This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

This editor, 68.202.187.160 ( talk · contribs), for a good part of a month posted edits that were too trivial and irrelevant on the Weekend Today article. After seeing that his edits were removed, he resorted to profanity and foul language to voice his anger which he posted publicly on that article for everybody to see, as scene right here on this link [ [1]] . I had already remove this obscene edit. To say the very least, this particular action by this editor is unprofessional, uncivil and definitely unacceptable here on Wikipedia. I would appreciate an administrator take a look at this and hand down the appropriate action on this anon. Thank you very much. Fourviz ( talk) 06:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If you need an admin, you must ask for help at WP:ANI. This page is for problems that are potentially solvable by friendly feedback, and often admins don't even look at it. Looie496 ( talk) 20:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like vandalism containing attacks. — Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Which means that it's a manner for WP:AIV-- SKATER ^Speak. 18:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Belongs at ANI if anywhere. Looie496 ( talk) 20:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am kindly asking an Administrator to look into the matter. If this is not the right place to ask this, please help me. The pages concerned are Discussion Pages: Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom), Talk:Alexander the Great, Talk:Cyril and Methodius. On these pages I already complain about the following:

1. I am experiencing violation of the neutrality policy on the pages on Macedonia (designation of the Alexander The Great as a "Greek king" (ethnic designation), when he was simply Macedonian king (state - political designation which is accepted as neutral), designation of Cyril and Methodius as Greeks (which is ethnic designation and not neutral) when it is only certain that they were Byzantines (again belonging to a state is neutral). (This is self evident from the discussion.)

2. In addition the problem is that even the administrator accepts the explicit propaganda material which is compiled from the nationalist sites (which I cited in Cyril and Methodius talk page), in spite of my warnings and full information where they certainly were copy-pasted from. This propaganda material has been used by number of editors who act overtly in concordance: “Anothroskon” and “GK1973” on many occasions. The persons have not been even warned by the administrator who unfortunately ACCEPTED the propaganda material as valid. The administrator is Tom Harrison who said: “Wherever the collection of references came from, they are individually reliable sources. They say "Greek." Tom Harrison Talk 19:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)”. I offered 600 references (not full list of course, just a link, on 8 March) that say Byzantine (and indicated that there are equally numerous references that do not state anything at all – what I endorse also), and gave a link for about 600 references that state “Greek”, but as I mentioned, these are references of lower quality. To mention “Byzantine” is only certain (they were citizens of Byzantium) and neutral (ethnic denomination is avoided), so satisfying the criteria of Wikipedia.

3. And, unfortunately, I have been exposed to insults from GK1973 in various forms in the last 3 months. He/she was calling me all sorts of names, ignorant, copy paster, false intellectual, he/she was responding with “.blah blah, blah blah...” to my comments, or with similar insulting mockery. The person has unfortunately not been even warned by the administrator Tom Harrison.

4. That person (I refer to GK1973) dumped on my Talk 30 pages of material and dumps similar quantity of unreferenced affirmations on the discussion pages.

5. I am afraid to have to say that I suspect sock-puppeting on the part of Simanos, GK1973, Ptolion, Antipastor, Athenean, Taivo and may be couple of others. They ALWAYS agree on pushing Greekness of everything what happens on Balkan Peninsula (this is even Greek peninsula for them, even when talking about central Balkan regions) but they, I have a strong feeling, regularly dissimulate slight and insignificant disagreements. For example I offered the most reputable references (Encyclopedia Britannica 2010, the most reputable linguist, Byzantine Historian, recent medieval encyclopaedia, stressed the neutrality (to state the citizenship and not ethnic belonging). The response was refusal in concert without supporting sources but instead backed by the obvious propaganda material which I showed to be 20% false, and in general of low scientific value as compared to the references that I offered repeatedly. And this and similar interventions have been happening for the last 3 months. I think that the sock-puppeting must be investigated.

I would greatly appreciate help from an independent patient administrator. Thank you very much indeed. Draganparis ( talk) 17:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask for help from an administrator -- the place to do that is WP:ANI. But my advice to you is to just drop it -- when one editor is in a dispute with five other editors and an administrator, the one editor is never going to win. Looie496 ( talk) 20:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Draganparis ( talk) 16:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Chavdar Likov, known as User: Mad Hatter was noticed by me on March 1, 2010 to be engaging in clean-up edits with User: Harout72. A comment he made here makes a reference to me using illegal drugs, which is very far off from what I do being the son of two highly respected and wealthy physicians. It was crude commentary that shouldn't be welcome on Wikipedia. This comment by Harout72 "slightly" bothered me as he shouldn't have made any further reference to it, even if my response to User: Mad Hatter on his talk page bothered him: "Does this mean I should start believing in Mad Hatter's first statement/suggestion in this section?" I have recognized the two users as a duo edit articles sufficiently, but "snap" at other users' additions. Whether or not the users add sources to their additions, in my eyes I saw it as insulting and belittling to these other users the terminology used to refer to them. I believe the actions taken by him towards other users inclusions prove to me his lack of civility. They are listed here: [2] [3] [4] [5]. This user has been previously gotten into severe trouble and began to make a large amount of removals to the Backstreet Boys article from January 31 to February 12, 2010. This user made these changes in an abrasive manner and needs to be called on by his behavior. Signed by James-- Carmaker1 ( talk) 05:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I am well within my right to speak to an administrator about my concerns if I believe two users are the same person, but that does not excuse Mad Hatter's terminology at all. You were referred to and I didn't see you label me in the same manner. That's one example of self-control.Signed by James-- Carmaker1 ( talk) 02:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You accused me of Sock puppetry and destabilisation of Wikipedia. All I did is to make a joyful exclamation and to back-up Harout. And that's what I am still going to do. I am backing up Harout. You don't deserve anything but contempt for what you do and what you say. It's because of persons like me and Harout that Wikipedia is moving. Because of persons like you who acuse blindly and without any kind of heart Wikipedia is stalling. I don't care if you do illegal drugs or not. I am doing them, that's my concern. All I care is not to be acused blindly and without any kind proof and righteousness. If you don't have anything to say beside "You are rude and deserve to be spanked" you deserve nothing but contempt. I may be rude and offensive, but at least I am not a bad person. You are nothing but trouble and you don't deserve to edit Wikipedia. I have done a lot more work than you have and I have proven that I am capable editor. I might get blocked or get a warning but I don't care about it. All I want is to be left alone from some kind of freaky boyish wannabes. And that's all I need to know.

Regards: The Mad Hatter ( talk) 12:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you are not being useful by your remarks at other users. You behaviour needs to be handled, as it isn't acceptable. I can't speak for whether or not you are a bad person in everyday society, but I'm surely unconvinced by your actions. Like I said before, I AM WELL WITHIN MY RIGHTS to bring to the attention of others any issues I recognize! Things are solved that way, rather than fighting with you. You are obviously still not realizing that it is better to not say/type certain things to keep a clean record, even though you don't have one. Harout72 hasn't warranted any reason for me to report his commentary, so why have you then? Your recent and previously unreported actions have led me here. Realize that and stop deflecting blame.--- Carmaker1 ( talk) 17:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Carmaker1

I don't care who you are or what your agenda is, mister. I don't care your upbringing and your personal history for me is irrelevant. The fact that you are nature's mistake of two wealthy physicians doesn't ring a bell to me. And you see, I don't give a shit about this. You accused me of sock puppetry (see this) and destabilizing Wikipedia. It is I who should be reporting this matter, not you, you douche, because of your delusional thinking and methods of work here! I don't give a shit about whether you are offended by my remarks. Seriously it has gotten too far! So, it has got to come to an end. Because I am equaly offended by your sheer lack of any reason and lack of moral thinking. Who are you to acusing me of Sock Puppetry?! Who are you to refer me in ofensive manner that I am destabilizing Wikipedia?! Who are you to minimize my edits and my contributions including Harout72 contribitions? Not to mention the fact that you in first place started destabilizing Backstreet Boys article, inserting unsourced release-date into the article of Backstreet Boys, meantime removing highly reliable sources and replacing them with Google search like sites, see this for example. Who are you to critisize me and report me here when all you've done is critisize, destabilize and remove serious hard work done by me and Harout72? How about that? Straps yourself boy, because you called it and that's the answer! I am sure administrators will be notified about you! What the hell can happen for me? I've been banned for a whole week, because of dealing with the types like you around here. So, in fact I am not scared of this so called "reprimanding", in fact I am welcoming it. And no, I am not going to apologize to you, you perverted version of a person. If I have to apologize that would be to a higher authority. That's all.

Regards to Harout72. Thanks for defending me man against this wannabe: The Mad Hatter ( talk) 20:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that you have just proved Carmaker1's point. I don't know if you did this on purpose, or you really don't take civility seriously. I don't think that you have made many allys with this comment at all. Sorry, but it seems that Carmaker1 is right.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 20:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not here to make ally with anyone. The only probably true friend from here have been and always will be is Crestville. Do you think that I don't know what you got me into? Because you always raise hands and say act civil, oooh, you are not behaving well. I deserved to be spanked, don't I? Well, sometimes you can't handle it. Think about it. Do you act civil, does this wannabe-hipster act civil? When he does not act civil and acuse me of Sock Puppetry and destabilizing Wikipedia, when all these 6 years I have been working my ass off for the glory of Wikipeida - then sorry man - I just can't take it and act civil. If you have nothing meaningful to say, stand aside. Beside "you are not civil, Mad Hatter", there's gotta be something else that can be said. If that's all - I don't see any reason to discuss it further. I've said all I wanted.

