Revision as of 18:21, 27 September 2009

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

User:Leytonorient

After warning this using about vandalism to Sol Campbell, in which they replaced content with pointless swearing, the user added abusive edits to my userspace. --Jimbo 12:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jonhan

This user has used bad language on my talk page and failed to stop bothering me after I have explicitly ask him to stop. The dispute is about him claiming a source in an article being undue, and I followed the request comment request on the WT:ANIME page by user collectonian to this page to give comments on a dispute, stating per the policy, we should not call a source undue if no other sources are present.(as general proceedings) Some arguments were made on the page and the discussion did not seem to be favouring the user in question, I suggested him to ask for help in WP:ANIME's talk page or the RS notice board if he is really having problems. Things seems to have died down for quite sometime, then the user in question came to my talk page accusing me of making up a policy. Even after I have repeatedly showed him quotes of the undue page, he kept accusing me of dodging his questions and slowly developed bad languages in his replies. I asked him to stop bothering me for a few times, and even warned him not to do so in the last occasion, with no result and kept being accused by him. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 13:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from saying that Mythsearcher pulled something out of his/her "Toosh" I can't see any bad language. In addition, Jonahan has apologized for the perception that he/she was using bad language. I don't see any issue here. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from that, he is still bothering me on my talk page. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 00:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The user had continued to act uncivil after Toddst1 left a note on his talk page. Confirming his personal attack used is indeed deliberate. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 04:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This would be a lot easier if you included the diffs. jonhan (talk · contribs): insult, reply to warning on insult(s) - I don't think Jonhan understands that this isn't acceptable behaviour, yet.

• Procedural question for knowledgeable people (sorry) - Does this need a new section or reopening or escalation? Or? I lightheartedly hope I am trainable.- Sinneed 04:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• If the user was warned, it should be escalated - we can't do anything else here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is quite self-explained. Toddst1 approached the user, s/he continued to insist his/her personal attacks are true. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 06:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing anything but fairly minor expressions of frustration. Mythsearcher, what Jonhan was telling you is correct. An article with no sources is unreferenced, not original research. It's OR if you come up with it yourself. If you add a source, you may be challenged to show that the source asserts what you said it asserts (you've be surprised at how many people cite references that don't actually back up what they say) and there may be a discussion about how much weight to give the source, and how much weight in the article to give the information in the source. That's what WP:UNDUE is about. Apologies if at some point in that discussion you figured this for yourself.

If you think Jonhan is still being uncivil, report it at WP:ANI making sure you provide diffs.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You might have mistaken the whole situation here. Jonhan went to this article and started an edit war about the source being untrue by his own opinion, in which the source at that particular moment is the only review source in that article(other sources are only publication date sources with no review), and thus the article is not unreferenced and not original research. However, Jonhan, as the IP in the beginning, insisted the source to be incorrect(even though the incorrect part claimed is not quoted into the article per other users) and should be removed. He started using the undue argument(surprisingly, towards the end of the discussion on my page, he insisted I am the one bring up the point of undue.) Claiming the only source must be undue and others cannot give more sources with the same view, however, he never displayed any source supporting his own claim of the source being incorrect. I understand if the article has no source supporting it, it is unreferenced and OR, the problem is that the article has a source supporting the view, and the source is deemed reliable from past discussion according to other users. So Jonhan is the one asking to change the article to a unref one, not me. I said if the article is rid of all sources, it would become not notable(really unref). BTW, I am not the one adding the ref, I was only there to comment on the edit war per request. Jonhan is questioning a source that has built up certain reputation and reliability with no actual support. What he is telling me is NOT correct, or you are reading the bold sentences he quoted me saying and thought those are his words.

If you cannot find the parts of his personal attack, here it is :

And his assertion of it being true: (after Toddst asked him to stop and after all comments he made on my talk page)

—Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher 11:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks, Disruption, & Provocations by User:North Shoreman

North Shoreman (talk · contribs)

I'm subjected to disruptive, provocative, personal attacks by this (above) user. I wish assistance in dealing with him civilly, and avoiding any Disruptiveness on Misplaced Pages. The main place this is now occurring is at Revisionist historians (American).

Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Diff's please.--SKATER 16:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please also notify the subject in the future when you file a WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I'm the subject of a Restriction precisely because of the way in which this one editor engage in a content dispute with me. An administrator has imposed a Restriction on me - which of course I must and will honor. However, North Shoreman has worked on the same subject with the restricting editor, and because I've been previously Banned for two years, I think that caused me to be Restricted now. However, because my conduct was so meticulously civil, I am only Restricted, not Banned. I am trying extremely hard to follow WP Policy in order not to be Banned again. And I do not think it is proper for me to have been subjected to personal attacks in the context of such a difficult and controversial area as historical revisionism. I am willing, and able, to work through WP:Consensus - which is probably the most important WP rule. I would appreciate it very much if User:North Shoreman came forth and helped me get out of the mess he has placed me in. Since I was un-Blocked I have had no negative encounter, or Confrontation with another editor. But I believe that only because of my Content dispute with this one editor, a WP:Administrator is now subjecting me to a Restriction - which of course I shall obey until such time as the restriction is lifted. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm in this mess only because of this one editor's conduct towards me: .--Ludvikus (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if Ludvikus had listened to what I early on advised him of at and there would probably have been no restriction. As far as his take “However, because my conduct was so meticulously civil, I am only Restricted, not Banned”, I fail to see anybody saying that at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ludvikus September 2009 where the decision to maintain the restriction is unanimous. As to the statement “Since I was un-Blocked I have had no negative encounter, or Confrontation with another editor”, I think a better way of phrasing that might be “It only took me five days after being released early from a two year block to initiate a confrontation that led to me being restricted.” Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I too, find Tom (North Shoreman) to be at times a problematic editor, in that he declines to support his views with evidence and rational discussion, and may simply ignore material and a minor consensus with which he disagrees. This might be seen as a subtle violation of etiquette.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by PRODUCER

Please continue spouting idiotic statements

--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a rather... terse report. Care to flesh it out? WQA is for early moderation. --King Öomie 15:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiny report is tiny, though he was incivil and I'll warn him. --SKATER 16:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm in this mess only because of this one editor's conduct towards me: .--Ludvikus (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:L31 G0NG L41

This user is having trouble understanding how Misplaced Pages works despite being pointed towards WP:RS and WP:V repeatedly. Their talk page posts leave a lot to be desired with respect to civility: , and basically Talk:Guangzhou is littered with phrases like "racist pig" and "idiot foreigners" (all this over the alternate name of a city). I realize that L31 is defending with he thinks is right but he needs to dial back the rhetoric about five notches. --NeilN 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Clear violations of WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. I see he's already been warned for it as well, as well as talk page modification of others comments (he only did it once so it may have been an accident.) and I believe a block may be in order if he keeps this up.--SKATER 13:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Have I done something wrong?

I started editing a template to improve it for accuracy and presentation here with a full edit summary. It was quickly reverted with the inaccuracy back in as well. So I re-edited with full summary here. The response was a revert with the accompanying edit summary here: "Please do not make controversial edits without WP:Consensus, per guidlines you can find at WP:BRD. Some edits would be fine but your constant rvting without consensus is a waste of our time." which also was placed on my talk page. I didn't consider any of my edits "controversial" nor did I think the tone of response warranted. Back went the errors noted in my edit summaries as well as the rearrangement I'd made. I responded by giving an expanded rationale for my changes on the and re-editing each separately, so that the other editor could choose the ones they didn't like to revert and we could then discuss them.

In this process I've received rather curt, officious and what I consider insulting responses. Have I gone about this wrongly and did I deserve the response I received? Thanks. -- spin 09:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Usually accuracy is a good thing, but in the case of biblical canon, are you sure that's the right word? Is it possible you changed the point of view of the template from one Christian sect to another? That would set people off. The curt messages you received are routine templates. --King Öomie 12:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration -- spin 21:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically you annoyed the other editor by trying to force your changes into the article rather than discussing them beforehand. Since the other editor appears to be ready to compromise, and since the two of you currently appear to be working together productively, and since no other editors are currently involved, it would be best to let bygones be bygones, as I see it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I annoyed the other editor because he considered it was his territory. It is normal that an editor comes across a page that looks like it needs editing and then, well, you know,... edits and provides as clear an edit summary as possible so that another editor can understand what has happened and pays the same courtesy when working on the same page. No forcing anything, just normal Wiki procedure as I understand it. -- spin 03:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with changing a nav template like that is that your change will be instantly reflected on sometimes dozens of pages. WP:BRD is really not for high-traffic templates. --King Öomie 07:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully accuracy and clarity are. -- spin 15:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DKqwerty

This dumbhead is a big fat nerd and he been attacking me and thinks that everything he did is RIGHT, although there is something that has been quite disrespectful. How rude that is to say 'Shut up'!

