Things have gotten worse; the user has proceeded to delete information from the page, regardless of its many supporting references. All of his or her comments have continued to be ad hominem, and in some cases criticisms of the sources. All the references in question are supported by WP:Reliable sources. I've considered attempting to resolve the matter through discussion on User:Karen carpentry's talk page, but because he or she seems to be taking this so personally, I don't feel that further interaction will help matters. I'd like to move on, but I also don't feel that disruptive editing is acceptable. I'm unsure what my next step should be.
Diffs establishing the user's deletions:
Diffs recording the user's comments, which are mostly about what he or she takes to be my location and personality:
Thanks. Aryder779 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Aryder, I'm sorry to say that having read the entire talk page (including bits I had viewed to earlier on it), although there are slight hints of sarcasm on both sides, I fail to see overall incivility. In fact, people seem to be choosing their words very carefully. What I see as a root problem now, however, is a content dispute ... those cannot be dealt with in this forum. I think once that's dealt with, the personality discussions may lessen a bit. BMW(drive) 09:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Thanks for your time. I don't mean to cry wolf. Aryder779 (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Hexhand and personal attacks/rudeness in an AfD

User:Hexhand is being rude and making personal attacks against me in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/(Pilot) Fringe. His first post responding to the AfD, was a lengthy personal attack with a threat to file an AN/I because I AfD "his" article. He "apologized" to another editor who chastised him for it, then today made a bunch of snide, condescending, and rude remarks. He earlier also made vague threats on my user talk page and showed the same rude attitude with an edit summary of "er, maybe I stuttered?" and again making a vague threat of how he will react to my saying the article was not notable.. He's also carrying it over to other edit summaries. -- ] (] · ]) 15:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Hmm, let's look at it another way, shall we? I start an article about the pilot episode of a series, and less than fours after that, Collectonian removes all the material, redirecting it back to a stub of an article, with a snide edit summary, implying the article was created to prop up a bloated plot. When asked about it, he says the article isn't notable (though subsequent AfD commentary from many others seems to feel it is). After edit-warring over the redirect four times in both the series article and the pilot article, she warns he could just refer the article for AfD instead. This he did.

If I choose to have a little less respect for an editor (who has been previously blocked for edit-warring, and an extensive history of being asked to provide a bit more civility) who appears to be gaming the system to remove an article that she - and she alone - seems to feel isn't notable enough for inclusion, then so be it. The "vague threats" Collectonian refers to are requests to use the discussion page, as opposed to simply edit-warring in some misguided hope that throught he simple act of reverting, her will would somehow prevail. Edit-warring has consequences, and Collectonian was warned, as per AN/I protocol; revisiting the same edit-warring behavior would trigger a complaint. As for my so-called snide remarks, the diffs pretty much refute Collectonian's own claims. Were they actually incorrect, she might have a leg to stand on. As it is, she doesn't. AGF doesn't mean overlooking bad, uncooperative behavior.

Frankly, this forum-shopping. As DR goes, the first step would be to actually discuss matters with me, which she has not deigned to to (though she did delete my comments requesting her to stop edit warring here), calling it OWNership. Subsequent comments haven't been all that pleasant, either. She came here to get sympathy, not a resolution with me. Again, gaming the system. - Hexhand (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's get to the root of the issue: There was already an article about the topic. There's no doubt that any NEW information needs to be merged into it, and the original deleted ASAP (blank it, CSD it, as far as I'm concerned). Prior to creating an article, an editor is supposed to do a search for similar articles, so I'm surprised this one went through the way it did, but it did (on top of that, I really hope that this less-than-noteworthy (as of right now) TV show does not get separate articles for each episode). There is NO discussion whatsoever on the Talk page of the newer article, and only a couple of project templates on the other. In short, ONE editor jumped the gun by creating the article, ANOTHER editor jumped the gun in AfD'ing it. So, copy the "new" article's contents to your sandbox and GET RID OF the article ASAP. Discuss any further issues in a civil manner on the Talk page of the ORIGINAL. I say everybody drop it and move on. BMW(drive) 16:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hexhand preferred instead of file a false 3RR report against me, so no quick close here. (and considering the pilot is still be argued as a keep in a separate AfD, its probably this unnotable series will end up with episode articles for every episode). -- ] (] · ]) 16:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

BWilkins is right; I didn't search as well as I should have before creating the article. BW is also correct that more talk should have occurred, but - despite repeated requests for such - none occurred, and edit-warring ensued. As for the falseness of the 3RR complaint, the last time I checked, 3RR covers just about any revert over three, unless it is undoing vandalisim or outright disruption. Collectonian has surely been here long enough to know how to avoid 3RR.