Regards: The Mad Hatter ( talk) 20:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should move on and find another hobby. I'm sorry if that sound a bit obtuse, but wikipedia should be about working together to create better articles. Incivility only creates more tension, and that tension only leads to more incivility.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 23:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be glad to act civil. If only Carmaker1 appologize sincerely for what he said, then I might look in my heart for civility. However, I have to tell you that Wikipedia is not about working together. Wikipedia is about working alone on something you find meaningful. Chances are high that you will be working with loners and share the same identity. Wikipedia is about finding one true love through articles and creating better encyclopedia. I am not working with anyone around here. Only perhaps Crestville was working closer with me and shared the same knowledge and formality in editing articles. That's what about working here is for me. Not getting those hypocritical barnstars you like to give yourself. It is about working alone on stranger tides and finding something meaningful. To return to the question. If Carmaker1 obliges and gives full appology to me, Harout72 and everyone involved in this farce, then I might turn around and start acting differently towards the boy. Since then, I've nothing further to say. I've pointed all the instances where this user has repeatedly and constantly harassed me and offended me. So, the best will be is to stay tuned and see how it goes.

Regards: The Mad Hatter ( talk) 11:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is so clear where Mad Hatter stands. Harout72 referred to what I had been doing as damage/vandalism, but neither of us called each other names or said derogatory remarks. The fact of how I checked Mad Hatter's past history with other users is what brought me here to report this, in addition to his remarks towards me. I have dealt with difficult users in the past and have ignored them, but this is a case that needs the issue neutralized effectively. I absolutely REFUSE to apologize to User: Mad Hatter after reading his recent comments and I suggest he mind what he types or risk having a more severe report filed, plus other consequences.

As for Mad Hatter, you are in no place to give regards in your signatures when your commentary does the opposite. Many users have been accused of sock puppetry and sometimes have even been unfairly blocked, even IF they are INNOCENT in some cases. Most of them DO NOT even make the kind of commentary you have made or get away with it if they do. It is very clear that you haven't been harassed by ANYONE, only pointed to in third opinions. Your sense of character shows you do not possess any morality or positive reasoning at all. If you believe your idea of reasoning is threatening users and alienating people from editing an article, then I really suggest that you look up WP:OWN. Two people cannot domineer the additions/removals to a page and choose whether or not they personally approve the other sources provided by other editors. That is clearly what you did in the first half of February and luckily had Harout72 fix up things. The only issues I had with Harout72 were incorrect dates, rejecting the additions of others with provided sources, and not being impartial. Other than that, he's a decent person who mistakenly sought to control a page and only has good faith for Wikipedia. You'll have to earn my respect to have it given back against your poor civility. For being on here 6 years, your attitude doesn't say much of you. By the way, I'm sure my high ranking and usefulness in society reminds many I encounter that I'm hardly a "waste of nature" or a "wannabe". I'm just hardworking and determined to a point that unfortunately incites such hatred from you. Unlike you despite being very privileged, I have helped many people in my life(both online & offline) and haven't belittled others the way you shamelessly do. Many other users agree with me as I am acting on their behalf. Carmaker1 ( talk) 06:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mad Hatter has used some unnecessary words on me in the past. Just because you are on wikipedia for 6 years doesn't mean you're boss. In fact, he told User:Harout72 to 'babysit me'. If you haven't known, I'm 20 years old. In addition, he deletes all my contributions, even if they have a suitable reference. And also, please don't go to other users begging them for help in supporting you. KingdomHearts25 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

Editor has on a few occasions decided to use the Edit Summary as way of disparaging my view point as he continues to try and add information that is not verified by the sources he is trying to use. Evidence is shown in this first and second summaries from last week and third and fourth from ealier today. This is obviously a comment on me, and not the content and are therefore uncivil in nature.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 15:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should censor Jojhutton for continuously removing historical information for spurious reasons.-- cgersten( talk) tuco_bad 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The mere fact that something happened doesn't automatically mean it is important enough to belong in a Wikipedia article. Therefore this is an issue that should be settled by discussion; accusations of censorship are not appropriate. Has either of you made any attempt to discuss the problem? Looie496 ( talk) 20:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been any type of discussion, except in edit summeries. Yet the reason for this thread was to bring a general awareness of the comments made by this user. Which is the reason for this page, I think.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 20:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries like this are inexcusable. Addressing an editor by "censor" is a personal attack, in that it is name-calling. We are expected to treat other editors in a civil manner regardless of what we think of them, and Cgersten clearly does not realize that. Hopefully when this is over, Cgersten will realize that their behavior is uncalled for and take this thread as a lesson to not act that way again. — Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the way! Spank him! Bad boy! B-A-D B-O-Y! Teach him a lesson! LOL ROFLMAO :))))) Seriously cgersten do you really give a fuck about what these individuals say? Because I don't. Seriously, I don't give a shit about any of these allegations made about you cgersten or me above. And that's the thing you should do. Don't give a crap about it. That's the way to make it as a top editor.

Regards: The Mad Hatter ( talk) 16:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have tried hard to work with this editor, but he continually posts contentless personal attacks such as the following:

"Factsontheground, As I see it you are not in position to accuse others for having POV. This whole article is now nominated for POV check -which seems to be unaviodable because of the style of editing that is typical for few users here and you're certainly among them. As I see the things you should be in topic ban and you're very lucky to not be blocked already" [6]

I mean, how am I meant to respond to that? It's just insults. There's nothing constructive or useful being said.

He has accused me of "falsifying" what people write, completely out of the blue and with no explanation. [7]

When I tried to discuss my edits to an article with him, he refused saying "You discuss it with yourself" [8] and that he didn't accept my editing anyway [9] .

Although he refused to discuss the changes, that didn't stop him threatening me with a ban on my talk page [10].

This user seems to have a bad attitude about Wikipedia and I have found him very difficult to work with. Factsontheground ( talk) 13:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@Factsontheground, it is absolutely unbelievable. There's no PA in any of your differences.

Half of them are three days old!

You were in such a hurry to fill out complain that

you forgot to sign.

No wonder, you are running from board to board with your complains.

Your constant reports at all the boards is harassment. Please stop it, and stop it now!-- Mbz1 ( talk) 13:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, this has nothing to do with you, so please WP:MYOB.

Yes, I forgot to put a proper signature but who cares? Don't remove my signature when I put it there! Factsontheground ( talk) 13:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to use this opportunity to complain myself. First, even though Factsontheground was asked in other case (at least, full checking of his log of edits seem required) by Ucucha to notify before when he accuse him on ANI [11], a post that it's highly likely he have seen (his talk page was archived after the Ucucha posted there) -no notification was made on my talk page.

Second, facts on the ground cited old version of response, which I updated much before he choosed to complain [12]-also, it can be seen that I edited my response 8 times (typical for me because of my bad English) and those edits (both this and the other he cited) were among the first edits. Also, indeed Factsontheground admited after an ANI was opened against him that the verdict was easy one [13]. Also, my response, he forgot to tell, came after this post of him [14]. His repeated accusation according which I refused to discuss is baseless -see this ANI that was opened against him and I already mentioned, here I explain in detailes everything [15] and I realy don't feel like doing it once again (also, you can find there bad faith statment from his side, scorning my English skills without any provocation from my side).

Factsontheground seem to be user with bad faith and with disruptive manner of editing-I ask his log of editds to be checked in detail. If I'm not mistaken, and I well be, he was already topic banned-I don't have the time to check it. Anyway, as for his assertion according which I treat him with ban, it came after he engaged into edit warring following which an ANI against him was opened. Only then I told him that he could find himself topic bann. On my last post that he already cited I just told that I think he should be topic ban-again, check his log of edits and find out. It was not a treat, just my personal opinion.

As can be seen from the sources given in the ANI my statement "you discuss it with yourself" appeared in the edit summery of an article. It went like this-Facts on the ground made edit against WP:CON and then I revert him and in the edit summary I mentioned it, then he reverted again and wrote in the edit summary that he discussed it in the talkpage-the only problem was that he "discussed" it with himself only before edits were made [16] [17] -it can be easly understood that Factson the ground took my words out of the context and out of anything.

Last thing, reading this [18] you may understand my meaning. While I had valid arguments he argued like my claims were that I simply don't like the article. That's a complete flase. And he did falsified what I wrote, even it may be that I shouldn't use this term. However, look on his correspondence with other users in the very same discussion [19] - I didn't even bother to read all of it, but easily I found this (his applying to user Noon:

" Also, you are being disingenuous when you claim that this article is WP:NONSENSE. The article may be deficient in other ways but no one can honestly argue that it is nonsense. Factsontheground (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC).."

I rest my case.-- Gilisa ( talk) 14:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then, Gilisa let's have a look at the final comment you wrote after those 8 diffs:

Factsontheground, As I see it you are not in position to accuse others for not abiding the POV policy. This whole article is now nominated for POV check -which seems to be unaviodable because of the style of editing that is typical for few users here and you're certainly among them. As I see the things you should be in topic ban and you acknowledged yourself that you're very lucky for not being blocked already for your edits here. Also, the book is two years old and in any case, even few monthes are much more than enough to provide scientific and academic critiques -have you ever heared about WP:NOR? Because this WP rule put experts' opinions in preference on yours. So, how was the "long" wikibreak you took two days ago?-- Gilisa ( talk) 11:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)'

It's still a relentless personal attack with very little content plus some added stalking at the end. As fr your other claims, they're all baseless such as "If I'm not mistaken, and I well be, he was already topic banned-I don't have the time to check it." No, I wasn't. Why even say that if you aren't sure? Factsontheground ( talk) 14:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Call it whatever you like. I prefer facts on high words. My comment came after you wrote this:

"...I really think Gilisa and Kuratowski's Ghost are not being fair or even attempting to abide by the POV policy..."

