterbrownDancin; if you want to simply consider that and move on in my opinion I think that would be fine. Gerardw (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Gerardw (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that my opinion is worthless? PeterbrownDancin (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thought there was another response but just missed it when typing my response. Gerardw (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed the above information. I'm just adding the comment that in my only interaction with Sugar Bear, I found him or her unnecessarily aggressive. Please assume that your fellow editors are working in good faith towards the common goal of writing high quality articles. ike9898 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Upon, reading some of the above, I would agree with Diana's point that giving weight to previously achieved consensus would be helpful. ike9898 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is worth noting that this is not exactly a new problem with Ibaranoff/Sugar Bear. See here. No comment beyond that. → ROUX ₪ 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Ike9898 has stated Mr. "Sugar Bear" is generally on the attack with anyone who disagrees with what he says(I believe he owes that user an apology as well.) These attacks should not continue, they are very uncivil. All I am asking for is a simple apology. That isn't much.RG (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ibaranoff just doesn't want to make an attempt at being civil. When me and User:LUCPOL have a consensus on the genres for a Sepultura album he changes them because he has his opinion(going against WP:CCC and WP:RS.) When he feels Kid Rock hasn't done any metal he removes metal from the box despite multiple sources(going against WP:RS.) Basically he believes what ever he says is right and frankly its unbecoming. RG (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been civil. You are the one acting against consensus and sources, and you are the one who is clearly attacking other editors who don't agree with you, because you aren't getting your way and you've decided to throw a temper tantrum. The edits I made have nothing to do with POV. They have to do with the sources. And it's extremely aggravating and insulting for a disgruntled genre-warrior who can't get his way to make charges that I have any opinion of an artist whose music I don't even like. You know very well that the sources, guidelines, and consensus of other editors are against you in every article you've edit-warred in. I owe no apology because I never breached Wikiquette. Edits like this are a clear case of Wikiquette breach - where Rockgenre accuses others of vandalism because they edit against his POV. Game over. RG, you lose. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Again with these attacks. "Game over. RG, you lose". This isn't a competition dude, calm down. He's even telling me to go away for heaven's sake. "I have been civil" I'm sure that's why multiple editors including Ike9898 have noted you as rude, right? RG (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've indef-blocked a user, Rossdegenstein (talk · contribs), because of edit warring and refusal to follow directions with properly citing census data. The user has an awkward communication style and has recently branched out into creating an alternate account.

Even though I'm reaching my WP:AGF limit, I really believe this user could be a productive member of Wikipedia. If nothing else, they could use someone to patiently explain what the issue was. I've tried, as have others, and it doesn't feel like we have gotten anywhere.

I'm reaching out, hoping that someone here on WQA can 'adopt' this user and see if they can demonstrate more civility and AGF than I've been able to. tedder (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His facebook profile is also quite confusing. Could it be that he's not able to write intelligibly and understand normal communication? --Jonund (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple theories about his communication issues but I don't want to elaborate here for privacy/libel/minding-my-own-business reasons. Someone with enormous patience and perhaps even experience with speech and language pathology might be able to work with him. He seems to want to update the population figures for various cities, but he's not citing his sources. If there's someone who wouldn't mind doing such a repetitive task, maybe s/he could do the edits for him. I just can't get that worked up about population data but I know some folks are into that stuff. Any takers? I guess this should be requested wherever folks request adoption. Do we do forced adoptions? Katr67 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to have the minimum competence necessary to be an editor. Fences&Windows 23:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I point out User:hopiakuta who's output is extremely strange, due to some problem, but they still make constructive edits. Anyway, I think it's clear that they're making these edits in good faith, and can communicate, but are simply unable to communicate at a normal level (simple english will probably get a better response). I'll drop this by Wikipedia:Adopt a user and see if anyone's willing to help. Swarm^(Talk) 08:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of hopiakuta in relation to this user, actually. Thanks for following up. Katr67 (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck

 – Gerardw (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk has deleted information from the article on Peace Now, in my opinion partly to push his POV. He is unresponsive to my arguments, scornful in his tone, accuses me of not understanding the concept of NPOV and refuses to discuss. I'm thankful for constructive input. --Jonund (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you justify "refuses to discuss"? It looks to me like there is a reasonable discussion at Talk:Peace Now, and I can't see that you've attempted discussion anywhere else. It also looks to me like, as Malik says, your edits have serious neutrality issues. You should perhaps be aware that Malik has a strong reputation as one of the few admins who can be effective in the face of the battleground mentality that dominates many Israel-Palestine articles. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you provide diffs of the specific contributions by Malik Shabazz you consider incivil. Gerardw (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to discuss WP:NPOV with somebody who doesn't understand why the use of words like "appalled", "disinformation", and "infiltration" in the encyclopedia's editorial voice is a POV issue. I don't think my comments were scornful or uncivil. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonund, I had a look at that article yesterday and it needs a lot of work. It doesn't even say what Peace Now's position is on various issues like the right of Israel to exist, that they advocate for a 2-state solution, how many members they have etc etc, basic facts. Why don't you actively demonstrate your neutrality by adding basic infomation like that rather than focusing on criticism ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on Talk:Peace Now, and it did not lack constructive elements, although some of my arguments were ignored. But then Malik withdrew from it, although there are open points, ascribing to me unability or unwillingness to understand the concept of NPOV. On this page, rather than discussing disagreements, he declares his unability to discuss.

A serious contribution, including explanation of the edit, was met with the comment "if you want to write an editorial of your own, start a blog", along with a revert that seems to be partly POV-pushing.[7] An earnest attempt at discussion returned, along with answers, the comment "if you want to write an article about how evil Peace Now is, write a blog."[8] It all ended with a refusal to either try to understand or to explain.[9]

I have experience of Malik, and his ways of running roughshod over his opponents by ignoring their arguments and deleting material that doesn't fit his POV are untoward to him.[10] That looks like the exact opposite of being "effective in the face of the battleground mentality" (which is not to deny that he behaves far better in many cases).

NPOV, in my understanding, means that all POVs are taken into consideration and together work out a version that all can agree about. That is how many good articles emerge. My experience is that where a constructive attitude reigns, a diversity of opinions is an asset, also when they are strongly held. Unfortunately, such an attitude isn't always present.