Okay, let me rephrase this: This user has been attacking me and there is a place where a comment is very rude, and fortunately, made by HIM. How inconsiderate it is to say 'Shut up'!

Several other offensive terms he called me: an idiot, asshole behind a random proxy, and my games are stupid! I am not stupid, and neither are the things I do!

These bad words on the Internet NEED to stop. Misplaced Pages is a place to edit and collaborate, not to ATTACK. 70.245.239.197 (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to know what he REALLY said, he said THIS:

"Okay, so I was right: you're just an asshole hiding behind a random proxy, posting messages on the talk pages of people you hold a grudge against. And there's no assumption of good faith when it comes to you persistently trying to make edits which have been unanimously rejected by the majority of other editors, as with your idea that Paroxetine is safe for pregnant women based on a single, small contradictory study. Get a life and stop harassing people on the Internet with your annoying stupid games. Or if you just can't help yourself, go bother Conservapedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica instead. They could use another idiot. DKqwerty (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)"

70.245.239.197 (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

See the whole thing right here! 70.245.239.197 (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Block-quoted section. It looked like the user has posted it himself on THIS page. If you're reporting him for calling you stupid... maybe you shouldn't be calling him stupid here. I will attest, though, that Conservapedia and ED can always use more idiots. --King Öomie 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is getting ridiculous. As I've said before, this is nothing more than a mwalla sockpuppet/anon. trying to get even for my frequent reversal of the inaccuracies he tries to add to the Paroxetine article. This is a simple content dispute which the user has himself escalated to harassment on my talk and user pages over something that happened months ago. Sure, I was bit surly with him, but if he's going to hide behind anonymous IPs and harass me then I'm not going sit idly by and take it.

That's what I love about this place: I go away for two months, come back, and the same idiotic games are still being played by people with a prepubescent level of maturity. DKqwerty (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention I've seen him vandalize and troll your page since I began watching after giving you the alert to come here (nice to see the IP took my advice. As I stated on the talk page you did violate WP:NPA by calling him an idiot. --SKATER 13:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Determining whether or not I violated a rule is clearly not the intention of this "anonymous" user (read: Mwalla); simple harassment is the intent here. And in fact, what I actually called him was an "asshole", the "idiot" was implied.

FYI: I've submitted the IP range to WP:AIV. DKqwerty (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think it's Mwalla, perhaps you should file a report at WP:SPI?--SKATER 14:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But I don't really have the time or know-how for reporting suspected sockpuppeting. If someone could report it, I would be indebted. If not, I'll do it myself when I have the time. DKqwerty (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it, would you mind compiling a list of the IP's and putting it on my talkpage for me?--SKATER 14:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Snowded

I have been in disscussion on the English Defence League discussion page with multiple users and User Snowded has made comments about the standard of my eduction,lack of grammar amongst other things which i take as a huge insult being Dyslexic. I also feel that the way in which he speaks to users on discussions will only have a negative affect on any new WP editors who are attempting their first Edits. I have attempted to bring this user to the discussion board instead of simply reverting edits on the EDL page and yet the user warned me not to "litter his discussion page"? The issue with which the discussion was taking place on the EDL discussion is now resolved but the manner with which he has conducted his discussions towards me is my issue. I have attempted to consult with Snowded and inform him that i do not approve the way in which he has spoken to me but this has only resulted in more inflammatory comments. Can something be done to make sure this doesn't happen in the future?

EG:(sigh) suggest you hunt down your former English Teacher, show him or her the material and ask for their opinion. --Snowded TALK 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