Which is, according to the standards you just set, a personall attack. As for the topic ban, just saw discussions on your talk page when I replied there which were dealing with close issues. Maybe I shouldn't say that-but again, it change nothing. As for your accusions I was "stalking" you-please, give me a break. I'm standing behind everything I wrote.-- Gilisa ( talk) 14:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack? I see that she "attacks" your style of editing, says that you're lucky you're not blocked, and asks about a wikibreak. I see nothing attacking you. Gilisa is commenting on your contributions, not yourself. Incidentally, if you're going to call any of that a "personal attack", then this edit summary surely is, also. Save the hypocrisy and quit wasting everyone's time. Tan | 39 14:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:NPA, Tanthalus. It's very simple.

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

Gilisa is not commenting about the article's content at all. His comment is entirely insulting towards me. He is talking about the contributor, not the content.

As for my comment, part of the problem with dealing with Gilisa is that I can not understand much of what he writes because his English is so poor. That is not an attack; that is a fact. If he wants to comment on my talk page then he needs to write comprehensibly. Factsontheground ( talk) 14:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tan. Factsontheground, don't you ever shut me up as you did here. I have the right, and will continue to comment in each and every place I feel as commenting.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 14:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, WP:MYOB and stop stalking me around Wikipedia. Factsontheground ( talk) 14:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break. What is happening here is you can dish it out, but you can't take it. Tan | 39 14:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, give me a break too. Why are you going from board to board with your stupid complains? Wasn't the trout that you were slapped with few days ago enough? Are you allowing to comment on your comments only to the users, who are agree with you? Please Don't be a dick, and try to WP:AGF-- Mbz1 ( talk) 14:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, how does this concern you? What are you adding to the conversation? WP:MYOB seems to apply. Why are you stalking me around Wikipedia? Don't you have anything better to do with your time, like actually improving Wikipedia?

And Tanthalus, how am I dishing anything out? I am just trying to edit articles civilly.

Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't abide by the rules of the schoolyard. "If you dish it out you have to take it" is not a Wikipedia guideline. Perhaps you should review the civility and npa policy. I don't think you'll find anything about Wikipedia users having to "take it". Factsontheground ( talk) 14:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, good to know that my English is sooooo poor, to the extent that you "can't understand much of what he write" and that's, of course, whats ignited this all commotion from the first place. My English is not that good, but I'm very well aware of that. And thanks for this short civility lesson above, it's very instructive-- Gilisa ( talk) 15:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Gilisa, your English is very poor. THat's not an attack, that's a fact. here is another person who can't understand you. I don't know how you expect to improve articles on the English wikipedia with such a poor grasp of English. Factsontheground ( talk) 01:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, that me, and I assume that any reasonable person, don't agree that when you add the suffix "that's not an attack" (for the second time) mean that it's not a blatent personall attack. ItismeJudith had no such problems with my English as you suggested, certainly not to the extent that lead him/her to come with unreliable accusations. What is poor here is this kind of provocative behavior.-- Gilisa ( talk) 07:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(Intended) Factsontheground, you might be right in something. All your reports on the different boards should be ignored, as one would ignore an importunate fly.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 15:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Gilisa's English is very good, and that Factsontheground has no right to be telling another editor that his edits are not improving articles on Wikipedia. On the contrary, Gilisa has made several high quality edits from what I can see. But hey, I'll make sure to MMOB and allow Factsontheground to continue WP:OWNing this discussion, as he attempts to do with just about every one he takes part in. Breein1007 ( talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So you were annoyed that I correctly called you out at AN3 and thought you'd come over and make trouble for me? Don't be so transparent. Factsontheground ( talk) 01:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you dare put words in my mouth and make any public declarations of my intentions. I suggest you add WP:AGF to the list of policies to review. Breein1007 ( talk) 01:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to assume good faith for 99% of Wikipedia editors. However, you're a known edit warrior who has vowed to reinsert contentious material despite a great deal of sources contradicting it at Sheikh Jarrah. Some advice: if you want editors to assume good faith, demonstrate good faith. Factsontheground ( talk) 02:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well good, at least we have a record of you admitting that you choose not to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Breein1007 ( talk) 02:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Several people here have exceeded the bounds of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, all of whom are reasonably experienced editors and clearly know better. That this is happening on the WQA noticeboard is particularly horrible.

Discussion regarding the underlying issues is welcome to continue. I and other admins will block parties who continue personal attacks or other seriously rude behavior while doing so. Please stop now and return to discussing the underlying concerns in an adult and respectful manner. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 02:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• George, I implore you to take a closer look at the whole page, as the personal attacks and baiting is not restricted only to this particular thread. On several occasions, I have quoted WP:Mind your own business, WP:POINT, WP:DRAMA, WP:SOAP and WP:BAIT, but yet there still exist uninvolved editor who came to fan the flames or derailed the discussion by bringing in Out-of-topic remarks instead of assisting Wikipedia and it's Admin to calm the situation down. IMO, this board should be off-limit to those who are not directly involved who aren't here to help. Regards. -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, George. I agree that this discussion has completely derailed. It's sad how people are seeing this entry as an opportunity to launch more personal attacks and exercise old grudges. Factsontheground ( talk) 02:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to read through this thread as much as I could, but it was pretty difficult at points, and fell off-topic pretty quickly (and often). However, here are some of my thoughts:

• I don't view Gilisa's comments as direct personal attacks, but they were uncivil. Telling someone to "discuss it with themself", while saying you don't want to get into an edit war, [20] is contradictory; discussion is what helps avoid and end edit wars.
• Likewise, Factsontheground was being uncivil in telling Gilisa to "learn English". [21] I can fully understand Factsontheground's inability to understand Gilisa, as I had a difficult time understanding Gilisa's reply above myself. However, while explaining your difficulty understand another editor isn't uncivil, telling them to "learn English" is.
• The thing most alarming to me is the constant back and forth, using (and exploiting) these boards, by editors on both sides of these disputes. Factsontheground's use of these boards is substantial, though somewhat understandable, as other editors appear to be edit-warring while refusing to engage in discussion or dispute resolution. They also appear to be ganging up, and wikihounding Factsontheground when reports are filed on such behavior.

In general, all of this behavior is counterproductive. Most editors involved in this discussion have already been notified, but I'll remind them to keep in mind the Arbitration Committee's Israel-Palestine discretionary sanctions. ←  George  ^talk 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• George: First I think that a proper disclosure from your side is needed-are/were you involved in other issues of Factsoftheground? Maybe it's not very relevant, but I think you were involved in his issues before and maybe even after Factsoftheground asked Mbz1 to MYOB (and I recall no previous involvement with Mbz1)and after one the responders here suggested that only widely uninvolved editors will post here, I think this question is legitimate, and not because I imply that MYOB should be applied here. Also, "you discuss it with yourself"-is invalid accusation was refuted by me with hardest evidence time and again and you could read (and understand) it in my first response here. You didn't give any attribution for that. At best we're dealing with misunderstanding from Factsontheground -but as he repeated this worn out argument again and again it's not very likely. You don't seem to consider Factsontheground behavior. Sorry, but "go learn English" is not uncivil, it's simply personall attack (and he eventually admited it) and unlike you suggested scale of merit don't seem to be the most right one to use here (also, let's not reduce his behavior to this PA only (or to its two direct successors (the last of those is without any doubt a PA) to which he added the suffix "it's not an PA" as like it's an Ltd symbole. He himself seem to act as like he have no questions to answer.-- Gilisa ( talk) 07:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question George, one question, if I may please? Do you believe that initial incident should have been reported here or at any other AN board for that matter? If the answer is "yes", I've no more questions. If the answer is "no" I'd like to ask, if there are any restrictions that could be applied to the users, who file report after report with no reason. Could such users be restricted from using any administrator boards for three months, or even blocked for disrupting editing?Thanks -- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1, please! Didn't you hear GeorgeWilliamHerbert? No. More. Personal. Attacks.

Your claim that I am filing "report after report with no reason" is just plain wrong. I filed an edit warring against Breein1007 which the admin George agreed with and was about to warn Breein1007 until their edit was reverted. I filed an WP:RSN report which produced a productive debate. I filed an WP:ANI about constant disruption at Israeli art student scam which made admins consider protecting the article. So where did I file "report after report with no reason"? You don't have to debate that ad infinitum - you can just keep civil and leave me in peace, as GWH has suggested. Factsontheground ( talk) 04:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The "admin George" was about to warn me? Interesting. I'll leave it at that. Breein1007 ( talk) 04:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry George and Breein1007. It was in fact the admin EdJohnston who warned you about the 3rr report, so it hardly seems groundless. George had simply agreed that I had made a good effort to communicate with you that was rebuffed before posting the report [22]. Factsontheground ( talk) 04:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I admit the "Learn English" comment was snarky and unnecessary. It's been the only real personal attack I've made against Gilisa and it was in response to him posting an incomprehensible angry comment on my talk page. I am quite happy to swear off any such comments in the future if Gilisa is also willing to behave civilly towards me and focus on the content rather than myself. The wikihounding also needs to stop and everyone needs to agree to focus on improving the encyclopedia instead of this constant sniping. Factsontheground ( talk) 04:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please post here the link for my commenting on your talk page with "incomprehensible angry" prior to your personall attack. You continue with this very perosnall attack but adding "it's not a personal attack" on this very discussion. Also, your first personall attack is not my hardest argument-my first response contain many issues you should, as I see it, answer on-- Gilisa ( talk) 07:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, would you please be so kind and please link me to the difference from my last post that was addressed to George, which you consider a personal attack? Thank you very much for your time. Please have a nice day.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 04:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The part were you falsely accuse me of filing "report after report with no reason" of course. Just stop, Mbz1. This is between me and Gilisa. You have nothing positive to contribute to this and you are just trying to stir up more drama. For the last time, please stop wikihounding me. Factsontheground ( talk) 04:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so very much for "linking me to PA" :) and for telling me what to do. Just one more question, please. Factsontheground, at that very thread at least three people told you that they saw no merits for filing that report? Does it mean that you should withdraw it? You do know you have the right to withdraw it, do you not?-- Mbz1 ( talk) 04:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. What thread are you even talking about? And, no, just because 3 people say something doesn't make it true. Please read "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Factsontheground ( talk) 06:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to reply to multiple editors at once here:

• Gilisa - No, I don't believe Factsontheground and myself have edited the same articles before. I may be wrong, as I edit quite a few articles, but I don't remember having seen their name before these noticeboards. Your edit summary to Factsontheground said to "discuss it with yourself." Regardless of if you chose to partake in subsequent discussions or not, that message is clearly uncivil, and doesn't help solve the disagreement. Regarding your statement that I "don't seem to consider Factsontheground behavior," in the second bullet point above I told Factsontheground that he was also being uncivil with his comment to you to "learn English." However, he wasn't the one reported here, so I haven't looked at his behavior outside of this post.
• Mbz1 - Per my earlier statement, I believe Gilisa made one (or more) uncivil comments; WQA is the venue for discussing incivility. Factsontheground filed three (now four) requests concerning four different users or articles. The ones I read didn't appear to be gratuitous, and because they were on different topics, I don't think it constitutes excessive use of the noticeboards (at this point).
• Factsontheground - I'm glad you recognize that your comment to Gilisa to "learn English" was uncivil, and would suggest apologizing the Gilisa for it. In general, of your noticeboard requests that I read, while you may have been technically correct, I would advise against calling the kettle black. Reporting a user for edit warring when you're edit warring with them, or reporting a user for incivility when you're being uncivil in return, is unlikely to produce outcomes in your favor, and will definitely ruffle feathers. ←  George  ^talk 07:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

George, it's very simple: Had you been involved in other board issues of Factsontheground before? It seems like you have long time acquaintanceship with him. It tell nothing about personally or as an editor, but it's relevant for this specific issue. Also, again, read from the begining my first comment, it's very simple to understand-I guess that to all, that my comment wasn't uncivil as you suggest. Please consider the specific chain of events as described (+links) by me. while in the first time that Factsontheground use this argument I could assume that if he forgot this specific chain of events then it may be that because I forgot to add "ed" in the end of "discuss" he could confuse (and it's hard-pressed scnario) it's the second or third time he used it disregarding the evidence that show that the quite opposite is the true: He blatently violated WP:CON, show no real intent to discuss it and took out of context simple spelling mistake of mine that could very easily and reasonably understood through this context. Your allegation like I was real uncivil there is incompetent with the evidence. So if you still stand bheind this allegation-prove it againt the chain of events as described here:

"..As can be seen from the sources given in the ANI my statement "you discuss it with yourself" appeared in the edit summery of an article. It went like this-Facts on the ground made edit against WP:CON and then I revert him and in the edit summary I mentioned it, then he reverted again and wrote in the edit summary that he discussed it in the talkpage-the only problem was that he "discussed" it with himself only before edits were made [23] [24] -it can be easly understood that Factson the ground took my words out of the context and out of anything..."

-- Gilisa ( talk) 08:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. I have not had a "long term acquaintanceship with him." I don't remember ever seeing him before this latest reporting spat broke out between various I-P conflict editors on the noticeboards.

One thing very interesting was your explanation, which makes much more sense now. Based on your explanation, I believe this was a misunderstanding. The statement "you discuss it with yourself" sounds like a very rude command, however, if this was an accidental misspelling of the statement "you discussed it with yourself", then I believe that there was no incivility intended here. It wasn't at all obvious that that was what you intended to write Gilisa, so I can understand how Factsontheground mistook your message as an insult. But based on your explanation of what you meant to say, I don't think you intended it to be insulting. ←  George  ^talk 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

George, If you will scrutinized it you may well found that this is chewed argument, I already explaind it in two and a half different forums and in detalis. However I'll leave it a side and even take the not very large likelyhood that indeed it's a continuous misunderstanding. Nevertheless, It's enough to come over Factsontheground attitude toward me here to bump into serious civility issues, I think. Thanks for your comment.-- Gilisa ( talk) 10:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Gilisa, I am very sorry for telling you to "learn English" and will refrain from such comments in the future. In future can we both be civil to each other and focus on the content rather than the contributor?

I understand your point about the kettle, George, but I really felt I needed to do something to improve the standard of civility in the articles I was editing. Factsontheground ( talk) 07:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is fair, and if you feel that editors are being uncivil, this is the place to report it. But be aware that sometimes accusing others of being uncivil only makes the situation worse. Personally, I prefer letting the little stuff go, and trying to work within the bounds of the dispute resolution process as much as I can. I find that a much more effective means of improving articles. ←  George  ^talk 08:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, how should I reply this:

Sure. Gilisa, I am very sorry for telling you to "learn English" and will refrain from such comments in the future. In future can we both be civil to each other and focus on the content rather than the contributor?

I understand your point about the kettle, George, but I really felt I needed to do something to improve the standard of civility in the articles I was editing. Factsontheground ( talk) 07:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If one review all of Factsontheground comments on me (and regarding the first sentence of the quoted comment-two other at least uncivil attributions, very fresh ones, to my English level and its relevance to my competence to contribute in WP) -how would he/she suggest me to reply to this submittal? I truely have farily understood doubts here-I don't realy feel comfortable with this hot potato, which is not mine. -- Gilisa ( talk) 08:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my comments above. I believe Factsontheground (understandably) mistook your statement as a rude remark, but I think it may have just been caused by a misspelling and somewhat poor English. I don't mean to insult you at all Gilisa, but sometimes your English phrasing is a little difficult to understand, and I think that this small error you made in that sentence sounded much ruder than you intended. I'd suggest you both apologize to each other for the misunderstanding, and that Factsontheground withdraw this request so you can get back to trying to resolve your content dispute through the proper channels. ←  George  ^talk 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment George but I don't feel it's right for me to apologize in this overall context. Also, even if I will indulgently assume that my statement did sound that rude, yet I time and again proved it was realy a spelling mistake by the actions I took and it was also well understood from the context -it's true that we had no constructive discussion for the very simple reason that he was edit warring in one hand (that's already proven fact btw) and waved for discussion on the other (and I asked him to find consensus first and then to edit, and not the opposite-is that enough to accuse someone for not being ready for discussion?). I wasn't the one to complained on him so the proper channels does not really apply to me. Best wishes-- Gilisa ( talk) 10:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You see, George, I want to bury the hatchet and I've apologized for my part in this but obviously Gilisa is sure he's done nothing wrong and refuses to even apologize.

I also don't understand the claim that his rudeness is due to spelling errors or language problems. His forcefully uncivil responses have always been quite clear to me. For example,

Gilisa: Reverting for last version by Malik. See talk page.

Factsontheground: I just did discuss every single one of my changes on the talk page, Gilisa. Please respond there before starting an edit war

Gilisa: You discuss it with yourself Factsontheground-revert highely bias editinig. Have no intention to get to edit war

I don't think anything was lost in translation there, he point blank refused to discuss his reverts with me. Factsontheground ( talk) 10:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I will don't go over it again. You just quoted part of the whole context which lie both in the talk page and in the article's history page. No rudeness was intended and in any case I would expect you to already understand it. However, even if I refer only to your comments here still we will easily find that your repeated refernces to my English level, regardless whether it's a fact, are incivil-espcially when you imply that it make me incompetent contributor (As I told, I know well my limitations ans used to contribute on mathmatics and science reference desk where good phrasing in not necessary). While I realy don't have special problem to bury the hatch, overall, I don't feel like I should or obligated to appologize.-- Gilisa ( talk) 11:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If Gilisa meant the last sentence to say "You discussed it with yourself," as I suspect, then the last sentence takes on a different meaning, and the question comes down to who is adding or restoring information to the article. If you were the one adding material to the page, as it appears you were, and your edit was reverted, then you must get consensus on the talk page before re-adding that material (See WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN). I'm reading Gilisa's last edit summary as really saying "You only discussed this with yourself. I view it at heavily biased. I don't want to edit war, please achieve consensus for this change." It's not enough to just leave a message on the talk page, explaining why you think you're right - you need to get consensus, via WP:DR, before re-adding the material. I can understand the you felt Gilisa was saying he didn't want to discuss the matter (which is honestly how I read his edit summary, based on the poor wording), but given his reasonable explanation above, I just think this was a misunderstanding. Even if Gilisa chooses not to apologize with a simple "Hey, I'm sorry I didn't explain myself better," I don't think he was intentionally being uncivil. ←  George  ^talk 11:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, with your explanations, I can see what you mean about it being a language issue. There remain other examples that aren't so easily explained, (such as accusing me of "falsifying" material), however I am willing to accept that the conflict has been mainly exacerbated by misunderstandings. I'll withdraw the Wikiquette alert for now, but to be honest Gilisa's refusal to apologize does not auger well for the future. Factsontheground ( talk) 11:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

George, I realy don't have problem to appologize on this very specific misunderstanding. But it seem to be much more complex than that. In any case, I'm willing to bury the hatch.-- Gilisa ( talk) 11:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The user in question is 72.65.25.158 and his deeds are here and here -- uKER ( talk) 02:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I removed his rants and warned him about his article ownership on his talk page. Niteshift36 ( talk) 02:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion today on the "Invention of the Jewish People" talk page started like this [25], then it deteriorated to this [26] and that [27] where Roland just attributed me things I didn't write mor imply. And the crescendo is this [28] where he distract people from the subject and launched the most blatant PA (without name calling, but much worse). I had then no intention to complain here, but then he replied to another post of mine addressed to other editor [29] and when I told him that I'm not willing to discuss with him from obvious reasons he left me this message [30] and when I asked him to stop harrassing me he replied with this [31] . This is only from today, but if you follow the talk page you will see that this nature of discussion (e.g., constatntly taking my words out of any context, statments that meant to distract people from the subject and so forth) is typical for him. Also, because he was edit warring the article is protected from editing [32]. I implore you to come over all of edits there in this article talk and main page during the week passed. He have very negative contribution there-and I would like steps to be taken.-- Gilisa ( talk) 20:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

See above. RolandR ( talk) 20:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to add and ask who ever choose to come over it to see the neutrality check proces on the article [33] maybe it may help in the understanding of my complain. Seem like RolandR strategy was to exhausted, distract, quoting out of context and to create semblance of discussion. His edits verged with article owenrship and with total lack of willingness to discuss genuinely and according to WP:CON. When checking, please see what came first in the edit summary as well. I'm exhausted indeed and I can't understand what interest had he have to bring me to this point.-- Gilisa ( talk) 20:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the time to read through the supplied diffs. Frankly, I do not see any civility problems with the edits made by RolandR. There does appear to be some degree of edit warring, but that is a content dispute and not relevant on this forum and both editors are equally guilty plus the matter was dealt with at AN/I. The only incivility I can see here is contained within Gilisa's comments here. This may be because of the user's admitted difficulties with using the English lnguage, but I am afraid you are making the claim too often in the discussions here and elsewhere so that it begins to look as if you want to use that as some sort of shield to hide behind when you make comments that other may take exception to. I recommend, Gilisa, that you take a break for a while from editing the contentious article and when you come back try to assume good faith. If you cannot do that, then I suggest that you drop the stick and go and find some other corner of Wikipedia to work on. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, but the incivility of RolandR is clear in here [34] for instance. I didn't balme my English here, and infact if you implying to the previous issue above then I didn't even there (quite the opposite -I was attacked for my English level and I objected to explensions suggested by others who refered to my English), you are wellcome to read it again if you find it helpful. I don't know where you come with the assertions like I use my English level as a shield, and too often. and I don't see what you just wrote as reflecting the issue or as helpful for it. Regards,-- Gilisa ( talk) 21:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Irony is not incivility. The post to with which RolandR is responding is closer to being incivil. Nick Thorne's advice about wp:STICK is good.- Sinneed 22:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So this, for example, is not incivil?:

I'm sorry, but I am too ignorant to understand your well-reasoned and subtle arguments. I am too ill-informed to have a valid opinion on this, or indeed any other matter. My view are worthlesas, and I bow to your superior understanding. [12] RolandR (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is one, the most reflective, but surely not the only. To me it's clearly incivil and cosist PA. If itsn't, then I want to hear it from other editors as well. My post to Roland was very civil considering the fact that time and again he took blatently my words out of context and attributed me claims I didn't make (regardless my English level) -- Gilisa ( talk) 22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

While that particular diff/quote is rather sarcastic and should be toned down since sarcasm almost never helps solve arguments, it is not a personal attack and doesn't really breach civility. I agree with Nick Thorne and Sinneed on this issue. -- 13 ² 22:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This particular quote of him followed two other quotes that were sarcastic and in case twisted my words. Sorry, but I fail to see how this quote don't breach incivility-as for dropping the stick, it's a good advice regardless this issue.-- Gilisa ( talk) 22:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence that the user twisted your words. In any case, it would be difficult to prove they had, and even harder to prove they did so out of malice and incivility and not simply because they were confused or misunderstood you. -- 13 ² 22:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, nevermind.-- Gilisa ( talk) 22:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see this issue has now popped up here at Wikiquette...so I'll reiterate what I said at the Invention of the Jewish People talk page: Comments like the one RolandR made, "bow to your superior understanding", is effectively an example of one editor taunting another editor. Such behavior does not help to contribute to a discussion and in fact makes the discussion personal. We all must remember to comment on content not editors -- no matter how frustrated we become. -- nsaum75 ^{¡שיחת!‎} 09:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the following exchange shows that RolandR is not the problem here:

Can you please explain why an anti-Zionist point of view would be more problematic than a Zionist point of view? RolandR (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not willing to argue with you from obvious and reasonable reasons. Just for the record, those who debunked Sand and mentioned here are mostly experts without any prefered side.--Gilisa (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain the "obvious and reasonable reasons" why you are unwilling to explain your earlier comments? RolandR (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop harassing me.--Gilisa (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This might be harassment if I were following you around, or posting vexatious comments on your user talk page, But I am simply asking a polite question, to which I would like an answer, on the talk page of an article. I repeat the question: why is an anti-Zionist point of view more problematic than a Zionist point of view? RolandR (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Call it whatever you like, but you are certainly not polite[13]--Gilisa (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to see how Gilisa can justify behaviour like that as a language problem. Factsontheground ( talk) 09:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quoting Factsontheground, I never blamed my English (however, you repeatdly aimed to it). Please quote fully and in context. Also, I would appreciate if you avoid this discussion regarding we were involved very recently. Anyway, What you quoted came after this correspondense:

Yo are quite right of course. Sand had no right to write this book. It should be banned, and this article deleted, as a biased, incompetent act of charlatanism. RolandR (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RolandR, I would appreciate your reference to the matter of the subject and to what I actually wrote-if you are realy discussing, and also if you avoid taking what I wrote out of context. I never said, nor do I think, that he had no right to write this book or that this article should be deleted. I do consider his book as pseudo historical, and Sand's attidue through population genetics as biased and pseudoscientific -and of course touched with charlatanism as he have absolutly no qualification to critizied this field of research. Thanks God that I truely not alone here, many experts say the same. What I said is simple: Supporters of Sand's book are WP:UNDUE as they are not experts in Jewish history and they are debunked by experts in Jewish history and in population genetics. Those are the ones you were dismissive about.--Gilisa (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And there we have it. Supporters of Sand's book are by definition "not experts in Jewish history" since they support pseudo-historical charlatanism. Therefore their view are inadmissible, and this article is only permitted to contain hostile criticism of Sand, since only these critics are qualified to write on the subject. QED. RolandR (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Roland, I'm asking seriously-are you do it on purpose or that you realy can't see it? Do you take my words out of context on purpose? They are not experts in jewish history BECAUSE this is not their field of expertise nor do they seem to have the skills (e.g., training, language knoweldge and etc) to be considerd as such. Save the QED for logic, in context, arguments. Can't belive that I've to use bold and italic text, hope it will help you to understand.--Gilisa (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am too ignorant to understand your well-reasoned and subtle arguments. I am too ill-informed to have a valid opinion on this, or indeed any other matter. My view are worthlesas, and I bow to your superior understanding. [12] RolandR (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether you wanted me to see the koke only and by its meaning to scorn me or that you implied to my Jewishness in some essence, or both. I will indulgently assume good faith regarding the last two options-but of course the blatant incivility of this PA is not hard to be seen. And by now I do assume that my understanding is probably much better than yours. You are just not able/willing/both to make even one statment to the case in question--Gilisa (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And after this:

Can you please explain why an anti-Zionist point of view would be more problematic than a Zionist point of view? RolandR (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC) (My comment: I never argued that one is better than the other).