The suggestion to add some basic information to the article is a good idea, and I will consider it. At the present moment, I'm a bit discouraged but I hope I will overcome that feeling. --Jonund (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing Talk:Peace_Now#Changes_by_Malik_Shabbazz I'm not seeing personal attacks; I seeing disengagement from an editor who is not hearing well Gerardw (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your comment doesn't invite confidence in you. Your accusation of refusal to 'get the point' recoils on yourself. This is a place for constructive attempts at dispute resolution, not for joining POV-pushers in their dismissals of contributions by those who disagree with them. --Jonund (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I advice Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk to be more patient and answer all arguments. The discussion about Martin Luther King (where I weighed in with a couple of comments) showed that you are, at times, wanting in preparedness to consider opposing arguments, and I think the same problem is present now, at least to some extent. I hope you will seek a solution by consensus and not by force. --Årvasbåo (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonund, you wrote "NPOV, in my understanding, means that all POVs are taken into consideration...". This is the root of your misunderstanding: that's not what NPOV means. NPOV means that the information is presented from a neutral POV, not from multiple POVs. If it is necessary to describe the views of various parties, they must be explicitly attributed to the people who hold them. Looie496 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I expressed myself unclearly. I wrote in response to Sean Hoylands suggestion that I actively demonstrate my neutrality, which looked like a suggestion that all parties contributing to an article should be neutral. I think that's a misunderstanding of NPOV. Editors need not be neutral (on many subjects, neutrality is a vice rather than a virtue). Individual edits may well reflect the editor's view. But the resulting article should be POV. For instance, I may add material that I find important, and correct stuff that I react against, while Malik adds material he finds important and corrects things he reacts against. As a result the POV's cancel each other out. That's perhaps the most common way in which articles progress. Of course, there's also a need to discuss and reconsider one's edits. And we should never push our own POV at the cost of other's. --Jonund (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Every editor must at all times comply with WP:NPOV in their editing. The editor's personal POV shouldn't be relevant. NPOV is a core policy and is "absolute and non-negotiable". You are responsible for ensuring that your edits don't distort the neutrality of an article. You have to make sure that you balance postives and negatives etc. You can't rely on anyone else to do it. Even if you were allowed to work on the basis that NPOV is an emergent property of individually biased editors working together (e.g. someone else balances your edits, you balance theirs etc) it wouldn't work. Read about genetic drift to see why. What happens is 'fixation' where one POV dominates and may even eliminate others. There simply aren't enough editors working on any given article, discussing things, etc etc to be able to rely on neutrality emerging all by itself. It's major problem in the Israel-Palestine area of wiki because so many editors think it's okay to only make edits that advance their preferred POV whereas, in fact, it's inconsistent with a core policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the "dueling POVs" approach just doesn't work. It leads to articles written in the form "X is true. But some say X is false. Y is bad. But some say Y is good.", etc. The result is almost always unreadable junk. The only way to get a good article is for editors to be committed to neutrality from the start. Looie496 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and then there's the Israel-Palestine discretionary sanctions that make NPOV compliance even more strict and encourage editors to simply walk away if they can't be neutral...not that anyone ever does. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not been online for a couple of days, and to my surprise Looie has taken the opportunity to close the issue, claiming falsely that there is a consensus against my complaint. I don't know his/her motives to this action, but it certainly seems suspect.

As to the POV-issue, I wrote: "Individual edits may well reflect the editor's view. But the resulting article should be POV...And we should never push our own POV at the cost of other's." POV was, of course, a misspelling for NPOV. What I meant is, the article should be kept NPOV during its emergence, but that's possible also when various editors offer input informed by their POVs, as long as they don't push it at the cost of others' POV.

This premise is a huge advantage, as it activates many editors and tends to make articles grow in an impressive way. For instance, the article about Antony Flew has developed this way, making the part of it that deals with his revised views a good reading. Hopefully, the rest of the article will also develop, but for lack of "edit warriors" it goes slowly. 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy is an example of articles that have developed more completely, in the same way.

Furthermore, it's sometimes hardly possible to avoid POV-edits. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete recognizes that "Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias." Correcting one POV is often seen (and perhaps rightly so) as expressing the opposite POV. Demonstrating one's neutrality, as Sean would have me do, places the focus on the editor rather than on the article and disqualifies many, perhaps most, prospective editors.

What I want to stress is that a constructive attitude is always required. This was not present in Malik's edits. Interestingly, we get entangled in a disucussion about the meaning of NPOV, while Malik's lack of such an attitude is passed over. What does this say about the editors' neutrality? --Jonund (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was Shabazz wasn't being incivil. As WQA is non-binding, it's just the opinion of the editors who choose to respond. Sorry we were unable to help. Gerardw (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work in progress; comments welcome

• In a recent discussion at WP:DRV, User:Alansohn responded to a comment I made by suggesting that my comments constitute "threats": [11].
• I assumed that this was just a misinterpretation of what I meant, so I tried to clarify that I was making a prediction about what might happen in the future, and that it was in no way a threat: [12], [13].
• I asked Alansohn to withdraw that characterization of my comment after I clarified it: [14]
• Alansohn refused and restated that I had made "rather explicit threats" and (in the edit summary) that I had "a very vivid sense of paranoia": [15]
• User:Postdlf pointed out to Alansohn that I had not made a threat, just a prediction: [16]
• I confirmed what Postdlf said and again requested that the allegation of threat-making be withdrawn: [17]
• Alansohn refused for the second time and accused me of harassment and (in his edit summary) of trolling on his user talk page: [18]
• Outside third party views welcome. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Alansohn notified of this report: [19] — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This incident described by User:Good Olfactory above is merely the latest in a longstanding pattern of incivility, failure to assume good faith, personal attacks, and general hostility expressed by User:Alansohn at WP:CFD and WP:DRV. On repeated occasions and regarding multiple editors, he has made comments about the motive and conduct of commenters at both forums, turning content disputes personal and hostile. He also makes passive-aggressive general remarks about CFD and its participants that, while not expressly naming individuals, in the context of opposing others' comments can only be taken as personal attacks. This conduct is not incessant, and it is not the sum of Alansohn's contributions, as he is undoubtedly a valuable and prolific article editor and article vandalism fighter. But this conduct in discussion forums is recurring and longstanding, and it is a problem that needs a solution.

See also this recent thread on his talk page, which was the most recent substantive attempt by myself to try and bring these issues to his attention in a constructive manner, and has numerous relevant diffs of his recent conduct. His response, as can be seen there, is largely dismissive of complaints about his conduct and tone. He makes comments about other users and their intent, and then labels their criticism of those comments as trolling, threats, etc., or part of a clique of admins or CFD regulars who are apparently out to play games. I think everyone who has been affected by this has tried ignoring him, but it's difficult to let attacks go unanswered. I've been pondering an AN/I or an RFC for awhile on this, because there needs to be an end to this hostile atmosphere. postdlf (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this (combined with the broader issues) really needs to go to one of those other forums. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do enjoy how Postdlf and Good Olfactory are working together to manufacture a controversy. There is apparently no remark so trivial that it can not be used as fodder for further abuse of Wikipedia process. I'm still wondering where this imagined "incident" is. Alansohn (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a decent example of the tendencies outlined in Postdlf's comment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<Gaping yawn>. Is this the best you can manufacture? Even Eusebeus appears unimpressed. Alansohn (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is certainly in keeping with the editor's longstanding truculence. Alan can be quite ornery when he feels he is defending the interests of Wikipedia, and that, sadly, extends to an inability to admit ever that he is wrong in his language or manner of engaging other editors. I participated in an extensive User:RFC about Alan a while ago that detailed his more outrageous incivilities and he has improved his behaviour as a result considerably. In this instance, his response is so absurd on its face, I would simply dismiss the incident. Eusebeus (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These threats just go to show how little "consensus" at CfD has to do with what the community as a whole thinks. A little snarky? Maybe. Incivil? Not seeing it. It's a comment about the preceding comment not about an editor. Gerardw (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that it characterizes the preceding comment as a "threat". Perhaps others use English differently than I do, but I understand "threat" to carry a considerably more malicious flavour than "prediction" or something similar. Rather than that quote, however, the more salient points are the reaction that emerged after the request to remove the comment. Perhaps it's true that this was a minor incident in isolation, but it is indicative of an overall pattern, as roughly outlined above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I honestly don't see how Alan managed to turn such a benign comment into a big deal. While the incident alone is nothing to worry about, if it is part of a larger pattern of improper behavior, there is cause for discussion. Whether or not Alan is deliberately trying to cause trouble or made an incorrect interpretation of a comment and doesn't want to admit it, I don't know, but accusations of making threats (over comments that clearly don't do so), and referring to an editor as a "troll" when they try and respond to the accusation is both uncivil and, when occurring as a pattern of behavior, disruptive in the long term. Swarm^(Talk) 05:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I also note Good Ol'factory's numerous attempts to point out uncivil comments on Alan's talk page, which Alan seems to be ignoring. How long ago was this RfC? Swarm^(Talk) 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be something other than Eusebeus was referring to above, but see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes, a case closed in June 2008 that imposed editing restrictions on Alansohn upon a unanimous finding that he "repeatedly engaged in unseemly behavior, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith." He was blocked six times during the year the restrictions were in place (including by myself and by Good Ol'Factory) for incivility towards others. His comments that earned him the block the last time, though a while ago (April 2009), are rather illustrative of his continued attitude generally towards many CFD participants.[20] Since then, we and others have tried ignoring him and imploring with him, but the personal attacks, incivility, and failure to assume good faith continue.[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27]. And he continues to refuse to take any of these complaints seriously, instead calling them "trivial" and "attempts to manufacture knowingly false disputes".[28],[29],[30]. postdlf (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found the RFC, at the likely place: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn. postdlf (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• My view
  • Good Olfactory's comment could not reasonably be construed as a threat. Alansohn could've clarified that was how he interpreted Good Olfactory's comment, or ideally, admitted it was an overreaction by apologizing and refactoring. However, he is not obligated to change his reading, and there is little point pushing that issue as the claim he makes is so obviously absurd/foolish, and is certainly not widely held, let alone correct.
  • Alansohn is permitted to give notice and warn users that particular commentary will be deleted (other than block/ban notices) if it continues to appear on his talk page. Alansohn did so, but accompanied the notice with an accusation of harassment. Serious accusations require serious evidence; there was a failure to explain the (or provide evidence) of harassment by either Good Olfactory or Postdif towards Alansohn.
  • Alansohn has also continued to engage in uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or other gross inflammatory commentary: [31] [32] [33] [34]. Of the other diffs mentioned so far, these were the ones that I considered relevant.
  • Alansohn was previously under a civility restriction for similar conduct.
  • WQA cannot impose binding remedies. It is hoped, however, that Alansohn will make assurances to avoid repeating such conduct, and make those assurances mean something, so that this WQA may be marked resolved.
  • Alansohn was expected to avoid repeating the improper conduct for which he was previously sanctioned if he wished to continue participating at Wikipedia. Although there has been a significant improvement since the previous sanction, there is still further room for more improvement. Should he not make greater attempts to improve his commentary in the future, then as is standard practice, I'd urge that a sanction is (re)imposed on Alansohn. A sanction proposal may be discussed upon a request being made to the community at an administrators noticeboard, or alternatively, a request for amendment being filed to the Arbitration Committee. However, I hope that no such proposals will become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope so too; I've always retained hope that identifying these problems would prompt him to change. As an uninvolved third party, would you mind posting something along the lines of your comments above on his talk page, and then we'll go from there? postdlf (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done. Hope it all works out. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do too. Thanks for your time and helpful comments. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, thanks Ncmvocalist. It's clear from Alansohn's response on his talk page that he feels he's being persecuted, particularly by me. It would be helpful if some other less involved users provided him with some outside perspective and acknowledged that some of his behavior is not acceptable for normal human interaction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Good Olfactory and Postdlf, who have been directly involved in this conflict, have imposed blocks and threatened to impose blocks for various manufactured incidents, despite their rather clear and continuing conflict of interest. This pattern of harassment has continued despite rather clear changes in the tone that they have requested. Good Olfactory, in particular, has made an effort to actively misinterpret any form of communication, whether he was involved or not, and no matter how trivial, as some sort of personal affront. Just as you make the far clearer and ominous threat of some oogie-boogie "further sanction proposals", the word "threat" that has become the cause celebre here was rather clear as well; If the category in question was approved at DRV it would be deleted via CfD. This is a rather clear definition of the word "threat" as "an indication of something impending" straight out of Merriam-Webster. As such, your bad faith insistence that "Good Olfactory's comment could not