Lastly, the matter wouldn't likely be resolved by simply merging the material from the newer article in to the older one, as Collectonian has already expressed a burning desire to have the entire article deleted (despite the consensus of the AfD she closed voluntarily). It is not a single action but a pattern of behavior by Collectonian that is a bit south of acceptable - Hexhand (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, 3RR does not cover "any revert" in combination, it covers specific reverts. Nor were those even reverts, it was cleaning up a merged article. And you yourself said "close the AfD, its been merged" so I did then you reported me for 3RR for doing so. In the real world, that's call entrapment. -- ] (] · ]) 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian ... you've been at this Misplaced Pages thing for awhile, and I think you're generally level headed about things. How about this: back away from this specific article for a few days, let it get merged and edited. Right now, it looks like you have a big dislike-hook on this specific article, and that's not healthy. If it's still crappy by the weekend, start cleaning it up and/or AfD it (or better yet, have someone else you trust look at it and AfD it if they feel it deserves it). Meddling in an article that you're AfDing when someone is trying to merge it is really counterproductive, and (as you can see) pi'ses people off who are trying to save it. BMW(drive) 16:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who nominated it for AfD, so I don't see my closing it per his own merging as "meddling." The merging was done, so I closed the double AfD which was no longer valid and did a single one to allow the new merged article to be judged on its on. I have also tried cleaning up the article to at least make it better if its kept, but Hexhand is reverting all other editors attempts to edit the new merged article, including mine and those from another established editor User:LeaveSleaves (who was already working on the first version) to continue returning the article to his merged version., including edits that improved sourcing. -- ] (] · ]) 16:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, wrong again. Maybe you should follow BWikins' healthy advice; if your behavior makes you feel the need to break 3RR, edit-war and initiate a wiki-alert, you are getting too hot. Trust the rest of the wiki community to fix the article. You are on record stating that the article isn't notable, and you've piled on anyone who feels differently. Two differnet AfDs for the same article is excessive, and I suspect you aren't too far gone to know that. Return to some of that level-headedness that BW was talking about earlier and calm the heck down. Maybe have a nice cup of tea. - Hexhand (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hexhand, you should also make sure that as there are other editors who are knowledgeable on this subject (see the history of the first version of this article), please let them help with your edits as well. As I've said, it's probably about time to use the Article's Discussion page (not another editor's page) to deal with any future changes ... no matter how minor they are at this point. When an article is already at AfD, you need as many good hands helping at the same time to save it ... some of the article editors are long-standing editors, and can possibly help save the article. Don't take too much ownership if it! BMW(drive) 18:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Really, I wasn't even considering something I owned. I even merged my content to the other article that was created before the one I made. I thought the article deserved to remain, and I saw Collectonian's behavior as dismissive, biased and unpleasant. I've been told that Collectonian isn't usually like this, so I will attempt to mend some fences for flying off the handle at the bad behavior/lapse in judgment/whatever. - Hexhand (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Collectonian here. These rude, snike, condescending remarks need to stop. Users can make their point without resorting to such tactics, which do nothing to help build the encyclopedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems he is determined to just attack me at any and every chance he gets, for no valid reason. His latest attack is getting close to my limit on taking his abuse, despite his obviously insincere tacked on "thanks" after a paragraph of insults. I'm trying like hell to remain polite, if terse at this point, and avoid responding, but this is just plain ridiculous. I've already asked for someone else from the TV project to adopt this series' articles so I can get away from him. He's also attacking here. He refuses to admit he was wrong in his 3RR report - which the admin noted was not a violation at all and wasn't even a valid report. He continues his massive attacks all over the place for no reason and has demanded that I leave all of "his" articles despite my being the one who has been editing on the Fringe series articles for months. -- ] (] · ]) 17:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am most certainly not. Pointing to where the only edits you tend to make in any article I am participating in are to revert (and almost always re-revert) my additions is not a personal attack. Asking you to stop beating a dead horse - mentioning things I have already apologized for at least twice - and returning to polite discussion is not a personal attack. Indeed, those apologies or attempts to med fences are either ignored, deleted or discounted. My apology was indeed sincere; the 3RR report only showed three reverts (though that is pretty much edit-warring).