I'm not willing to argue with you from obvious and reasonable reasons. Just for the record, those who debunked Sand and mentioned here are mostly experts without any prefered side.--Gilisa (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I realy want the all issue to be checked again. While the first editor to responde here assert that I use my English as a shield and refer to it as an excuse too often-it's absolutly baseless. And it's not reasonable that Roland behavior isn't considerd incivil -- Gilisa ( talk) 10:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, and this-two days prior to my complain:

But that is the nub of the problem. As I have stated on the talk page, I do not consider the book to be at all controversial, and I would leave out the reference altogether. But Gilisa appears adamant that the article should state, not only that the book has been described as controversial, but that it is controversial. This has been discussed round and round on the talk page; and for every edit I make, Gilisa makes half-a-dozen, swamping any rational discussion with a mass of unhelpful extraneous verbiage. RolandR (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Takn from here [35].-- Gilisa ( talk) 17:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – This is not the forum to request any form of block. One editor has been advised to cool it a little. Other's are now using this thread as WP:SOAP ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 13:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Now moved to WP:ANI ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 13:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

New section for response of RHB100

I have removed my offensive comments. I regret having made offensive comments. I have been incensed over the fact that the section on expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials that I researched and wrote in its entirety has been destroyed without in any way consulting me. RHB100 ( talk) 23:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Having removed my offensive comments, I think that I can contribute by making criticisms. RHB100 ( talk) 23:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One problem as I see it is that there may be some editors who deliberately attempt to make the Wikipedia confusing and difficult to understand. These people may be in the service of those who want to sell more books and want to lower the quality of Wikipedia so as to reduce competition. I think the attack on my work was motivated by an editor who wants to degrade the quality of Wikipedia. RHB100 ( talk) 23:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały has repeatedly destroyed my well written section. He has turned a well written section that I researched and wrote in its entirety into a poorly written section. He removed the block diagram which provided clarity. He appears to have the goal of making the Wikipedia confusing and difficult to understand. RHB100 ( talk) 22:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You're on the right track but need to take it further... just focus on the contributions without ascribing any motivations to the editor. Gerardw ( talk) 02:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – This page lacks any jurisdiction to perform requested action Rodhull andemu 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The user typed a very offending comment to me on the Bill Clinton talk page and violated the good faith policy by personally attacking me. The IP I use is shared because it is a public computer. I feel it is neccessary for this administrator to be blocked for a certain period. Dr real ( talk) 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks very much like you commented while logged out, then logged in in order to agree with yourself. That is a violation of the rules related to sockpuppeting, and also unnecessary- if your ideas are good, there's no need to pretend to be two people. User:Jpgordon didn't do anything wrong in letting you know that your actions were against the rules, and that you aren't fooling anyone. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that being told that you might not be cool is a personal attack, then Wikipedia might not be the place for you. Seriously. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The personal attack came from assuming I was the same user. Dr real ( talk) 22:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, and you actually agreed with the other user. Move along, please. Rodhull andemu 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

After I removed unsourced material from the Brigitte Nielsen article, and left this message on User:Jean-Jacques Georges's Talk Page, he reacted by complaining that message templates like the one I used was inappropriate, because it was only intended for newcomers, and that it was "arrogant", "obnoxious", not civil, and indicative of WP:BITE for me to have used it. When I tried to explain to him that it was not a newcomer message, nor uncivil, he did not see it this way. I tried to explain to him about the policies pertaining to adding unsourced material to articles, but he refused to concede any of this. This is a thread of our exchanges on my Talk Page. He blanked each of my messages from his. ( [67] [68] [69] [70]) I don't know if problems will recur with him, insofar as adding unsourced material, but I thought I'd report it for future reference. Nightscream ( talk) 21:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if comments were offered on this before this discussion were archived. Nightscream ( talk) 03:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Removing comments from one's own talk page is perfectly acceptable. Gerardw ( talk) 10:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nightscream, I think what he did was per Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Correct me if I'm wrong, cheers~! -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 16:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that essay (though I notice it's not a policy or guideline). But do you think responding with language like "arrogant" or "obnoxious" was consistent with WP:Civility? It is this was I was referring to as a Wikiquette matter, and not blanking his talk page. Nightscream ( talk) 04:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to start off by saying that the usage of terms like "cretinous" to address threads started by other editors is, as far as I'm concerned, to a certain extent, a personal attack upon the editor. Secondly, the perception that Nightscream's warning was "obnoxious" is misconstruing of the warning message, and kind of incivil. While I don't see severe incivility in this issue, that's not to say Jean-Jacques Georges is out of the woods yet. They'd be in the woods until the incivility stopped, though I don't yet know if this is still going on. We'll have to wait and see if they walk out of the woods. — Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Geez, I didn't even notice that "cretinous" comment until now. I would like to thank Mythdon for alerting Jean-Jacques to this alert, something I neglected to do myself, as this was my first time making a WQA, and wasn't aware of that. And while I don't dispute that a "welcome" template may give the impression that a editor is being spoken to as if they're a newbie, the message I used was the equivalent of a Level 2 or 3 message, without the "welcome" message, which I specifically used because I saw that Jean-Jacques was not a newbie. In any event, it was not intended to be patronizing, and I apologize if it came off as such. That said, it doesn't make sense to complain that I was violating WP:BITE while simultaneously pointing that he was not a newbie, nor does my message justify the language Jean-Jacques has been using. Nightscream ( talk) 05:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good thing that you apologize for coming off as patronizing, because you definitely came as such. If you wanted to "be [my] friend" as your user page claims, it would have been better to just leave a personal message like "hello, could you please give a reference to the fact that Brigitte Nielsen speaks German ? Thanks", instead of using unpersonal templates. They are inadequate and should be changed for a start, or not used at all. For the sake of "etiquette", I'll just ignore your posting here which I find highly useless. I find it rather irritating to be reminded AGAIN of our exchange as I had said repeatedly that I was not interested in continuing it. Dragging here a simple case of misunderstanding does not generally appease things. Apologies accepted, case closed. Now please don't bother me again with this as I have no interest in it whatsoever. Thanks. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 12:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing patronizing about using standard templates, since they are specifically designated to be used to politely communicate with an editor. I've been using them for years, and you're the first one I can recall who felt that he was somehow being insulted by their use. I am more than capable of becoming friends with editors with whom I may engage in disagreements, but that doesn't mean I'm going to change my use of perfectly polite, time-saving templates, just to walk on eggshells for one editor who complains about civility, only to disregard civility completely with language like "cretinous", "arrogant" and "obnoxious", and I doubt the rest of this project will either. It's a bit difficult to take your complaints of incivility over a template seriously when you then use such language, and then later complain that doing so constitutes a "misunderstanding". Nightscream ( talk) 18:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Gerardw ( talk) 23:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I was checking the talk page, and I saw my content was erased for sock puppetry. What sock puppetry was committed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.169.161.1 ( talk) 22:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The single-purpose account Undefeatedcooler (see monotonous reverting pattern on "Bruce Lee") has thrown two times racist allegations at me, although he has been warned in the recent past to stop it.

• Revision as of 11:32, 12 March 2010
• Revision as of 13:18, 15 March 2010

Bruce_Lee/Archive_4:

Against me:

“Bruce Lee was not Chinese”, that’s ridiculous. He was surely a Chinese person, I know there were a lot of anti-Chinese in America, but please put your bias and racism away. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Against User:Shaolin Samurai:

You are the one being immature, bullheaded and racist (anti-Chinese) with your insults and ignorant attitudes to this discussion page. You are only interested in criticizing me, and you were completely no help to these discussions. I don't want to start an argument with you. This discussion has come to an end. Undefeatedcooler (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs for these two allegations, and have you notified Undefeatedcooler, as required? - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

? The diffs are right up there. And no, I found his talk page already full. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I believe Nick Thorne was requesting these diffs. The accusations in those two diffs were the subject of a discussion on ANI and Undefeatedcooler had already been warned not to repeat them when he or she made the subsequent remarks contained in Gun Powder Ma's first two diffs. I have notified the editor of this alert and left a sternly worded warning on his or her talk page. In my opinion, continuing to accuse other editors of racism so soon after being warned not to do so constitutes a blockable offence. However, since Gun Powder Ma has chosen to post here rather than to ANI, it would appear that he is mainly interested in getting Undefeatedcooler to stop making accusations of racism, rather having him or her blocked. So I would suggest that no further action is required at this time. It would be nice if Undefeatedcooler were to acnowledge that his or her accusations of racism were unacceptable and apologise for them, but I doubt if that is going to happen. If he or she makes any further such accusations, I suggest the matter be then immediately taken to ANI.

— David Wilson ( talk ·  cont) 01:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – off wiki behavior not relevant to WP Gerardw ( talk) 02:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Ryulong, having taken appropriate offense to the creation of a User:AntiRyuLong account (which I note has already been deleted) has decided to take the issue off Wiki and into a non WP discussion board.

• First post
• Second post
• Third post

Two specific sections i would like to point out

• "I finally found out the ass who kept calling me Double Dragon and Dragon Dragon. I guess "Merlin" was already registered on Wikipedia and "Howa0082" was all you could think of."
• "Rules exist on Wikipedia. I learned them. If you don't want to learn those rules, don't do things on Wikipedia."'

While these are off Wiki issues, I feel it is acting in incredibly bad faith for Ryulong to take a resolved issue on WP and carry on an off-wiki manhunt. While it is fair to note that the thread he is stepping into contains posts that criticize him (some more tasteful than others), it still seems in rather bad taste to seek out the user (and apparently attempt to provoke them further) once the problem has been taken care of. If Ryulong has any specific issues with the editors, I have difficulty understanding why he would choose to make these accusations (potentially falsly) on an off-WP forum instead of using the appropriate WP resources. Especially when he closes his post with an apparently flaunting of his knowledge of "how this site works". -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Further explanation: This post further demonstrates my concern that Ryulong is using an off-Wiki account to continue "resolving" what he believes is an ongoing issue on Wikipedia without having to respect the appropriate guidelines regarding ettiqutte and behavior. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What utter bullshit. My actions at other websites that I have been a member of for some time should never cause problems of any sort on Wikipedia. And this holds for any and all members of this website. The fact that TRTX went out of his way to bring this back onto Wikipedia is tantamount to stalking.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 02:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would normally agree that a wikipedian's behavior offsite shouldn't be held against them, but when a wikipedian takes on-site issues and begins to attempt to "resolve" them offsite in an openly hostile fashion, it's something that is definately blurring lines. If there are users on WP who you believe are causing trouble, there are appropriate channels with which to deal with them that don't include storming into the lion's den and getting hostile. Especially when it's off wiki where nobody can do anything anyway. Also, I would suggest you refrain from accusing people of "stalking" when this issue began with you attempting to track down a wikipedian off-site. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right about it not being stalking at least. However, this is not an issue for either website. And certainly not one you should have dragged back onto Wikipedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 02:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – drop or file RFC/U Gerardw ( talk) 16:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

For some time this talk page has had heated debate, and despite several calls for more civility more than one editor there may benefit from having a neutral third party give them feedback on their language, personal attacks, and florid language. Can one or more neutral parties please take a look at the page and do whatever you can to try to get people to calm down and adhere to civility policies? There has also been edit-warring on article space that recently led to locking the page down. I wish informal intervention by some of you can avert escalation. Buddhipriya ( talk) 23:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary of this is an indication of how disturbed a certain individual is, not to mention ignorance of the condition alluded to. rudra ( talk) 03:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Full disclosure: this thread covers a further development, except for one fact. I already have the email address of the other party (from earlier correspondence), so my use of the WP email facility was a tactical error of sorts, and is duly regretted. rudra ( talk) 16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• On a different page, but relevant to this discussion: [84]. Dlabtot ( talk) 00:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(For the purposes of convenience, I have made all gender pronouns in this concern MALE. My apologies to those Wikiusers who are not, and please do not assume that I am male, either. No misogyny intended.)