reasonably be construed as a threat" is uncivil and unacceptable; I will not apologize or make changes for what you describe as Good Olfactory's "overreaction". Despite Good Olfactory's persistent and abusive efforts to shut me up, I will not be silenced. As has already been done, I will make further efforts to tone down my remarks so that even the most sensitive among us can not be rationally offended. Best regards, Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself (as usual) I'd appreciate that -- not that I thought your threat comment was that far down the incivility spectrum in the first place. Are we done here???? Gerardw (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll see. It will depend on how Alansohn acts in the future. I think one could be both simultaneously optimistic and pessimistic based on the content of his comment immediately above. But again, Gerardw, you seem to be overlooking the principal point, as has Alansohn, I think. The principal point was not the "threat" comment itself. It was the post-comment reaction when comments were left on his talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is we'll see some similar overreaction made into a mountain from a molehill, though we'll see how Good Olfactory acts in the future. If the issue is not your overreaction and misinterpretation of the word "threat", what is it? Alansohn (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about WP is it's really hard to make a mountain in a molehill all by oneself. The issue is the tendency of the editors involved to escalate, rather than de-escalate, the disagreement. Gerardw (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bring myself to WQA about an overreaction to and misinterpretation of the word "threat". My faith in the Wikipedia justice system is such that any escalation serves no purpose. I want this over, done with and archived. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question posed to me above, of more concern to me were the comments and edit summaries made at User talk:Alansohn. As I've said above my principal concern was not the "threat" comment itself. It was the post-comment reaction when comments were left on the user talk page. And now the comment to Ncmvocalist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My response to Alansohn is here. The answer to Gerardw's question (are we done here?) can only be answered based on Alansohn's response (if any) to my response. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Alansohn suggested here that no one had denied his accusation that I had blocked him in a situation where I had a conflict of interest. For the record I denied it here. I post this here because my comment was removed by Alansohn as "trolling". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have been asked by me and by Ncmvocalist to stay off of my talk page. Your refusal to do so is further evidence of trolling. Regarding your denial. Are you claiming that these blocks don't exist or are you claiming that you were not an active party to a conflict at that point in time in rather clear violation of WP:COI? I will be more than happy to show that an active conflict existed at the time of both blocks if you are to persist in this denial. Alansohn (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't asked Good Olfactory to stay off of your talk page, Alansohn. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I normally would not have made a comment there, but my silence was being used by Alansohn to impugn me, which is not acceptable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the sake of clarity, do you still dispute Alansohn's conflict-of-interest allegation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • To tell you the truth, I'm not so clear on what the allegation is. If it's that I blocked him for his behavior in a conflict in which I was an active party, then yes, I dispute it. If it's that I blocked him at a time when he didn't like me or held a grudge against me—I couldn't say. (The reason I'm unsure is that Alansohn has a history of making allegations against users and meaning one thing but using WP-style language that means something quite different. For instance, more than once he has said users are being "disruptive" in starting CFDs and proposing that categories be deleted. In these situations, I can only assume he means something different than "disruption" of the WP type.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The allegation is rather simple: Were you an active party to a conflict when you imposed not one but two blocks in the span of two weeks? Your tag team partner Postdlf has a fig leaf of imposing only one block, but with two in two weeks you're clearly in the middle of a conflict. Tell me how many diffs you need to prove that you were in conflict at the time and that you imposed the block in violation of your obligation to act honestly and independently, and I will be happy to provide as many as needed to prove otherwise. The word "threat" is a very real issue when you're willing to abuse administrative powers and then blithely deny the simple truth. Alansohn (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Will Alan admit he's in the wrong here? No. Is Alan going to change his pattern of behaviour? No. Will Alan continue to bandy around accusations of trolling, disruption, harassment and the like? Yes. However, I recommend closing this because I think it has served its purpose. In the event that Alan is placed on civility review, or some such similar, this WQA filing can be used to show the continued pattern of behaviour that we documented at his RFC, and later at the footnote case. One final point: I haven't had much opportunity to rise to Alan's defence. (In fact, Gol'f, Alan has long banned me from his talk page for my abusive pattern of vicious harassment and incessant trolling, so I am glad to be in such good company now.) But this originated with a pretty insignificant exchange that has escalated much further here and, while it shows the problem with the editor in question, Alan has agreed to moderate his tone in future. So I'd say we leave it at that and let Alan get back to doing what he does best - editing Wikipedia - and not provoke him by further engagement, which, Alan, I think you'll admit (no, he won't) is not your strongest suit. Eusebeus (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Alan currently, as previously, is overreacting to perceived slights with escalating incivility. This is extremely unfortunate, because Alansohn frequently has incisive perspectives worth consideration, but the incivility detracts from his message. Good Olfactory does sometimes respond with a curtness that is easily misread. I would urge Alansohn to continue to make his points, but to not engage in debating Good Olfactory. Typically, Alansohn is clear enough with his first statement, and if others express disagreement, the rest of us are perfectly capable of coming to our own reasoned judgment. Rarely have I seen Alansohns retorts (as opposed to his initial statements) add substance to a debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "These threats just go to show how little 'consensus' at CfD has to do with what the community as a whole thinks. I'm glad that this issue has been taken to a broader set of editors than the cloistered few who participate at CfD." Articles and categories are threatened with deletion when brought to AFD and CFD, why the fuss? The snarky part is not "threat" but the scare quotes around "consensus", and I agree with him. A CFD is much less participated in than an AFD, and just three votes can bring about a deletion at a CFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You wanted diffs? Here's an example of a recent edit: With such an immature attitude, I wonder how users become willing to give you the time and keystrokes to teach you. Whether it's your stubbornness or inability, it's clearly having a bearing on your lack of understanding as to why the distinction between uninvolved and involved is important, while the admin distinction is unimportant, in such a discussion. From moi? No. This is one of Ncmvocalist's most recent edits. A misinterpretation and overreaction to the word "threat" pales compared to this patent incivility on Ncmvocalist's part. Can we get an explanation for this one? And how about the warm and fuzzy What part about "do not edit others comments" do you not understand? Do you always act disruptively when you know that "you are involved and that it is not appropriate for you to edit uninvolved input that disagrees with you"? Such deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of this project will not tolerated if you ever touch my comments in any way outside of your userspace. at this edit. Is this the best example of civility from one who lectures others? Alansohn (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nmate permanently appears to have a problem with civility. He personally attacks me and other editors, many times reverted good faith edits without explanation and made false accusations of wikistalking.

Last personal attacks:

• Yopie, he needs to consult a doctor, seriously.
• Yopie is sick
• Needless to say what I think about Yopie
• It looks that Yopie needs to be humiliated by a community ban from editing wikipedia for indefinite time
• No need encouraging Yopie to make unconstructive edits

Last reverting without explanation:

• [35]
• [36]
• [37]

He reverted good faith talk in talk page as here [38].

He falsely accuses me and others of stalking:

• [39], but I was invited here [40] and here [41]
• [42] to Iaaasi
• [43] to Wladthemlat

He also accuse of sockpuppeting [44] and communicate in Hungarian in talk pages [45].

--Yopie (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA won't have any effect unless you notify Nmate of this thread. It's part of the process of starting a discussion, and we won't do it for you. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, before we go on, could you please leave a comment on their talk page notifying them of the discussion with a link? I think your evidence speaks for itself, so the primary purpose of this WQA would be for Nmate to hear other opinions of his behavior so that they might be more mindful of it. Swarm^(Talk) 21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done [46].--Yopie (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. In that case, let me say that Nmate's actions are extremely uncivil and are the antithesis of "Comment on content, not on the contributor." This name calling and these personal attacks are absolutely unacceptable. In addition, accusations of sockpuppeting and wikistalking are very uncivil and reverting without an edit summary and deleting others' comments on talk pages is disruptive. Together, this looks like a user with very problematic behavior. On top of this, Nmate's incivility has been the subject of past complaints at WQA, AN and ANI (a search of their username in the project space reveals this), and they have also received multiple warnings on their talk page regarding disruptive reverts. Nmate should really know better by now. This is at the point where if they want to avoid AN/I, they need to choose to stop this behavior and act civilly, now. Swarm^(Talk) 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the users involved in disputes with Nmate and want to inform that:

• I was accused by Nmate of Edit warring and, after a not very detailed analysis, I got, because of him a 48 hours block [47], even if the assumed edit war enemy recognized that my edits were made in good faith [48]. Not to say that Nmate had entered there by wikihounding and his only purpose was to revert edits, not to express a opinions. Me and Rokarudi were involved in the subject for a long time
• He made edits without giving reasons for his action, and when i tried to initiate a discussion [49], he replied "Go elsewhere.--Nmate (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)" (Iaaasi (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Nmate also accused Yopie of following him when entering the discussion [50], even if he joined the debate as a result of an information from his own talk page [51](Iaaasi (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm concerned about what I perceive as uncivil behavior from Alastairward aimed at me in a dispute over application of WP:V at Butters' Bottom Bitch. There's been an ongoing dispute over the inclusion of a cultural reference that is going nowhere and is in my view of me trying to offer compromises and with Alastair constantly reverting me. The core of the argument is disagreement of WP:V, but I feel that it's by now gotten personal with the edge aimed at me. My and another user's position is that this is a case where WP:V can't be applied strictly since there are mitigating circumstances. Alastair on the other hand believes that there is no room for compromises, with partial support from two other users.

The problem is that I feel that Alastair is forcing his own position on the article and disregarding the need for mutually respectful, multilateral discussion. I feel that Alastair is also doing this with needlessly belligerent and openly provocative methods:

• Alastair has made an open implication that I have been engaging in point-making[52] and despite my attempt to ignore it, it was repeated only about 12 hours later.[53] When I tried to point out that it was unnecessary to imply bad faith,[54] I got nothing but a cryptic answer that seemed to imply that I had made the accusation.[55]
• Despite knowing that I'm an experienced user Alastair has left messages intended for newbies (mixed with accusations of incivility) on my talkpage[56]. When I removed[57] what I felt was a pointlessly provocative gesture, it was followed by a rather accusatory misrepresentation of recent events.[58]
  • Later came comments like "If the veterans can't take onboard wikipedia policies, they shouldn't complain when they are reminded of them."[59]
  • User:Gigs commented the templating at Alastair's talkpage,[60] calling it "poor form", but from Alastair's reply I get the impression that the only option with Alastair is to keep reverting if things go against his opinions.
• I'm also concerned that Alastair is gaming the system when he openly admits that he'd rather keep reverting than continue discussion as long as it doesn't technically break any rules.[61]
• One of my recent attempt to introduce a compromise which would not violate WP:V have been promptly reverted with demands constantly placed on me to move discussion forward.[62][63][64][65]
• This follows a pattern of swift and unilateral reverts[66][67][68][69][70] that have been typical of my interaction with Alastair since I first edited the article. I've tried to bring up my concerns that Alastair is pushing his own interpretation of policy as objective truth. I've also complained about what I feel is a lack of interest in genuine consensus building with dissenting voices. Discussions can be found on Alastair's talkpage and mine, but I sense no mutual respect or will to acknowledge conflicting opinions.
• What really makes me think that Alastair is not aware that his particular interpretation of Wikipedia policies isn't set in stone is a reply to my explanation[71] on why I moved a citation from the middle of a sentence to the end of it: "No. Citations go where they're needed, if you have to cite mid sentence, do so." There's always room for debate on the placing of citations, but taking such a adamant stance on How Things Are Done isn't justifiable in a collaborative environment.

I'd just like to stress that it seems to me like Alastair is doing a good job in general, and that it's important to be vigilant when it comes to unreferenced speculation, particularly in pop culture articles. However, I think that his good-natured and usually positive zeal for verifiability has an unfortunate tendency to manifest itself in a touch of fanaticism when it comes to gray areas. I get the impression that upon first raising my concerns I was immediately placed in the same category as all previous "scrubbings" of trivia, speculation and perceived nonsense.[72] In the dispute between us, it seems also to be combined with a very swift dispencing of niceties and needlessly condescending behavior towards an experienced colleague.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and open up all those diffs in tabs, but it feels like this is just going to be a contest of bumper sticker arguments if I try to address each one.

This one. Having tried to add unverified information to the article, you then called into question the use of a comment from reliable third party source, by way of comparison with your own edits. It came across as "if he can do it why can't I".

This group of diffs, where I have asked him to discuss before putting his edits back into the article. Yes, I have asked him to discuss before putting information back into the article. I don't see how doing it in the opposite manner would help, I'm sort of lost with that one.

"I'm also concerned that Alastair is gaming the system when he openly admits that he'd rather keep reverting than continue discussion as long as it doesn't technically break any rules." I honestly don't see anything in this diff that supports what you said. I said that my opinion wasn't a lone one and that the policies and guidelines of wikipedia agreed with me.

This accusation (where he uses templates too no less) was in reference to this reversion. I spotted that the cite for a particular comment had suddenly moved position from mid sentence to the end. This wasn't just a simple "hit undo" reversion but an active bit of editing by Peter. It made it seem all of a sudden that a cite supported his entered information, when it did nothing of the sort. I found that suspect and I think fairly so.

Besides all of which, if Peter was interested in moving forward the discussion, he could have done better than to accuse both I and other editors of playing dumb (here and here.)

I have trimmed and pruned and cited a lot in the South Park articles, for well over a year and a half now I reckon. When the featured article drive passed through those articles, the information I had removed as uncited, speculation and what have you did not return, unless cited.

And no, I'm not a newbie and if anyone cared, they would see that my editing on wikipedia has considerably improved over the time I've spent here. I used to add trivia, uncited info and the like and bloody annoying it was too when I was reverted. All that's changed, and I welcome any investigation of such. Alastairward (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the perceived incivility comes solely from the content dispute itself, which is getting too heated, rather than an underlying behavioral issue with Alistairward. I don't believe either of you are trying to be uncivil or disruptive. Does that sound about right Peter? I think the best way to resolve the incivility issue would be to find a way to resolve the content dispute that is getting heated. That being said, in my opinion, an important way to resolve a dispute is compromise, and if this isn't working, seek a third opinion. Since this obviously isn't working, try taking it to the original research noticeboard for some more opinions regarding the matter. Regards, Swarm^(Talk) 03:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the summary, Swarm. I agree that I've seen no deliberate attempts to insult, but I'm still concerned about the attempts to "trump" consensus discussion by rigid application of certain policy interpretations. I don't believe Alastair has actually acknowledged the mitigating issues brought up or that he has tried to discuss them in earnest. I'll take this to the OR noticeboard and see if it can get us to move forward. In the mean time, I'm introducing another attempt at compromise in the article[73] which I hope will be allowed to stand at least until after the next round of discussion.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards that edit, compromise implies discussion, which we just haven't had. Peter has never explained exactly the importance of this "fact" to the article. Or what is wrong with an informative, fully cited article that he keeps reverting. Alastairward (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On The True Furqan in edit summaries, and Talk:The True Furqan, he is repeatedly accusing me of "vandalism" and "censorship" for what is good faith editing to improve the article. He is certainly free to disagree with the edits, but vandalism or censorship they are not; such baseless accusations are rather uncivil. Furthermore, rather than seeking to engage in constructive discussion of my (and other editors) concerns with his preferred version of the article, he just keeps on restoring it. --SJK (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a WQA matter. The article is an atrocity and Frank777w (talk · contribs) is an SPA devoted to maintaining it in its atrocious state. I am going to bring this up at WP:FTN in hopes of getting additional eyes on the article. Looie496 (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True the article isn't a WQA matter but the "vandalism" accusations are. Gerardw (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is indeed an atrocity and has been tagged with multiple issues for many months. Such issues are usually not dealt with without some major changes. We all understand this. I'm not sure if this is an issue of incivility per se as much as it is an issue with Frank refusing to understand why the article needs such changes. This is a matter where WQA can help, but a discussion on this page probably wouldn't help as much as contributing our opinions to the talk page where the conflict is taking place. Swarm^(Talk) 02:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the Third Opinion Wikipedian who gave the Third Opinion in the page being discussed here. Though I agree the page as edited by Frank777w is wholly unacceptable (and said as much in my opinion), I'd like to defend Frank himself. I've gone over his user contributions and don't see a SPA or someone to who WP:IDHT probably applies, but instead someone to whom WP:BITE should still be applied: someone who is attempting to edit in good faith, but who is genuinely having a problem figuring out what WP is all about albeit after having had a number of opportunities to do so. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TransporterMan, I've got nothing personal against him. And I'd have to add, he's no longer using incivil language, which is why I brought it up here. So from the perspective of this page, we can consider the issue closed. But he's still edit-warring though, constantly reverting to his version despite multiple editors agreeing my version is better. (Not that my version is perfect by any means, just it's more encyclopedic.) He's obviously very interested in the topic (much moreso than I am), so I think if he could be convinced to contribute in a constructive manner it would be very beneficial - e.g., stick with the pruned version of the article, and then add back in material from reliable secondary sources. But that's not what's happening right now. --SJK (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Lycaon has accepted the complaint and apologized. --Swarm^(Talk) 02:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have bitten, following an Accusation of Vandalism Here; any neutral input to help us get back to consensus editing would be gratefully appreciated. CyrilThePig4 (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing the edit as vandalism is definitely uncivil. And using twinkle to do so is a policy breach Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Reverting. Gerardw (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case it isn't clear to other contributors, there's an ongoing dispute between leaving that page as a disambiguation page or having it redirect. That being said, I'm not sure what Lycaon was thinking when they reverted that as vandalism. Perhaps they can explain why they did that here? Swarm^(Talk) 20:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on the worst problem here, the most important thing is that CyrilThePig4 has been edit-warring against mutiple other editors by repeatedly making this change without getting consensus. That is considerably wronger than the "vandalism" characterization (which was, however, not the right thing to do). CyrilThePig4 is advised that continued edit-warring can result in a block even if it does not amount to more than three reverts within 24 hours. I have undone Cyril's latest revert. Looie496 (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lycaon's explanation here. Swarm^(Talk) 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, after some thought, I believe Lycaon's accusation of vandalism was still uncivil. CryilThePig's reverts should have stopped after it was clear that their preferred version was controversial, but Cryil's actions certainly do not constitute blatant vandalism as Lycaon claims they are. Characterizing someone as a vandal, though disruptive they may be, serves to do nothing but inflame the situation. Next time you see someone you feel is being disruptive, Lycaon, I recommend that you assume they are trying to help the project, not hurt it, rather than assuming they are intentionally trying to disrupt and damage the project (which would be blatant vandalism). This is blatant vandalism. This is blatant vandalism. This is blatant vandalism. Edit warring between a redirect and a disambiguation page is not blatant vandalism. Swarm^(Talk) 01:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, sorry about that, got carried away. On many small wikis this would've been vandalism, on enwiki you're used to the more heavy stuff ;-). Let's call it a disruption then. Lycaon (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we call the matter settled??? Gerardw (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm concerned, yes. Lycaon (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am rapidly reaching the limits of my tolerance with User:Off2riorob, who after a previous Wikiquette alert and a discussion at AN/I has followed me to an article he or she does not edit to make personal attacks: "COi, is an essay, it is not big deal, there appears to be a lot of opinionated discussion here on the talk page, wikipedia is not an excuse to assert negatively on people that would intellectually eclipse us."

Is there any reason for this type of behaviour? Or any reason why Off2riorob gets away with it repeatedly? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absolute rubbish report, the comment was not even directed at this User. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who was it directed at? Gerardw (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo. Look at the indent levels. → ROUX ₪ 22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So O2rr was saying that Jimbo Wales is intellectually inferior to Aubrey de Grey or me? Look at the comment and the user's history, not the indent levels. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So incivility is okay if it's directed at Jimbo? Gerardw (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You have completely misread the statement. O2rr was saying that WP:COI is only an essay and thus has no binding force/is not a big deal, and that we can't use Wikipedia as an excuse to attack others. → ROUX ₪ 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was accused, by Jimbo Wales no less, of possibly attacking the subject of the article. That's the context. I had apologised profusely for any misunderstanding. There was absolutely no need for an uninvolved editor with a history of confrontation directed towards me to comment. Off2riorob, who has in the past accused me of stalking, just happened by the article to make a comment on the only person (me) accused of "asserting negatively on people" and proceeded to comment on my intellectual status: Aubrey de Grey "would intellectually eclipse" me. Is it OK, in your opinion, for Off2riorob to follow me about and make baiting comments? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would behoove you to node O2rr's statement above; the comment was not even directed at you. Ergo he was not baiting you. And frankly, de Grey would eclipse all of us, I suspect. → ROUX ₪ 22:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me that O2rr, who has had me in the crosshairs for weeks, just happened to show up and just happened to make a statement that could only apply to me, and furthermore that now I must take his word that it was all a big coincidence and had nothing to do with me? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, clearly I am an idiot and unable to read English. Thank you for clarifying matters. → ROUX ₪ 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found O2rr's comment unhelpful, and its poor wording would only inflame the situation (which it did). Verbal chat 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randy2063 has a long record of incivility, aggressiveness, and disruptive editing. He is regularly involved in drawn-out, heated disputes with other editors, primarily over what he calls "anti-Americanism"[74], mostly in articles related to the United States, terrorism, and U.S. foreign policy. See, for example, Talk: Human rights in the United States and Talk:War crimes committed by the United_States, and most of his edit history for that matter.