I would suggest that if you think you aren't being impolite, you need to step back and take another look. You are edit-warring. You are not talking, not discussing, not seeking a consensus. You are using past mistakes to justify continuing personal attacks in discussion. I will say it again: I am sorry the 3RR report was filed; you did not revert four times. I am sorry for responding inappropriately to you, and adding to it by responding poorly when you were demonstrated bad faith and made your own personal attacks. I am sorry; can we now move on? Please?

I am asking to work with you. If you cannot, don't interact with me (which I have already suggested). Please stop reflexively revert my edits without actually reading them. BRD actually means discussing. - Hexhand (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User:DanTD

Repeatedly adds Image:Which Iraqi Resistance.jpg and Image:Anti-Red China Poster.jpg even though they have been deleted 3 times for being non-free.

Has called me dense, accused me and all of these people of supporting terrorism a vandal and repeatedly adds the images back stating that they are free, after they have been deleted various times for not being free. . Dzhugashvili (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing he's right about is me calling him dense, for siding with the various terrorist groups who he and others like him lionize as "The Iraqi Resistance." The images I created are as free as his userbox idolizing Joseph Stalin. Beyond that, he has the gall to accuse me of vandalizing my own page. I've seen plenty of wikipedia editor's user pages who's politics I disagree with, but I don't vandalize their pages and accuse them of vandalism for trying to restore them. ----DanTD (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

People are free to support the Iraqi resistance, this does not mean they support terrorism. Your "posters" are not free, they clearly use images which are not free to use, this point is proven by the fact, 3 different admins have deleted them. The image of Joseph Stalin, is free to use. Please provide a link to where I accused you of vandalising your userpage. As I've told you various times, the 3 different admins did not delete them over political views, they are non-free images, and aren't being used on a single article. Dzhugashvili (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does mean that they support terrorism, because the people that you claim are "the Iraqi Resistance" have murdered people who don't practice Islam in the way they see fit(or in some cases are merley not loyal to deposed dictatror Saddam Hussein), and have waged their respected holy wars outside of Iraq. The bombings of Shiite Mosques attacks on common merchants, the attacks on moderate Shiites by extremists Shiites and attacks against Jordan & Isreal prove my point. Plus, I've notice something about you Dzhugashvili; You've got a bad habit of blocking out data regarding your heroes. You've erased the millions killed by Stalin and a loss for Syria during the Six-Day War. You'd try to revive the myth that the Nazis were responsible for the Katyn massacre, despite the fact that Mikhail Gorbachev admitted it was the Soviet Union's fault, if you could. ----DanTD (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This argument doesn't belong here, or on Misplaced Pages for that matter. --NE2 13:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering Dzhugashvili's actions, I say it does. If not, then some other board dealing with such edits. ----DanTD (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with what edits? Deleting a copyright infringement? --NE2 08:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with the deletion of anything that's anti-communist. These particular edits would never have occured, if this kid hadn't been on a rampage against anything that was contrary to for the former and current communist party line. When I tried to explain why anyone who thinks that the terrorists in Iraq are "the Iraqi people resisting occupation" is dense, he eliminated my message, and said "I don't value your opinion." Well it's not an opinion. It's a fact. If my watchlist weren't already cluttered enough, I'd keep an eye on Dzhugashvili's edits, to make sure rhese kinds of deletions don't continue. ----DanTD (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"You've erased the millions killed by Stalin" - Well the number of people he had killed is disputed, I removed information, which was badly sourced. "and a loss for Syria during the Six-Day War." I'm not sure I would describe the political parties of Syria as "heroes", I have no knowledge or interest in Syrian politics, generally Misplaced Pages doesn't accept unsourced information, the 2 pieces of information I removed were unsourced since June 2007. "if this kid hadn't been on a rampage against anything that was contrary to for the former and current communist party line." - A rampage? Are you really being serious, as you've been told various times in the past, the images were not free, they weren't deleted for being anti-communist. "If my watchlist weren't already cluttered enough, I'd keep an eye on Dzhugashvili's edits," - I don't know what to suggest, try developing a hobby or an interest of some sort, outside of WIkipedia? "to make sure rhese kinds of deletions don't continue" - You want to make sure copyright infringements remain on Misplaced Pages?? Dzhugashvili (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You too. Misplaced Pages is not for political arguments. --NE2 05:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What? I didn't make any political arguments, I just quoted what he said, and explained why his accusations are wrong. Dzhugashvili (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The subject here is deletion of an unfree image. It was properly deleted. --NE2 12:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He was also told by an admin, on his talk page, that the images are NOT free here. Also one of the images was deleted on 28 March 2007, which disproves his point that I'm nominating images for deletion, which differ from my political views, as my account was made on September 10th. Dzhugashvili (talk) 08:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dan, even though you may have made the poster, it is a "derivative work", as you used three copyrighted, non-free photographs to create it. The poster is therefore not suitable on Misplaced Pages. Please do not upload it again, or you will be blocked. fish&karate 11:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This user does seem to have accepted the point that the image was deleted correctly: Hut 8.5 06:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Then we have both a CONTENT and CIVILITY issue. The civility surrounds the (proper) deletion of a non-free image. The civil discussion about the content should take place outside of this forum. I would recommend having a NEUTRAL editor who does a lot of work with images assist the editor in how to come up with a proper, allowable image for the same purpose. BMW(drive) 11:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

24.184.206.83 - anon. user

The user has been persistent in making comments about editors, not edits. He has called several people out as if they were idiots, banning people from his talk page (his right to do so?).

He's been especially (uncivil?/mean?) to me and User:LonelyBeacon. A little help? Thanks. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 23:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The edits of User:24.184.206.83 look good up until the beginning of September. Has a few suspected sock puppets out there, has a check user been done on him? Seems to vandalize pages and on another account claims his cousin was using the computer (who was also vandalizing pages). I noticed one of his suspected socks was recently banned, but it expired. User:MrMarkTaylor 00:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it has. He's just been uncivil. He's been accused of SOCKing before but don't know about them. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 01:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again you're talking about me in situations you barely know half about. If you want the story on the sock puppet crap, then try checking my page. And I'm attacking edittors? Yeah, one edit that called someone a "hypocrite" means every single one of my edits are personal attacks. I know losing an argument was hard, but you made it too easy for me to win. And, no, I didn't want to win. I got what I wanted, me and Lonely Beacon apologized to each other. The reason I argued with you was because you were acting like a wanna-be admin ( as evidenced by your page ) in a situation you had little knowledge of. 24.184.206.83 (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's still going on (above) and here. That Ghost109 character is now talking about banning the IP. This has the smell of socks all over it. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 04:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your sadness is very entertaining. I love how you can't respond directly yet can completely change the subject (while talking in third person to yourself) to something that I've talked about with admins months ago. Nice job. Ghost109 (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Longchenpa Discussions in Edit Summary

See User_talk:Longchenpa#Please_Discuss_on_Talk_pages_and_not_in_Edit_Summary for Wikiquette issue. I would like to avoid a revert issue and discuss on talk pages. The Jetsunma Title issue may require and Third Party or RFC to address a fringe theory. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing this as WP:CIVIL? BMW(drive) 10:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's here Misplaced Pages:Civility#Dispute_resolution as in "other difficult communications with editors" it's difficult to communicate when issues are forked into the Edit Summary comments. see: Edit_summary#Use_of_edit_summaries_in_disputes The editor is ignoring this request to be civil. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If they are being rude, uncivil, or impolite in edit summaries, it's a Wikiquette issue. This is not incivility, it's improper use of edit summaries. With such a wide variety of editors not using ANY edit summaries, this is more of an education of the user, hopefully. BMW(drive) 00:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I apprecaite the education. We can close this issue now as I fear other resolutions may be required in the content dispute. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Gibnews

Gibraltar issues are usually a hot topic because of the dispute between the UK, Gibraltar and Spain. Because of that, I think that the most appropriate way of working is keeping, to the greater extent, civility rules. However, it's difficult to stick to them when your first edition after long is reverted and qualified as "racist comment" (see here). I know it's difficult to keep calm, but it should be, at least, tried. In this specific case, Gibnews keep on removing a sourced POV, something that I dare to predict it'll be a source of problems). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This report is far, far too premature. Both User:Gibnews and User:Ecemaml have had a record of heated debates and dragging in others at this stage is uncooperative. This therefore comes across as fairly pointy. I would advise editors see WP:AGF and achieve consensus through rational discussion, thereby avoiding jumping to noticeboards and not to mention hurling accusations of POV-pushing. RedCoat10 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're definitely right but in one point. Removing a sourced point of view (even if we decided that such a POV does not deserve a place in the article) under the qualification of "racist comment", how cooperative is? I mean, I'm trying to defend my redaction but without entering any heated debate, but if the first action by Gibnews is accusing me of pushing racist point of views, shouldn't he be warned before the debate eventually get heated? Anyway, there are plenty of admins that can take the appropriate measures (obviously also ignoring this alert :-)) --Ecemaml (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC) PS: in fact, an informal apology would be enough, but both of us know that it won't happen.

This appears to be more of a "content" issues more than civility. Trying to use the "racism" card where it doesn't belong is not incivility, it's calling "wolf" - in other words, this is the wrong forum for the issue. On top of that, this forum is for neutral editors (not necessarily admins) to help look at civility issues from a true 3rd party POV. It was filed this morning, and sorry that I had not had a full opportunity to reply until now. BMW(drive) 15:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Where should I complain then? --Ecemaml (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User:The Rogue Penguin

I've had just about enough of him. He's pissed me off to the point where I got banned for a day before, and now he's annoying be and harassing me by reverting EVERY SINGLE EDIT I MAKE. He doesn't even appear to look at them, he just says "lol its a test edit". When I ask him what the big deal is of using " instead of ' is, he refused to answer. Please give him some discipline, whether it's a short ban, a warning, or whatever. I just want him dealt with. RhoLyokoWarrior (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RhoLyoko, first could you please provide diff's that show your point (directions at the top of this page). From the history of your edits, you've had incivility in your talk page, racism on your user page, swearing in your edit summaries, and so far have uploaded a number of improper images, tried to create articles that should never be created, and a number of editors have tried to steer you in the right direction, mainly Penguin. I would honestly expect that he/she has you on their watchlist - many editors keep an eye on "problem" editors in order to fix upcoming problems. You have been directed to , , and more policies. Now, that said, nobody likes to be followed too closely, but they have not been overly UNCIVIL with you. I would recommend that you a) take a few days to read through some of the standard Misplaced Pages policies on how and when to edit and create articles, b) please tone down your own incivility and c) if neither of the above are successful, ask to be adopted by a senior editor who can help you to become a better editor yourself. BMW(drive) 08:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RhoLyoko's been blocked (and declined several times) so I'd say this dispute is resolved. User:MrMarkTaylor 00:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Ramu50

This user called an anon user who frequently revert his edits in Template:AMD processors "idiot", "stupid" and threaten to "report to administrators" after a series of discussions, see relevant talk page. This user has a record of putting the word "Bullshit" in editing summary in the past and had been warned by another editor. --202.40.157.165 (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50 later removed this section and replaced with a section accusing of "synthesis" of the anon user. Original text follows:

P.S.: He has quoted the wrong IP also, the correct IP should be 218.102.105.16 instead of 202.40.157.165. --219.77.139.158 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody forgot that this place is aimed at seeking for third-party's neutral POV on the user's conduct as he removed some of the phrases pointing towards him. So I revert his edit and reply here as a proof of his actions.

To Ramu50: Misplaced Pages has a little feature called edit revisions, don't think that you have removed anything which points towards you and then you are out of trouble. By removing these edits here, it will only show that you have way more problems about your user conduct, other than ones the Anon user has filed here. --203.218.111.163 (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

User Ramu50 had threatened to report to administrators again in the editing summary of one of his reverts made to ATI Template. --203.218.101.133 (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Thumperward

Not assuming good faith, persistent templating of me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fafnir665 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

See the user's edit and talk page histories. Standard templating escalation for low-level hostility (starting with a level 2 this edit, going to l3 for this and with a final given for continued uncivil edit summaries on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WTFPL (2nd nomination). Templating ceased as soon as I read the request to stop it on my talk. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not enough elapsed time between request and Wikiquette posting to see if templating stopped. User is assuming bad faith, see user's talk page histories. Fafnir665 (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Think everyone should take a look at Disputes instead of templating and dropping tags, suggest re-reading Accusing others of bad faith and Staying Cool rather than telling people they will be blocked, when its up to an administrators discretion, and not just the editors.Fafnir665 (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with incivil behaviour

If there is a problem with userA using userB's talk page to repeatedly misrepresnt other editors and when polite requests to userB that the misrepresentation is removed are just reverted or mocked with other misrepresentation, is there a forum that this kind of incivility can be brought to? I seem to remember somewhere a policy or guideline stating that user talk pages should not be used to misrepresent other editors but I cannot find it? The misrepresentation in this case has been happening over several months. Fnagaton 02:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm still being called a racist on someone's talk page, and nobody in this forum was willing to touch it. You might need to do an RfC, but note the RfC rules (ie: 2 editors must have warned the other editor about their actions, and proof must be provided). BMW(drive) 11:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User User:Jehochman is trying to coerce me with block threats to stop editing anonymously

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

if I know Misplaced Pages rules well enough, it is my right to be an anonymous editor. Or is it not?

Can someone prevent this user from interacting with me? His is misusing his administrative privileges with these threats. Thank you.

Lakinekaki (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive459#Outings.2FPersonal_Attacks_by_two_editors ... This editor has recently begun trolling about the definition of Fringe science at that talk page, apparently a continuation of old disputes. NJGW (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to mention who started with ad hominem attacks and with WP:HARASSment. BTW, thank you for calling me a troll. Any other compliments you want to give me, while you are at that? Lakinekaki (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Who first called you that??? Hard to tell, but I see you've been called out on the fringe noticeboard before a couple of times. Maybe if you stopped quacking it wouldn't happen so much. NJGW (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep going, you are doing well. Do you have any more essays to quote? Lakinekaki (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please guys stop accusing eachother and let us see what's going on here?

Lakanekaki, are you editing the same topics using both your account and IPs? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 00:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No. I logged in today after a while because I was called a sock puppet on my user talk page, and thought it deserves a response with my signature. Lakinekaki (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, could you please ask Jehochman or anyone nicely (no bold CAPS or bad words please) to refer to WP:SSP and wait for the outcome? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It will be better if I don't interact with him. This is not the first time he is 'waving' with blocking me. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And while we are at SSP, can I also suggest several users for inspections, as they seem to appear on each other's talk pages within no time, backing up each other in discussions. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We are at WP:Etiquette :) It'd be odd if you don't want to interact with someone and still come here. Just take it easy. Just talk to him nicely and I am sure he'd not be hard on your edits. And yes, if you really believe someone is sockpuppeting, you're free to file a SSP report but remember that CU is not for fishing. Please remember, if you are innocent, you don't need to get upset. If you need any help, please refer to my talk page. Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, it is so obvious, i stopped editing on july 30 as lakinekaki , until today (and one similar accusation on august 3). And I stated on my talk page on july 29 that I am going into 'anonymous edit mode'. So there cannot be sock puppetry as I am not using my account (unless provoked like today). So I don't even see a point in being labeled as sock puppet and threatened by block by Jehochman. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, what Jehochman said was "Please restrict yourself to a single account for further editing activities, or else blocks will be placed." Also, you have edited at least two pages in common with your named account, one on the same day and it confused people: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (2nd nomination) and Misplaced Pages:NOMORE. I'm sure Jehochman is just concerned because of this remark. NJGW (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You will note that that is when I switched to 'anon' mode -- july 30. Lakinekaki (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the weird part was when you came back a few days later to tell people you weren't that anon. NJGW (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird? So should I keep a list of all public IP's that I use my computer at? Lakinekaki (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