My first interaction with Delicious carbuncle (Dc) was in an ANI. He stated that he was not asking for any AfD's, and I pointed out that, indeed, he was. This quickly escalated in only two posts later, where I was outright called a troll in both his reply and it's edit summary. The point I made was not addressed. In that thread alone, Dc referred to me as a troll 4 more times. As our discussion deteriorated, I placed a query on two other user's pages ( Ash and Meco), asking advice on how to handle such as aggressive editor, to see if an RfC was in order. (I chose these editors since they had helped with my edits to the Jeff Stryker article.) They replied on my talk page here. I was given good advice: to discuss the matter on Dc's talk page, to ask for advice and support on a related project page, to open a WP:WQA, and to raise an ANI alert if the situation did not remedy itself. Dc shortly referred to my request for information on how to deal with his uncivil and aggressive edits as being fruitless, stating that he had “no interest in helping to build that” (meaning an RfC on the issue of his edits). I was also asked to take the matter to his userpage.

My next step towards finding resolution was placed on Dc's userpage, titled "Just some Wikilove". I repeatedly proposed a truce (without asking for his motivation for his hostile attitude), asked for mutual AGF, and asked not to be bitten. Dc beahved with hostility that I had taken the matter to his user page (even though that's exactly what he and two other editors had just suggested), accused me of editing from formal Wikiaccounts, requested my previous IP addresses, and called my Wikilove “slippery” and “insincere”. I invited him to Checkuser on me if he thought I was another user. In the end, he stated that he would “keep on looking” at my edits.

Later that same day, an another IP posted on my userpage with a “shit-stirring” reference to Dc. I replied that such edits were not constructive, promptly removed the vandalism, and placed an appropriate welcome tag on that IP's page. (That IP later commented again on my user page related to the same problem, but I quickly removed that edit as well.)

I mentioned the continued problems I was having to Ash. I agreed to try and not involve Ash any more than possible, since Dc and Ash were having their own issues.

Next, even though I was agreeing with Dc's vote on an RfC, he expressed that I misunderstood the matter, but refused to elaborate. Again, this thread was driven wholly off topic to the point that I collapsed the inappropriate section. Dc called me a troll 4 MORE times. There was clearly not one iota of effort towards the proposed truce, nor was there any reasonable AGF.

I took a two-day WP:COOL to assure that I was being clear and level-headed and to remain neutral towards this editor, despite not being given reciprocal courtesy.

Another, uninvolved editor placed a conversation on Dc's talk page, in defense of his unreasonable edits and attacks of my WikiParticipation and his hostility toward me. I replied on that user's page, thanking them and pointing them toward another topic where Dc had been unreasonable and where Ash was in need of similar support (an effort which Dc out and out taunted). (The uninvolved editor chose to remain uninvolved, a move which I mentioned was certainly understandable, considering Dc's attitude.) Short of that, I politely refused to engage with Dc any further.

THE BOTTOM LINE: While I continue to show good faith, remain civil, stand by the truce I proposed, and otherwise behave in a manner greatly in accordance with all of the 5P's, Delicious carbuncle continues to WP:BITE, Grief, violate WP:AGF and WP:CIV, make inappropriate comments and edit summaries, violate WP:NPA, and stray significantly off-topic. There are many more minor ways in which this user violates Wikipolicy, from berating and targeting a specific group of editors and article topics, to making a statistically significant amount of edit reverts (which, while may be appropriate the majority of the time, for any 1 editor to make such an amount of reverts is a misuse of Wikipedia).

I placed these concerns in preliminary form on Ash's talk page in the same thread where I addressed my concerns earlier, but in under 24 hours decided to move the issue here....and will notify all Wikipedians mentioned in this thread on their talk pages of this WQA.

I wish to be treated respectfully and appropriately, and for Delicious carbuncle to understand that his behaviors have not been fair in that vein.

Somebody please assist. Thanks much! 38.109.88.196 ( talk) 16:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever edited under a logged in wikipedia account? If so, what was the name of that account? Thanks! Bali ultimate ( talk) 17:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never posted from a Wikipedia account. I have never had a Wikipedia account. This was noted twice in my attempt to call a truce on Dc's userpage, as well as prominently on my own userpage . (And, as a minor aside, I don't see how that could be any more than tangentially relevant towards any of Dc's poor editing behavior against me.) 38.109.88.196 ( talk) 21:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears from his talk page Delicious carbuncle is choosing not to participate. I've left a note asking him to stop with the troll stuff. It would be best if 38.109.88.196 stays off his talk page. Gerardw ( talk) 20:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your making that note to him, and of course I will refrain from posting any further on his page. But this does little to assure me that any other of the aggressive and hostile editing behavior will change, as we have similar interests here on Wikipedia...What would be your advice towards a next step? Moving my notice here to an RfC or ANI? 38.109.88.196 ( talk) 21:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

...and now, Dc has reverted a perfectly fair edit. I collapsed as section where he took a thread completely off-topic, in accordance with WP:REFACTOR, yet this was reverted without any reason. 38.109.88.196 ( talk) 23:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – content dispute, see Talk:PNS Ghazi Gerardw ( talk) 00:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like some input on the above editor's actions and what should be my next step. PNS Ghazi is a Pakistani submarine that sank during the 1971 Indo-Pak War. UplinkAnsh insists that it was sunk by an Indian warship and is adding Indian sources to back this claim, while removing a Pakistani source that disputes it. He claims the Indian sources are neutral while the Pakistani source is merely "Pakistani propaganda". UplinkAnsh has also removed information from one of his Indian sources which disputes the above.

The following are the sources he uses to justify his edits:

• http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030824/spectrum/main6.htm
• http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jan/22inter.htm
• http://www.thehindu.com/mp/2006/12/02/stories/2006120202090100.htm
• http://en.allexperts.com/e/i/in/indian_navy.htm
• http://www.tejwebworld.com/category/military-and-defence/
• http://www.orbat.com/site/cimh/navy/kills%281971%29-2.pdf

The first 3 links are Indian newspaper websites. The fourth is an old copy of a Wikipedia article, the fifth is a blog that appears to of Indian origin. The last one is a website on military affairs which is edited by "Ravi Rikhye" and "Mandeep Singh Bajwa", hosts articles that have an anti-Pakistan tone and a forum which contains posts such as this one ( http://www.orbat.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18386&start=0) which is all about India invading Pakistan in the future and dividing it into several smaller states.

The following is a diff of the latest reversion by User:UplinkAnsh. Note that in the infobox he has added that the PNS Ghazi submarine was "Sunk by Indian naval destroyer INS Rajput" and then added the above 6 links as references.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=PNS_Ghazi&action=historysubmit&diff=351041236&oldid=350998040

The rediff.com article above ( link), which is an interview of the then Indian Navy commander Admiral S. M. Nanda (retired), quotes Nanda as saying that "In narrow channels, ships, during an emergency or war, always throw depth charges around them to deter submarines. One of them probably hit the Ghazi. The blow-up was there, but nobody knew what it was all about until the fisherman found the lifejacket." I added this in the Aftermath section but it was removed by UplinkAnsh in his recent reversion.

UplinkAnsh has also removed the "Independent sources" sub-section of the "Aftermath" section (see above diff), which contains an eye-witness account by an Egyptian naval officer who observed an explosion but no Indian naval ship in the vicinity. UplinkAnsh justifies his action by claiming that the source is a Pakistani website which, according to his statements on the article talk page, is "created for the sole purpose of spreading Pakistani propaganda" (diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3APNS_Ghazi&action=historysubmit&diff=351060464&oldid=350993876).

I have recently found a new Wikipedia article, Sinking of PNS Ghazi, created by User:UplinkAnsh on 18 March. He again uses the above 6 links in that article to justify his edits stating that the submarine was certainly sunk by the Indian warship, despite one of the sources in the article stating otherwise. This source, hosted at an Indian website, states the following (among other paragraphs which dispute UplinkAnsh's edits):

"The official version of the Indian Navy is that the Ghazi was sunk by the Rajput's depth charges at around midnight of 3/4 December. However, there have been several opposing theories put forward mainly due to the confusion of dates and when the Rajput sailed out on it's mission which led analysts to conclude that the Rajput was nowhere near when the explosions took place."