Numerous editors have attempted to contact him, and ask him to be civil and calmly work on articles, and to refrain from arguing with other editors about his personal opinions. (see [75], [76], and [77], for example), and have attempted to go through formal mediation with him([78], [79]), all to no avail.

He continues to be aggressive, sarcastic, and writes long POV/OR rants on talk pages (see his talk page history for example).

I support at least a temporary, if not a permanent, community ban on him for his repeated disruptive and uncivil behavior. I understand that this noticeboard cannot impose or enforce such a ban, but I wanted to gather more opinions on this before taking further steps.

146.187.151.57 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (writing anonymously to avoid harassment)[reply]

Please notify user on their talk page. Gerardw (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 64.183.151.210 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reject those claims. Some of those are about lengthy discussions in which I was only one player. In fact, I said a good deal on those talk pages because I didn't want to do any disruptive editing. In many cases, I simply left when the consensus had concluded.

Moreover, it has been shown that my view on this is the same one shared by The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the BBC for their own reporting. As the NYT public editor explains, they do not render a judgment as to whether or not CIA interrogation was "torture" in the legal sense. Why should Wikipedia have lesser standards for NPOV than than those publications?

And if I share the NPOV standards of the NY Times, then why am I the one who gets called out?

As for civility, I think I've been reasonable. I've been editing here for five years on some very contentious topics.

Most of those cites were where I've disparaged the subject of an article or source, and not another editor. Complain about that if you like, but I'm not the one trying to call people "war criminals" in articles when a really objective newspaper would not. That's a BLP violation we'd see a lot more of if not for me.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing a lot of normal rhetoric on talk page but nothing jumps out as particularly incivil. Diffs would be good. Gerardw (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been called uncivil right here. (Just above that, actually.)

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was asking the anonymous editor of specific diffs where you (Randy2063) was incivil Gerardw (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, Randy's behavior is very passive aggressive and his problem is more of an overall pattern of edits, rather than blatant incivility specific diffs are generally to narrow in scope to demonstrate his problem behaviors. But here are a few that do.

In addition to the article that Randy2063 just linked to, where he seems to currently be embroiled in his latest argument, and those that are listed above by the OP, here's several more:

• [80] -- see links pertaining Randy2063
• [81] -- "Not surprisingly..." ... "The bottom line is, would making this connection be honest? I say no. We know too much right now for these kinds of leaps to be useful in any manner that tries to maintain integrity." ... Then consider that much of this article was inspired by a politician during an election year. That's pretty pathetic. ... It's patently obvious ... Are you serious? Is it truly your position that... ... Why allow a deliberate distortion of the truth?, etc. -- note the sarcastic, passive aggressive tone here. This is what I mean by "overall pattern". Each of these taken alone might be just taken as him being a little too sarcastic, and minor assumptions of bad faith. But once someone uses passive aggressive, weasel-wordy, sarcastic language like this consistently in his/her interaction with other editors, I believe it to be a problem with civility.
• [82] -- "What's to be gained if readers don't take this article seriously? ... that's IRRELEVANT AND DECEPTIVE.You are using the label "non-partisan" to make it appear as though the ISS is a neutral observer. It is not. NOBODY believes Julian Bond is an objective judge of the facts surrounding Katrina. Got that? NOBODY. To label the ISS as "non-partisan" serves only to blur the facts. Blurring the facts is not what we're supposed to be doing here. ... You're right only in that it's a complete waste of time trying to reason with you. ... Perhaps they'll be like you and believe that an organization started by Julian Bond is objective. ... Did you even read what I said? ... They're loons. ... The fact that they were founded by Julian Bond should tell you enough. ... But if you want to sit with a smile on your face imagining that everyone who reads this article is going to be fooled by the word "nonpartisan" then you'd better think again. Some people will be fooled. Others will read about Julian Bond and start laughing at you. ... also note how User:Viriditas repeatedly tried to explain Wikipedia policy to Randy2063 and was ignored. Randy2063 was more interested in arguing, as usual.
• [83]: see his comments about "covering up history" and responses. As in the links above and below, Randy consistently uses ad hominem attacks, and makes claims that editors are "covering up history", and fails to assume good faith. It is abrasive and uncivil to claim that because someone doesn't agree with you, that they are trying to mislead people and cover up history.
• [84] -- "That may be how it is in the movies", etc.
• [85] -- what do you think this editor meant by "so you know what to expect" ... why is it that so many editors seem to have a problem with him, and expect problems with him before a conversation even begins? ... why do you think that this editor considers him to be a troll?
• [86] -- Seriously, no one who supports this guy ever cared about "civil rights". But if you want to quote him as some kind of authority, then please go right ahead. The more these articles are pumped up with glaringly obvious agit-prop, the more complete a picture we get of the critics of the war. They never tell their friends either that they need to respect the Geneva Conventions. ... Every fascist who's been detained claims he was tortured. Even the hunger-striking Islamists that the Canadians detained say that. ... They may have gotten it from one of his sleazy lawyers ... Yee is the camp's angry ex-chaplain who's currently spreading hatred of the U.S. His incitements may not be as likely to have gotten people killed as Begg's but he's in the same dark league. ... is beyond parody. ... It's true that we can only infer how his war stories are being received by his fellow jihadis, but it sounds rather obvious to me. ... can you at least say with a straight face that you personally believe it to be true?

... that should provide at least a taste of his pattern of disruptive behavior. Picking a page at random from his talk page history will most likely demonstrate more arguments, etc.