like this one 12.134.13.85 (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned because Lakinekaki (talk · contribs) is using the IPs to attack and bait other editors, and accumulating quite a streak of warnings for various forms of disruption. This sort of behavior is prohibited by the bad hand provision of our sock puppetry policy. By using multiple accounts they are not being blocked, whereas if one account did everything the user is doing with multiple accounts, it most likely would get blocked. If the user sticks to one account, either named or IP, and avoids causing further disruption, there will be no problem. And to everyone on this thread, when discussing an editor, be sure to notify them. I wasn't notified about this thread; just found it by chance. Jehochman 02:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Lakinekaki (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

for example, for your quote of 'block' edit (last one), here is the context Lakinekaki (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of dealing with wikipedia "editors". It is saturday night, and I am going to have some fun away from computer. Lakinekaki (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

So, one user outed the user a couple of years ago...nice work Wikipedians. Because of that, the editor is very valid in a Legitimate use of Alternative accounts (from WP:SOCK)- "Segregation and security Some editors use alternative accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:

• Users with a recognized expertise in one field might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about subjects in which they do not have the same expert standing, or which they consider less weighty.
• A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Misplaced Pages identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account in order to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area."

Stop placing anonymous IP tags on the user's page. If he truly circumvents the rules (avoiding blocks, voting, good guy/bad guy, etc) then deal with him that way when the incidents arise. BMW(drive) 12:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not a legitimate use of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny while violating community standards, such as this misuse of vandalism warnings against a content opponent, or this egregious breach of decorum, or this edit which amounts to taunting and threatening to violate policy. Please, Lakinekaki, choose an IP or named account and avoid switching, which may confuse other editors. We have a legitimate interest in seeing your history of contributions, warnings, and blocks (if any). Jehochman 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This all started as Lakinekaki (who was questioning the definition of a term over and over without offering his own definition, or sources to support the possibility that the one in use should be questioned) first lost his cool for being called out as a Troll by a third editor , then immediately started editing tendentionsly , and started getting nasty . At this point, it looks like Johachman seems to have noticed activity on the talk page and decided to step in and give some context to this anon's behaviors. For what it's worth, Lakinekaki seems to advocate total annonimity, which would never work in an environment like wikipedia which requires accountability to maintain the quality of the project. NJGW (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"requires accountability to maintain the quality of the project"?? I think you're in the wrong spot. Misplaced Pages believes anybody can edit, and nobody is required to ever create a userid. Yes,it's preferred, but not required. Contributions must be judged by their quality and verifiability, not by the username. We have millions of editors who are more destructive than many IP editors. He is not required to sign in every time he wishes to edit. Do not threaten to block someone simply because they don't sign in. You block because of disruption, whether they are signed in or not. If I see someone block because someone didn't sign in, I will be the first to file a report on that admin. Follow the rules as they are laid out, don't make up new ones. BMW(drive) 15:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Do not threaten to block someone simply because they don't sign in." I'm very confused. No one ever made a statement which ammounted to that. I'm afraid you are interpreting Lakinekaki's words as truth. Please have a look at Johachman's actual statement: "Please restrict yourself to a single account for further editing activities, or else blocks will be placed. You have said that you can avoid detection by using multiple accounts. No, you can't. That is not allowed." .