Nevertheless, UplinkAnsh refuses to acknowledge that not only are the Indian sources he is using biased, but that some of them clearly state that the Pakistani submarine sank under unclear circumstances. Although UplinkAnsh has offered to continue dialogue at the PNS Ghazi talk page, I feel that it is a waste of my time to continue any discussion with him for obvious reasons and would like some advice from the experienced users here. I am notifying him of this report at his talk page now. Thanks. -- Hj108 ( talk) 20:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Left suggestions on article talk and edit war warnings on both user's talk pages. Gerardw ( talk) 00:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Stale

 – Filed when Bwilkins was clearly unable to participate; poorly handled. See below.

I was shocked by a recent decline message for a 24 hour block review here: [85] The decline reason in part reads: Decline reason: "... and you jammed the page [her personal talk page] full of images to either show how much we'll miss you, or how important you must be. " This remark is belittling and inappropriate and a gratuitous personal attack on her and her motivations and which had nothing at all to do with the (imo and others, completely unfair) block. This administrator also added the comment "The block will expire on its own later today - you'll have some apologizing to do when that happens" though neglected to tell her for what or to whom. I think Wikipedia administrators should set an example for etiquette. I continue to be shocked by that first comment and hopes the community recognizes the inadmissibility of such comments and admonishes User:Bwilkins and urges him or her to apologize to User:Mbz1 for the remark. Thank you. Stellarkid ( talk) 19:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins status on his talk page indicates he'll be offline and therefore unavailable for discussion for some time period. I've removed the remark for now. Gerardw ( talk) 22:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

GerardW, Mbz1 has been extremely disruptive (hence the block) and Bwilkins' comment was a quite appropriate decline and nothing like a personal attack. Please restore it immediately and in future leave other peoples comments alone per WP:TPO. Factsontheground ( talk) 22:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think removing "to either show how much we'll miss you, or how important you must be." with the edit summary "Removing personal attack" is a bit blunt and will leave some users wondering too... Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't strike me as a personal attack of such a degree that we should edit it out. -- Taelus ( talk) 22:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why does this need to be raised here now? The user hasn't been given time to reply to your initial comments four or five hours ago on their talk page, and has clearly indicated they will be away for a time. Additionally, this seems to be a one off incident, thus what can this noticeboard do that the users talk page cannot do at the current time? Personally I don't think WQA will achieve anything until the user responds, thus this is premature pending reply to the discussion you brought up at the users talk page. -- Taelus ( talk) 22:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to Gerardw for recognizing a personal attack when you see one, and editing it out for now. Stellarkid ( talk) 00:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by definition are to be found here [86] and conclude with "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Clearly the comment was disparaging and insulting. Is there a policy on just how disparaging and insulting it needs to be before it is considered egregious enough to be removed? Stellarkid ( talk) 01:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Civility#Removing_uncivil_comments? Are we claiming that Bwilkins actions were "obvious trolling" now? Anyway, I still don't think this thread will gain anything positive till the editor comments, thus this could be resolved without WQA needing to be touched at all. -- Taelus ( talk) 09:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(OD) This doesn't seem to be a personal attack, and certainly not an attack to the point where it would rise to the level of removing a comment from an admin and filing a complaint against him. Gerardw, you are obviously very involved with this blocked user. I won't revert you, but I think you should have waited to hear from the admin before reverting a comment on a several-days-old unblock decline. There was no urgency here. Dayewalker ( talk) 01:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Obviously very involved with this blocked user?" Where do you get that? I can usually pick up on the obvious, and I did a quick check on Gerardw's contributions but didn't notice any interaction between the two. Please clarify. With respect to urgency, why would anyone responding to the etiquette board want to leave disparaging remarks on a user's page any longer than necessary? (Might just add that it was I who filed the complaint and Gerardw who followed up on it by [rightfully] removing it.) Stellarkid ( talk) 02:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, you are right. I was actually looking at Stellarkid's contributions, not Gerardw's, and I have stricken the comments above. I stand by the rest of what I said, though, this didn't seem to be a personal attack and as such, I saw no need to remove it immediately. If the blocked user thought it was a personal attack, she can remove it from her own page. Dayewalker ( talk) 02:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. And with respect to your last statement, that was what I had thought as well. However part of the reasons given for the unblock denial given by User:Bwilkins was - "Your entire set of activities on this talkpage during your block has been extremely disruptive. You removed declined block requests, you removed block notices..." [87], so you see the user would have felt herself terribly constrained to do so, under the circumstances. Stellarkid ( talk) 03:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

While it may be true that administrators should set an example, we are all only required to be WP:CIVIL ("formal or perfunctory politeness"). Having had nothing to do with this (I saw the notification while discussing another issue on User:Bwilkins' talk page) I took a few moments to review some of User:Mbz1's recent edits and many/most of them are not only problematic, but appear to be well characterised by User:Bwilkins' remarks. Recall that truth is an absolute defense against such claims off-wiki, and I don't see how the showboating could have otherwise been described without calling a spade a spade. Nor is it obvious that there is/should be a correlation between quality of contributions and obligation to comply with policy. -- samj _in ^out 12:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WQA is a step in dispute resolution, and the premature escalation of this from talkpage to here (within a space of 3 hours) was poor form by the filing party, Stellarkid, and there was a clear neglect to note this by Gerardw, and a remarkably poor exercise in judgement of refactoring the comment. Even so, dispute resolution cannot work when an user is clearly unavailable to participate, let alone has not had a reasonable chance to respond to a concern. There was no urgency here, per Dayewalker: certainly not an attack to the point where it would rise to the level of removing a comment from an admin and/or filing a complaint against him. Poorly handled altogether. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The decline reason was insulting, unwarranted and unfair. The contests from my talk page were archived. I do not care to get an apology from Bwilkins, so I believe the discussion here should be archived now. Marking it as resolved. Thank you, Stellar and Gerardw-- Mbz1 ( talk) 16:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There are other concerns here that are unresolved - especially as the subject is not available to respond. It can be archived, but it cannot be marked as resolved. Please stop inappropriately closing and archiving threads relating to you. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It is unbelievable. It was filed not against me, but in order to make the user to apologize to me for his PA at my talk page. I said I do not care about the apology from that user. The user is out. The matter is resolved for me. Once again I am asking you please butt out, and stop following me around. Today you followed me around at three pages, if I do not count my own talk page. That's enough.--05:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Serious accusations require serious evidence. I participated in this discussion prior to you adding you 2 cents and making an inappropriate close; LHvU's talk page is on my watchlist and you seem to be in yet another petty squabble there (as characterised by LHvU himself); you were then engaging in the same behavior on ANI - another page on my watchlist. Finally, although this may be resolved with regards to you not expecting an apology, Bwilkins lack of participation does not automatically mean the dispute is resolved. You seem to have trouble assuming good faith, and I'm considering proposing a sanction on you to prevent this constant problem. Cut it out already. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 05:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I really do not like the users who are playing in being administrators, and I cannot care less about you "considering proposing a sanction on me to prevent this constant problem". Please do. I would not even bother to respond there. I have more interesting things to do. Goodbye -- Mbz1 ( talk) 05:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I might just add that it was I who filed this report because I thought the comment was unacceptable coming from an administrator. This report had nothing to do with Mbz1's edits but the photos that she put up on her web page and the way that Bwilkins characterized them. They are the very essence of lack of etiquette. Mbz1 did not file this complaint nor was she even aware I planned to file it. The remarks made with respect to Mbz1's photos was the only part I brought up, as well as his comment that she "had a lot of apologizing to do." Please do not turn this into more than it is and escalate the drama. I am sorry that Bwilkins is unavailable to comment, since he had apparently made his comments moments before he left. I agree with Mbz1, just to "archive" or file this and forget about it since people cannot seem to stick with the complaint as it was made but attempting to escalate it into something more. Stellarkid ( talk) 05:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to how dispute resolution works on Wikipedia. If you have a concern, you take it up directly with that user, be it an editor or an administrator - even if it is via email in cases where the user might not be very active. Although you did post on the talk page, it seems you expected a response within 3 hours; that's not a reasonable amount of time to wait before escalating a dispute as you did here. All of the users (except Gerardw) who have responded in this discussion disagree with you and think it did not rise to the level that it needed to be removed, let alone apologised for. Bwilkins may find that there are issues that aren't resolved and require something more due to Gerardw's poor handling which is cleary unsupported by consensus - in saying that, it doesn't mean we leave this open indefinitely, but it does mean this complaint cannot be marked resolved. Had you not escalated this here so prematurely, this wouldn't even be an issue. When the inappropriate closes stop, and the sticks are dropped, it will be archived without further notice. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 05:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note to Ncmvocalist, read point 63 & 65 of WP:OWB. Let's move on, shall we? Cheers~! -- Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation will be formally offered by Zlykinskyja in the near future. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 14:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Reference below is to a new complaint by the same accuser based on a new WikiHounding incident involving him subsequent to this discussion. Zlykinskyja ( talk) 01:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since you keep misusing this closing section, would you be so kind and explain to me and others what the bases of your accusation are? If not, I suggest you retract. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 00:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha. You moved a personal comment to the top of the closing. That's not how it's done here but since you do so, I sure can do so too. Why not moving the "unresolved" sign etc. at the bottom of the page? Whould that suit you? The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 23:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:Zlykinskyja's conduct at AFD page. ---- The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 21:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Non admin closure by thread starter as no admin commented. Further problems should be taken to ANI. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 01:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)