But most importantly, if you look at the links that the original poster placed above, you can see an overall pattern by looking at Randy2063's talk page history where he consistently writes long rants about his personal viewpoints on talk pages, using language such as "fascists", "terrorists", and "leftist anti-Americans", etc., misrepresenting editors' viewpoints, and generally dealing with other editors sarcastically, argumentatively and abrasively. Look at his talk page history. Notice the amount of time he is spending arguing with other editors. Notice the repeated suggestions from numerous editors that he stop ranting about his POV, provide reliable sources ([this discussion] or the end of this section, for instance), and stop doing original research. The fact that numerous editors have seen the same exact problems with him, probably demonstrates that there is some kernel of truth to them. --66.225.4.6 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – edit warring, not incivility. Gerardw (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few of editors myself included are having difficulty engaging constructively with Keepcalmandcarryon on the Whittemore Peterson Institute. She recently backed out most of three days of work by three editors including some 35 changes to the article and the accompanying 30 comment posts on the talk page with some 5,000 words of discussion, in a single mass revert, justifying her decision not to respond to the previous points with this terse statement [87]. OK, it's bit unusual and inconsiderate to the other editors and I could live with this. However a number of these changes relate to issues where checking the RSs indicate that the content fails WP:V, and this editor refuses to engage constructively in these discussions and justify her logic in mapping the RS to the content. I just don't know how to work constructively with such an editor when she flouts Wikipedia policies. I have documented these issues in the talk page.

Things has come to a head with this flame: [88] where she described a text that I quoted (from the lead author of a recently published paper in Science) thus:

[the text] "must be presented accurately, not in a slapdash and scientifically inaccurate manner"

(and I had responded, BTW).

She does a lot of valuable work on other pages, but it is very difficult to work with an editor who won't accept that changes to meaning or pulling in inferences from other (often unnamed) sources constitutes constitutes breaches to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH and whose main response is to redo her text without engaging in sensible discussion, often just repeating her original explanation. Have a scan of the last three sections: 08 February 2010 edit summaries onwards, and the history for the page and talk, and you'll see what I mean. -- TerryE (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing edit warring and lack of consensus, not incivility. I've left comments on article and the user's talk page. Gerardw (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting this here because there are several issues with the editor Jaredkunz30 (talk). He made drastic and controversial edits to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, removing reliably sourced information and replacing it with unsourced information that contradicted the sourced info. When I reverted these edits, he began to make personal attacks against me. I pointed him to WP:NPOV and WP:RS and explained that it would be more in line with the guidelines to present his views (with sources) as representative of the Mormon view while leaving the mainstreak view in place, but he has said that he does not care about sources or the site's NPOV policy. He has blanked his talk page of the generously numerous warnings he received for violating the NPOV policy and for making personal attacks. He then went to the Archaeology and the BoM talk page and lied about his actions and mine, and when other editors said that he should not have made the edits he did, he became uncivil to them. He made a reasonable post asking if a source he was planning to use is acceptable, and I did my best to find how the source could work under WP:RS and explain why the source couldn't be used in particular ways, but he began to make personal attacks again. I will state again: he has blanked his talk page (as can be seen here), so the warnings do not show on his current page. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify user of the WQA. Gerardw (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How dare he!? I find it uncivil to label me as uncivil and to purport that I don't have strong feelings and high respect for NPOV, RS etcetera, but I am a forgiving soul, so I will be nice to Ian.Jaredkunz30 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen, I have. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the personal attacks are uncalled, as is the edit warring. Jaredkunz30, please be civil in discussions with other editors and achieve consensus before making further edits to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a civilian. I can be civil. I will try to behave myself better, mostly because Gerard asked nicely saying "please" and because I like his name. I have made no more so-called "personal attacks". A real personal attack from me would hurt a lot worse than the joking around I did with Ian. It's all good. All hail to the wikipedia civility police! May they live long and prosper...civilly of course (Nanu nanu).Jaredkunz30 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly named called anyone who did not agree with you. Upon seeing on my userpage that I identify as a Christian and consider that to be important to my identity, without bothering to understand my thoughts or beliefs at all, you started insisting that I am not a Christian, denying that I am what I believe myself to be before anything else. How could I not take that as a personal attack? How can you call that a joke? And why is it that when you violated the rules and multiple users told you that you were violating them you didn't stop, but when you finally were reported, you stopped? I have no reason to believe this is something other than an attempt to avoid punishment instead of honest remorse. I forgive you, but that doesn't mean that I understand your actions nor do I have to accept that you're actually sorry. A look at your talk page's history shows that you are unconcerned with breaking rules (otherwise you would hve stopped after a few warnings), just so long as you do not get in trouble (which the level 4 warnings for NPOV and civility pointed to). I'm not saying that you can't reform, but I'm skeptical. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jared, sarcasm doesn't help anything. Your edits were unconstructive, and that's something you should accept rather than insulting the editor who has to undue your edits. civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and should always be observed whether you agree with someone or not. Furthermore, comments on contributors, such as the ones you made to Ian, are inappropriate and not tolerated. You also don't seem to understand the purpose of this board. Essentially, it provides outside opinions of one's behavior, and if someone is acting inappropriately, hopefully convince them to change their behavior. This isn't a joke. I advise that you try and be more civil so further means of dispute resolution don't need to be taken. Thanks, Swarm^(Talk) 02:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaredkunz30 has stated on my grafitti page that he is going to continue in his behavior: "I'm going to keep after this, warnings and all." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And he states Who knew there were such scribes and pharisees out here in this day? I'm going to keep after this, warnings and all. I've read all the rules and nobody can block you unless you do something really horrendous repeatedly. Don't worry about it, just assume he'll be better; if not, and he continues to disrupt WP, report him again: eventually one of these folks will put him on this list.Gerardw (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Keep an eye on him and if he causes any more disruption, report to WP:ANI. If he's not here to be a constructive encyclopedist there's no reason to continue to put up with him. Swarm^(Talk) 03:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a considerable time now, I (and other editors) have been the recipient of numerous personal attacks by user:Tom Reedy. We are on opposing sides of an ongoing debate contained in the article Shakespeare authorship question. Tom represents the Stratfordian side, and myself the anti-Stratfordian side. As a result things often get heated. Unfortunately, in spite of being warned on numerous occasions about the policies against personal attacks, he continues to make disparaging remarks and invective against myself as well as ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with his position.

• Here are 3 near identical postings he left today: [[89]], [[90]], and [[91]].

• And only yesterday he stated "That confusion seems to be endemic with anti-Strats, which cause me to think that there's some kind of common cognitive connection that predisposes them to becoming anti-Stratfordians." contained in this edit: [[92]].

• Yesterday he also accused me of having someone write my edits for me "Yet somehow you have the time to make sweeping changes (or consult with someone to write them for you, because I think I recognize that style)" contained in this edit [[93]].

• I have removed his attacks and insults in the past - [[94]], [[95]], and his posting of personal information [[96]], as well as his accusations against other users [[97]].

• All of the above diffs came after a plea to stop this kind of behavior [[98]].

• As for ad hominem attacks against anti-Stratfordians in general, I will only list one (of many) -[[99]].

I respectfully request assistance in this matter. Smatprt (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify user on their talk page. Gerardw (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Smatprt (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]