EG:Cool it, you are well past the stage where WP:Bite applies. You've ignored several patient efforts to explain the obvious, I thought you might like to hunt down someone whose views you might respect. Oh and please, please, please learn to follow standards on comments, I've had to adjust for you again. --Snowded TALK 12:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnsy88 (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor concerned is a largely single purpose account who focuses on far right issues and with a history of edit warring (with one block) In this particular case he made a mistake which was pointed out several times by several editors and he is confusing explanation with accusation. His early response to a straight forward correction was to litter my talk page and the talk page of the article concerned with irrelevant material. No one has made any comment about the standard of his education, although several editors have suggested he but some effort into reading and understanding comments rather than over reacting. I suggest if anyone is really interested in this they look at the talk page concerned and check in with the other editors involved. All of us have been doing our best to deal patiently with Jonsy88 despite a series of POV edits--Snowded 13:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Snowded, although personally I'd avoid phrases like "littering my talk page". In my view, as an observer in this particular discussion, both he and User:Verbal have dealt as patiently as is reasonably possible with Johnsy88, who has on several occasions seemingly failed to understand the points raised in a civil manner with him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: I would add that Johnsy88 has a provocative user name which is open to potential misinterpretation, given the connotations of the number 88 - see 88 (number)#As a Neo-Nazi symbol. It seems unlikely that his political views are very close to Snowded's. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I was also the one who reported him for 3RR violation that led to his block! Either way I am taking my son to a rugby match, back depressed or elated later this evening. --Snowded 13:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue i have is as follows................Why can you not use civility when talking to users on the WP discussion page. This is my only issue and what i would like to see rectified. All other issues have already been resolved on the EDL discussion page so please dont try to dilute this issue to make out that my complaint is still with regards to the above mentioned EDL disscussion on who was right or wrong.

With regards to the remark about the number 88 in my user name please go to http://www.youtube.com/user/johnsy88 and look at my holocaust and Vietnam war videos and you will see that out of the 900 comments on my holocaust video not one is anti semetic and all that are posted in an anti semitic context are removed within 24 hours by myself and i have been commended for this by the holocaust awareness institute. I would also like to remind you that your comment is libelous in a court and can be classed as a defamation of character so please watch your remarks.

The reasoning for the number 88 in my user name is with regards to the legendary wide receiver for the NFL Dallas cowboys Big Mike Irvin although i really see no reason to have to justify my user name to a spurious claim. Johnsy88 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe the 88 is a coincidence, and that this is all just a good faith misunderstanding on Johnny's part. However, this is an area that is going to be controversial and heated at times, so I would ask Johnny to slow down in making accusations, and just shrugging off anything he sees as an attack (unless it is clear, then it should be reported). With the line Johnny is taking on these articles I feel some suspicion is going to be aroused, but so long as he keeps his POV in check (whatever it may be) I feel we can all continue working in this area. Suffice to say I think this alert isn't warranted, and this is a misunderstanding of several points. Just so you know: I'm 100% involved (on wikipedia, outside I'm a member of liberty but no other groups or parties). Verbal chat 14:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Argh, sorry - it's Johnsy, not Johnny - that's my mistake and sorry if that led to some of the ill will floating about. Apologies! Like I said, I've got a headache... I'm also going to tell Johnsy about NLT and ask him to refactor that last. Verbal chat 14:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that Snowded has done their best to remain civil and tried to be fair on the Talk:EDL page. Offering assistance, showing willingness to listen to arguments presented and acting in a conciliatory manner. as in this comment "So you agree they are political? This is also a political statement, and the right wing & protest are on the BBC citations. Does this mean we have an agreement? --Snowded TALK 20:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)". I don't think this comment is particularly uncivil "(sigh) suggest you hunt down your former English Teacher, show him or her the material and ask for their opinion. " After the situation had been explained and clarified, and you continued on with the same argument. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree, snowded has clearly acted in an uncivil manor when discussing with myself the issue's mentioned above and what i merely seek is for snowded to extend to me the same civility that i have showed throughout discussions. He has clearly lost his temper in an attempt to get his Opinion across and replied to me in such a way which i feel is not right when carrying out discussions on wiki. Is the Comment EG:(sigh) suggest you hunt down your former English Teacher, show him or her the material and ask for their opinion. --Snowded TALK 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC) a civil way to reply? is this to much to ask?

Johnsy88 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In context isn't he saying; it is a matter of grammar, if you don't believe me ask your teacher?--Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

He has clearly said it in a derogatory manor rather than as a statement of fact. Johnsy88

(talk) 15:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a case of "confusing explanation with accusation."--Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnsy, after several attempts by myself and other editors to explain a matter of grammar to you, I suggested that you find someone else to explain it to you. It was a tongue in cheek comment but I can assure you I didn't loose my temper. Given that you have been pretty isolated in your attempts to edit, most editors on the EDL and like pages that you frequent have been going out of their way to be as fair as possible to you. In this case you jumped to an illegitimate conclusion that other editors did not think that the Islamic group in question was not extremist, when in fact everyone agreed it was. You are now jumping to conclusions about your treatment. You might want to seek out a more experienced editor as mentor. --Snowded 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, got to ask. Are you depressed or elated? Jack forbes (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Relieved, we held on to win by 4 points, referee had no understanding of obstruction and must have relatives in Llanelli. --Snowded 22:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack forbes and Snowded, there's a time and place for everything - Misplaced Pages is not a forum. If you are going to discuss this sort of thing on-wiki, please find somewhere else (perhaps your user talk pages) because this is definitely not the place for it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Gilisa

In User:Gilisa's latest remark - which seems to come out more or less out of the blue - he manages to accuse me of (a) following his edits, (b) "spreading POV anywhere can", (c) wanting very badly that a 20th-century mathematician be German, apparently, it would seem, out of German nationalism. I do not need to say that, at the very least, (a) and (c) are quite false.