As for the question of accountability, I'm pretty sure that's what edit histories and warning templates on talk pages are all about... you make changes and are held accountable for each one of them. NJGW (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I read every single link very carefully ... plus some that were not provided that gave additional background (hence my comment about someone OUTING who the editor was, very very bad). I can edit any dang article I want, whether logged in or not - that's the rules. If my edits are valid and referenced, nobody has a right to undo them, whether I'm logged in or not. I question the admin abilities of anyone who does not get the most simple concept of Misplaced Pages. YOU are claiming accountability to a userid, and confusing it with accountable to any type of entity. ANY IP address is tracable to a specific house at a specific time,so the accountability chain is never broken. WP:SOCK is often claimed, and usually very wrongly. "Please restrict yourself to a single account" is NOT something that ANYBODY on Misplaced Pages has a right to request, and the threat of blocks for doing so is EXACT in meaning to my paraphrase. BMW(drive) 16:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

'...and started getting nasty...' I laughed when I read that. Anyhow, here is something every "editor" should read: On civility and Misplaced Pages 216.80.119.92 (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess that means incivility is OK as long as you're the one doing it!? Or are you suggesting that that was not the starting point of the nastiness? NJGW (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If you've read it, you would know. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is rather funny (and not in a good way) when an editor feels like they can scream this here, and then file a complaint at Wikiquette Alerts. Perhaps the editor feels emboldened by their ability to use multiple accounts to obfuscate their editing history. Yes, it is a rather clever idea to use a bunch of different accounts for making rude comments, personal attacks, and frivolous complaints. Except, that when this pattern of editing is discovered, all the accounts are normally blocked. I think it was a kindness for me to warn the editor, rather than to let them get blocked. Of course, no good deed goes unpunished... Jehochman 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the very apparent goading that made the complainant say that will stand up very well. I was hoping that Jehochman was going to quietly back away from this situation, having seen his actions that caused this, and I'm personally both surprised and ashamed. As of this point, this is no longer a civility issue, it's a complaint about an admin. I'm off to find the right place to take this, but no further issues need to be raised about civility in this forum. BMW(drive) 19:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. You are just encouraging them to post more curse words and personal attacks. That stuff is totally out of bounds and is never justified. Jehochman 19:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I suggested you look at the root cause of the ENTIRE series of incidents. Eventually you WP:OUTING someone, call them a sockpuppet, threaten them with blocks even though they're following the rules, they're bound to snap. Really, leave him alone *shrug* BMW(drive) 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Could we please again stop for a while and review this case from the start? Meanwhile, civility is very important and the community is already reviewing that same policy if you can have a look at the policy page and its talk page. I am offering to help but I can't do that while hearing "fuck", "idiot", etc... I really can't help under those circumstances. I've already mentioned that yesterday above. This is Wikiquette alerts page and it is a shame to hear such words over here. Please stop it otherwise I'll be obliged to block for incivility regardless of the merits of this complaint/request. So please, let us work in a clean environment. Could we restart this? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 22:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest archiving this thread, and then anybody who wants to discuss the warning that I issued can meet at my talk page, the first stop in my preferred dispute resolution process. I hope that a bit of calm discussion can clear up any misunderstandings. Thank you. Jehochman 04:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For me this is simple. I don't care at this stage who is right or who is wrong, but any further verbal abuse will be dealt with a removal of editing privileges. Editing Misplaced Pages is not a right. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Jobxavier

This user continually engages in hate speech specially related to Religious violence in Orissa.

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AReligious_violence_in_Orissa&diff=240293821&oldid=240178888

This has happened numerous times. Please check this user's contributions.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This situation is already being looked at in Mediation Cabal. It is vital for all parties to remain civil during those discussions, and allow that process to continue. Incivility during that process should be handled by the mediator(s). BMW(drive) 22:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

- I urge vvarkey to tell me how i offended HIM. A girl's healed face was the pic; but it was put on the Christian site the day sfter violence began. A case of miracle cure. If such pic is necessary to prove arson, we need the raped nun's pics also. However, should nt recordfree talk about the pic? -unless both are the same person. And who has been saying that i am immature??

Jobxavier (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Softlavender

I have been attacked twice now first rather surreptitiously here (a little "if you're not a musician" jab) and then this one (questioning my mental health and advising others to ignore me). I am not used to reporting this kind of thing and I have no idea what to say next. padillaH _{(help me)} 04:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• It appears to me that you, Padilla, are equally at fault here, as you have engaged in disruptive arguments with numerous editors on the page in question. There is a clear consensus against your suggestions, yet you continue to add longer and more defensive posts. Perhaps you should take a short break from editing the article and take the time to reflect on your own involvement in escalating the debate to its current state.Smatprt (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)