(As my edits on some history pages show, some of my work here consists precisely of questioning statements made by apparent German nationalists. I am not, as it happens, even German myself, though that really isn't relevant.)

It seems that, in general, Gilisa is very quick to accuse other editors (mostly not myself) of being uncivil, "really disrespectful" and "highly offensive" when they say something with which he happens not to agree. At the same time, he allows himself to say plenty of things about other people's edits ("feeble", "stupid" and "very weak" are typical adjectives). In particular, he once attributed to me a position I had never enunciated, and proceeded to say that it would be "seen by many people as merely post modernic Anti Semitism" .

This sort of thing seems to have been going on from nearly the beginning of his edits here. It is likely that others can add their own experiences, or go through his log of edits in more detail than I care to. Feketekave (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

To the responsible adminstrator, Feketekave seems to be following my edits and to aburpt into discussions I have with other users on their talk page with out being invited. I was refering to some provocative argments he made (not for the first time) as feeble in this case , see "The survey about antisemitism" (This is my reply to him where I used all this "adjectives" for instance when he implied that my being Israeli make me unneutral about other people Jewishness (clearly his own POV)-I called this allegation stupid and not him (same for feeble and etc), Feketekave take all out of context). He also made some provocative statments and edits (basically unsurprising reverts of mine-like this one , see also the talk page) that seem to be driven out of POV. As for "Your insistens on defining Jewishness as merely religion may be seen by many people as merely post modernic Anti Semitism" I was indicating a fact, after he wrote this: "..With all due respect, it seems to me that a habit of labeling people you like as a "Jewish this or that" (even when they belong to no religion or other religions) can come across as the sort of exaggerated philosemitism that uses the categories of antisemitism..", and well after all my expelantions on similar issues were ignored on other discussions (foe example here, where he reply to a detailed, non personall aswer I replied him in this exact words : "I will leave it for others to analyse User:Gilisa's use of language, which is based on an entire system of interesting preconceptions."), many Jewish people see it this way and it's also reflected in modern Jewish jouranlism (it also charged issue because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and from other reason-no problem to source it)-so I was indicating a fact. I used word as " disrespectful" where I found them just and in certain connection. As for Feketekave allegation that "this sort of things happen...". Well, I began in[REDACTED] about 3 years ago, was active for few monthes and then, after roughly few years of ceased activity, I returned about month ago. My first experiences in[REDACTED] have nothing to do with my current activity, then I was a total rookie and infamiliar with what going here and thats all, it's far fetched argument against me that over all have nothing to do with my current issues with Feketekave. Please contact me and I'll provide all evidence you need that this is not random and that all issues (mentioned here and others) were taken by Feketekave out of the context. I would also ask to hfollow the log of Feketekave edits in more detaill --Gilisa (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have given diffs precisely so as to provide context. His charges of my having followed his edits are both untrue and a classic example of projection; he has undone another one of my edits, giving a commentary that gives a flavour of his mode of argumentation : a highly misleading summary of the other user's actions is followed by verbiage and a final sentence for emphasis - and absolutely nothing that demonstrates that he has read what other people have had to say in the talk page. At any rate, this seems to have relatively little to do with myself; others can follow his log of edits and judge how he interacts with other editors. Feketekave (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tothwolf

I have been struggling the last week with this editor and his increasingly strong inability assume good faith and throw around name and accusations, (for instance: here where I am a troll and center of a conspiracy to harass). These accusations have now grown to other users as well (here, accusing another user of retaliatory AfD voting, and here, accusing the same editor of bad faith deletion nominations). The arguments here have not yet gotten quite so inflammatory, but they are certainly hostile and accusative, lacking good faith.

Can an editor that is not usually involved with these deletion discussions intervene and try to bring some more polite discourse with Tothwolf before this devolves into a complete flameout? Miami33139 (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution