List of D.N.Angel characters

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. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) 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:Nosferamus

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Not civility ... should be placed at WP:SOCKANI or AIV

From the amount of information placed in the Marco Lupis page, it is clear that the user is Lupis itself.

It should be pointed out also that Lupis has a long list of infinite-blocked sockpuppets on the Italian Wikipedia due to presenting his family as noble, without valid sources or with copyvio. 89.96.108.150 (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say this doesn't look like a civility issue, and you should visit WP:SOCK and file a sockpuppet report. BMW(drive) 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He does not have sockpuppets here; I was thinking more of rules against writing bios about yourself, and about the presence on en.wiki of the info that was found to be unsourced on it.wiki, leading to Lupis being blocked and to him creating an inordinate amount of sockpuppets. 89.96.108.150 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So then it's content ...and still not civility. If the edits are vandalism, visit WP:AIV, if it's more annoyance, try WP:ANI. BMW(drive) 18:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez's conduct at Talk:Gliese 581 c and other articles.

Stuck

 – Taken to RFC on user conduct.

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

User:GabrielVelasquez is persistently attacking other editors at Talk:Gliese 581 c who disagree with his viewpoint that there is no possible way the planet can be anything other than a runaway greenhouse Venus-analogue. He has accused editors (principally myself=Icalanise, Cyclopia and J. Langton) of sockpuppetry [1] [2], or of being "damage control" for various teams of scientists (who he seems to believe want to fool the public into thinking this planet is habitable for their own nefarious purposes) [3]. Furthermore when users attempt to confront him about this he proceeds to accuse them of harassment [4]. His belligerent/paranoid attitude towards scientifically-literate editors is making the editing process on the article in question, and other articles about planets located close to the habitable zone (e.g. [5]) needlessly unpleasant. Icalanise (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm the GabrielVelazquez behaviour has been difficult and often bordering with plain harassment. He in particular accused me of being a sockpuppet of J. Langton [6] . He also has a pattern of deleting/ignoring discussions that question his behaviour on his talk page -something which he is probably entitled to do but surely not collaborative [7] [8][9]. He went as far as considering my requests for apologies of accusing me of being a sockpuppet as personal attacks... but adding violently personal attacks himself [10]. As for his behaviour on the Talk:Gliese 581 c page and others, I think other editors are more entitled than me to describe it -however the talk page itself is a bit of a smoking gun. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(Discussion moved from Administrators noticeboard, where it has been ignored and archived probably because this is the right place) --Cyclopia (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a degree of restrained incivility by the user, PLUS random accusations of sockpuppetry. Rather than template the heck out of the user, I have left a lengthy, polite discussion on the user's talk page. Further discussion regarding content should involve Project Astronomy. I hope this helps BMW(drive) 12:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope it can help. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There are symptoms it has not helped. User:GabrielVelasquez yesterday has deleted the polite alerts of this discussion from his talk page, dismissing it all as "cowing" by Icalanise [11] [12]. He also accused another user User:BOZ, of "distracting tactics" [13] for apparent no reason. There are also suspicious anonymous edits on the Talk:Gliese 581 c page [14]. For now, nothing seriously disruptive, but these are worrying symptoms. Let's see what happens. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is good evidence that both User:198.163.53.10 and User:205.200.236.34 are being used by User:GabrielVelasquez but for now I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he merely forgot to log in, rather than trying to use these anonymous addresses to try and give the impression of there being more support for his viewpoint. Icalanise (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the edit pattern seems to support that he just forgot to log in. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to announce that the polite discussion by Bwilkins didn't help, as evident per [15] -in fact, he now attacked Bwilkins himself. What is next step? --Cyclopia (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also yet another accusation of sockpuppetry (this time accusing me of being the same as J. Langton) [16], despite being asked to either use the actual Wikipedia process for sockpuppet reporting or to stop [17]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icalanise (talk • contribs) 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there are a dozen or so of edits demonstrating personal attacks by User:GabrielVelasquez. Me and User:Bwilkins have tried, unsuccessfully, to politely solicit User:GabrielVelasquez to a more civil behaviour. I think it's time for WP:RFC/USER. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I myself would have no objection to that. Icalanise (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, when I have five minutes I will try that. I'd like to hear User:Bwilkins opinion, since he seems to have experience in this kind of sad stuff. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/GabrielVelasquez. Anyone who wants to join, on either side of the issue, is welcome. ---Cyclopia (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Olana North

Resolved

 – Both parties advised. Subject blocked as sockpuppet of banned user.

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

---

Olana North (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in making personal attacks against me, despite having been asked not to by me and another editor; and, after being asked, has started reverting my edits. I am not aware of having previsouly interacted with this editor. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) My edits do no constitute vandalism as claimed above with the template above.

Addendum to (1) in the posting above I am "lablelled" as a "vandal" by the use of a template {{vandal}}. The claim is that I am posting personal attacks (I vigorously deny this), NOT vandalism. This is a case of the "pot calling the kettle black". I demand to see the diffs where I have committed "vandalism". Olana North (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(2) This [18] is hardly a personal attack.

(3) This is irrelevant [19] as The claimaint does not state that this is a personal attack in the edit summary.

(4) I am entitled to revert any edits that I see fit.

(5) It is not a personal attacked to revert an edit.

(6) The initial posting that I made [20] was merely a statement of what I believe to be true and has sound basis as I show here [21]

(7) The claim bought by this editor is libelous and defamatory and has no basis whatsoever. I demand an apology from this editor. Olana North (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that I have no option but to contribute here, as the 'another editor' mentioned in the initial posting.

My comment on Olana's talk page was intended as a peace-making initiative. In isolation, the comment ((6), first ref) seems to be unwarranted and against the spirit of WP:AGF. However, at the time of posting I was unaware of the Administrators' discussion that is alluded to in (6) (second ref). It is clearly evident from that discussion that Pigs~ has some 'issues' with editing at WP, and that unless the reported behaviour was modified, further action might be needed. In the light of that, the comment made by Olana, while not necessarily helpful, certainly contains more than a grain of truth about it.

Regarding (2), this is a matter for Olana and myself to resolve -- I see it as a misunderstanding rather than an 'attack' -- and certainly NOT an indication that Olana is simply intent on making personal attacks against others.

Regarding (3), I 'sit on the fence'. I agree with Olana that the addition is of questionable usefulness in the context of the article, but if I had been in his position I would have placed a comment on the talk page asking for other opinions rather than simply reverting the edit when this could have been misconstrued as stalking.

My concern is that there are a few WP editors who have a tendency to not just hold strong opinions but to express them, without always considering the implications. My 'contribution' to this situation, where I was trying to avoid confrontation, has clearly back-fired big time this time round.

EdJogg (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, we seem to have a spillover from AN/I and elsewhere. At this point, I'm not going to call "forum shopping", but we do seem to have 2 brick walls firmly planted between 2 editors. To address the diffs in the complaint:

• Editors have a right to remove things from their talk page. Now, removing an award given by a friend of someone you don't like may be childish (yes Olana), but is not uncivil towards anyone.
• "Knowing your background..." is a bit needling. Even sex offenders can be reformed, although agreeably, Pigsonthewing has shown themselves to be a bit difficult to work with, history does not necessarily determine the future. Again, it's not uncivil, but certainly inflammatory.
• The near-templating of Olana regarding NPA was therefore wrong, considering the above (Don't Template the Regulars). However, above that, that post by pigs on Olana's page (if there was indeed an attempt to get resolution/have a discussion) should have been more like "Your comment made me feel X because of Y" - that would have initiated proper discussion. Because of that, I would say the near-template post bordered on incivility in itself.
• I don't quite understand why the edit was reverted ... it seemed to be sensible to me. WP:AGF says that a) the original edit might have been fine, and b) so might have the reversion.

In regard to Olana's response:

• Can you please show me a diff where you were templated as a vandal, as I have not seen it. You were also not templated using the NPA (although it was close).
• You are not entitled to "revert any edits that you see fit", you are entitled to edit other edits that are uncited, revert vandalism, or remove entries that do not add to an article. The addition of a co-ord seems to fit much of the rest of the article and is hardly "confusing". I can understand that based on the previous "fight" between the two of you, this reversion of yours may have looked malicious to the other editor. I always suggest that when you're involved in an altercation, you try not to add gas to the fire by what might be construed as malicious reversions.
• Please AGF ... as noted above, even criminals can be reformed.
• I would ask you to strike you comment above about "defamatory" and "libelous" as they are rooted in law, and could be read as a threat. You yourself need to Assume Good Faith and stand down from requests for apologies - both of you have contributed to this escalation of an issue.

So, overall, I would say that the 2 editors are both at fault for escalating this situation. Both have been thrown fuel on this fire. Both of you need to always beware of the potential consequences of your own actions, and then don't act at all surprised when that consequance actually occurs. Respect other's right to edit, and respect each other's feelings. Don't forget the Golden Rule BMW(drive) 14:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As seems to be the case with Wikipedia, it would rather punish an editor with a clean record than take action against a known disruptive element. Issue me with a punitive block then and lets all move on. The saying about letting "prisoners have the keys" springs to mind. Olana North (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing any punishment: "Both of you need to always beware of the potential consequences of your own actions, and then don't act at all surprised when that consequance actually occurs. Respect other's right to edit, and respect each other's feelings. Don't forget the Golden Rule". Pretty sure that's pointe finale BMW(drive) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Olana North is now indefinitely blocked, as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Olana North refers. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, "nice work"?? BMW(drive) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

User: Jaakobou

When I reverted the large-scale, undiscussed edits of Jaakobou (talk · contribs) in I'm a PC, he responded by attempting to derail the DYK nomination that would have introduced the article to a wider audience of editors, by suggesting the DYK was NPOV. He acknowledges that he knew this would happen, and did so in an effort to force me to bargain with him in the article. Note that this was done without discussion, and he reverted his massive edits in yet again before being coaxed to the discussion page.
I had asked him repeatedly to remove/strike through the comments, but he has either ignored them or made them conditional to getting what he wants.
Trying to keep my cool here, but pointy, behavior to game the system is pretty uncool. Thoughts on how to address this beyond how I already have?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jaakobou:

Drama: I honestly don't know why Arcayne is so interested in drama. There were already comments from two external observers (one asked him to revert) which he ignored and now he insists that I revert a legitimate concern - "or else".

DYK accolades: Considering the volume of my contributions to the discussed article, I believe we'll both be receiving some type of DYK banner but my concerns precede any silly accolades.

Concerns: I've raised the concern that Microsoft is being made a fool out-of in a bloggish manner with words such as "lampooned" and the their official response being sandwiched between two bloggers who discuss the "irony" of their error. Arcayne contributed to my sentiments with a large revert that destroyed a couple hours' work as well as comments like "[Microsoft] ass-clowned themselves into a pickle". The concerns are still there and still need to be resolved by a community concensus.

Responsive collaboration: We've already resolved a nice amount of my concerns and now that more external editors commented, we're compromising a bit further. I agreed to have him move my concerns from the DYK to WP:3O so I fail to understand why he'd refuse this and respond by starting a WQA. I invite anyone to the talk page to help resolve the minor issues left.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC) invite. 07:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I noticed Arcayne did take up on my suggestion and moved the concern to the 3O talk page.[22] I will ignore the "admits was meant to derail" rhetoric, but I'm not sure the DYK should pass while the article insists on hammering the "Microsoft sucks" point. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: Jaakobou, you DID try and derail an article going DYK by using extremely non-NPOV, and it's rather obvious by your statement above. You are not the determinor of DYK, your role as an editor is to help any article attain DYK, whether you 100% agree or not. If you don't like the topic, then stay away. Controvertial articles have achieved DYK on many occasions. Personally, although ironic, this "issue" proves my personal belief: Windows sucks for audio/video/graphics production, and Mac is the de facto standard for such, even in MS commercials. BMW(drive) 11:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would I derail receiving a DYK? I have absolutely no issues with the topic and did not hide any of the criticism. I do, however, see a number of issues -- mostly in the 'undue' department -- in the lead as well as the body of the article. I'm not sure on procedure for resolving such matters before the article goes public so I've made a note for others to give this issue a look within the couple days left before the article is featured. You are invited as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

From my reading the links/diffs, your "tone" was certainly coming across as an attempt to derail. You were overly assertive about certain things, including your POV, and you did try and throw some "weight" around. I know this may not be what you meant, but that's what your style of writing said. BMW(drive) 16:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume that you are correct and my initial action was 'pushy'. I've raised a compromise suggestion and made a considerable attempt to try and work on the content from there. I'd appreciate external comments on the raised concerns - I'm willing to accept consensus against me, but as of this moment, editors have supported my perspective on the issues and it is my counterpart who is ignoring them and insisting on a WQA notice when he's already taken up on my compromise suggestion to move the DYK notice to 3O. It really feels like an unnecessary discussion now that he's moved the comment. You could say (just like the accusations pointed in my direction), that he's trying to derail the attempt to portray Microsoft in a reasonable light before the DYK date arrives. Anyways, I feel everything can be solved if external opinions arrive and we both align with the consensus view. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC) m.fix 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, don't get me into the content. My read on the article to begin with was to show that MS tried to lampoon the Mac ads, and failed miserably...partly because the ad was created on a Mac ...that's what makes the article AND the DYK interesting. Take that focus away, the article itself is no longer notable, and let's CSD or AfD it ASAP. BMW(drive) 17:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The 300 Million US Dollar campaign is notable regardless of it's content. The hook, that the campaign was revealed to have used Apple computers, is both funny and interesting. The note that Microsoft responded by deleting metadata and making an official statement that various computers were used, is somewhat undue for the lead in my opinion - and the "lampooned/compounded/embarrassment" type of language insisted upon just made me further believe that the metadata detail should remain in the body and not appear on the lead. It's not a matter of removing the embarrassment, rather putting it within reasonable, encyclopedic standards. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As had been pointed out to you at least twice, the Lead is not just a introduction to the article, but summary of such as well. It notes such bumps as they occur. Mistake 1 was to use Apple for commercials about how PC is better than Apple. Mistake 2 was to attempt to conceal that mistake after a press release about it made it a non-issue. If it wasn't a problem for MS to use Apples, why scrub the data in an effort to conceal it?

However, that's beside the point. Your behavior was inappropriate, because you attempted to derail the DYK. The DYK brings editors to the article of every stripe. By attempting to hostage the DYK until you got what you wanted, thereby framing a preferred-version of the article for newly-arriving editors, you gamed the system.

I thought that bringing the problem here, where you could be enlightened as to how that sort of shit doesn't play here (and specifically with me); the alternative was taking it to AN/I, where the disruptive behavior would have likely had you blocked or warned. That you asked me to remove the post for you put you within a rat whisker of me filing via ANI anyway. That you consider the pointing out of your error as drama underscores the need for the wikiquette alert. Unfortunately, the next time this sort of thing happens with you, I will bypass this venue and head right to AN/I.

You handled this situation extraordinarily poorly, Jaak. If you aren't willing to recognize how your behavior in these sorts of situations ius unacceptable, I am fairly certain that your block log will be getting ever longer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just to point out, the criticism section is longer than the rest of the article. If anything's going to derail a DYK it'd be that. Wizardman 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that would be more of a reason to list a well-written (if I may say so myself) new article at DYK - it attracts new editors, who can add in all those tender bits about the background, campaign, etc. The massive irony is what set off the notability magnet.

However, that is neither here nor there; that isn't what Jaak pointedly said was his reason for interrupting the DYK process. As the DYK featured on 5 October, its something of a moot point now. The WQA was submitted as part of the DR process, as usertalk page communication was ineffective in resolving the problem. The underlying issue was the willingness to game the system to get leverage on another user in article editing. In the real world, that would usually end in a trip to the dentist for reconstructive surgery. Here in Wikipedia, it means bringing the problem to a larger audience for perusal. I am happy with the latter alternative. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl

User:TharkunColl constantly wholesale reverts whatever recent edits I make without discussion, and usually with comments designed to incite a reaction. This has been going on for some time. He objects to my editting on topics involving the term "British Isles" and he is trying to make it appear political. He rarely (hardly ever) discusses the edits, and always leaves comments such as "Reverting wholesale vandalism" or "Removing politically driven POV", etc (see recent revert comments below). I've asked him to stop several times, and posted warnings on his Talk page. While I don't believe he sock-puppets, his actions are remarkably similar to LemonMonday and Blue Bugle. Here are a number of recent reverts from today:

• European Green Party
• Cup and ring mark
• Old-time music
• Drovers' Road

There's numerous other examples going back in time (more than 6 months). Other recent reverts such as:

• Derry and Derry
• Saint David

show the same pattern, but if you go back over his edit history, they're pretty obvious.

In a nutshell, Tharky believes I am incorrectly removing the term "British Isles" from Wikipedia and accuses me of having a political or anti-British motivation. I deny this, it is simply not true. While many of my edits involve removing the term British Isles where it is being used incorrectly, they are nearly always correct. I try to be a good editor - I'm always happy to discuss my edits if someone asks, and I always try to include references where possible. My editing is completely in line with the draft task force document at WP:BISLES - which shows that my edits are not extreme or fringe (or political).

But leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the content. My objection is that Tharky reverts without trying to provide an argument or reference. He removes good verifiable references where provided. And he leaves personal attacks accusing me of political POV, etc, as edit summaries. This behaviour needs to be addressed. I'm perfectly happy to address any of his questions or concerns on an edit-by-edit basis, using references and citations, etc.

--HighKing (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend from this momment on, there should be no more restoring or removing of British Isles on any articles, 'until' the Taskforce (mentioned by HighKing) concludes. PS- I wish Tharky would participate in that Taskforce. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, that's probably a sensible suggestion, and I'm happy to abide with it. But it still doesn't solve the problem of Tharky's behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I did participate to start with, but the arguments are just endless - just as on the British Isles talk page. And, my I add, some of the accusations levelled against certain editors there make my rather mild comments seem as nothing by comparison. Terms like "imperialist" and "genocidal" spring to mind. ðarkuncoll 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's where those arguments can be held. That's where frustrations & emotions can be spilled. Compromises tend to follow exhaustion. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Every successive compromise breaks down when a new bunch of remarkably similar IP addresses all suddenly appear making ridiculous demands again. ðarkuncoll 19:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of "demands", we're dealing with civility. Referring to editors as "trolls" and asserting "political reasons" in permanent edit summaries is well beyond the realm of civility. BMW(drive) 19:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You've a point there Tharky, concerning IP acounts at British Isles & Republic of Ireland discussions. My participation at the Taskforce, is conditional. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing more I can add folks. I hope things work out. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Excuse me, but this is not about anon IP accounts at any article Talk page. Stick to the point here. Tharky reverts with personal comments and attacks, even to the point of removing research and references. His behaviour has gone on for long enough and to the point where a host of other editors, encouraged by his behaviour, User:LemonMonday, User:Blue Bugle and the latest User:MidnightBlueMan all leave the same nasty remarks and all revert without discussion, tag teaming and cooperating. They refuse to provide reliable references, ignore policy at will, and refuse to discuss or compromise. It is this behaviour we are discussing, not commentary by anon IP's. --HighKing (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If there's concerns of sock-puppetry? request checkusers. PS- I'm not very good at Wikiequette reports, sorry. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the "nasty remarks" that I'm supposed to have made? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to MidnightBlue, he has not left comments that I would call "nasty", but this edit summary is still a personal comment and is done without discussion, and today you are tagteaming with User:TharkunColl on Scottish Blackface (sheep), Saint David, ]Glowworm, and Doyle. Same general behaviour though. --HighKing (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but you've got to admit, that edit was designed to get rid of British Isles in that instance. However, there was no mention of getting rid of it in the edit summary. I notice GoodDay's suggestion, and your subsequent comment above, about refraining from restoring and removing British Isles. If you refrain from removing it I would certainly refrain from restoring it, or adding it for that matter. Will others do likewise? MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to pick the editor with the worst behavior in this group of tag team editors and apply either a warning or sanctions. That may have the effect of convincing the others to behave more civilly. Civility is not just polite words. It also requires polite actions: refrain from making provocative edits; refrain from repeatedly reverting the same editor. If somebody misbehaves, report them here instead of mass reverting them. Jehochman ^Talk 21:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Threats are unhelpful. There's no tag teaming here. Please look at what's going on under the cover to get an appreciation of the complex issues surrounding this matter. For example, have a look at the editing histories of those involved (apart from mine, there's nothing much there yet), and Talk page comments going back quite a while. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So, once again we have a content complaint that has turned uncivil, all over the use of the term "British Isles" (which is a political term, and not a geographic term - and this is the genesis of the entire issue). This is an issue that MUST be decided either by consensus on the article Talk Page, or via a project forum. Regardless, Tharkuncoll has, as I noted, been extremely uncivil in their edit summaries. This will not do on Wikipedia. We argue EDITS and not EDITORS. Unfortunately, MidnightBlueMan has joined the incivility, as much as they would like to claim to disagree (this edit [[23]] is the first one I looked at, and lo and behold, it was uncivil. Right now, I do not believe that additional diff's are necessary). MidnightBlueMan, although you are not the subject of this WQA report, I would urge you to consider your own civility in the future. Every edit that anyone does, and every Edit summary are permanent records for the world to see. Accusations and incivility (and possible therefore defamation) are therefore also permanent. Passionate editing is a good thing, being uncivil is not. If someone templates you with a personal attacks template, you should take a quick look at your own activities and see why, rather than dismiss it as "spurious". As well, sometimes it's better to discuss the issue without templates, and try and resolve the editor-to-editor issue. I have replaced the level 2 personal attacks warning on Tharkuncoll's page, as it was indeed valid. I would suggest that future similar action (or other uncivil actions such as multiple reversions of the same editor), will likely be greeted with a block. BMW(drive) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You also appear not to be looking at the underlying issues, and please look at the remarks that caused my incivility. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, your incivility is not the thrust of the issue here, merely your FUTURE civility, as I am WP:AGF. If you'd like me to look further at your comments, I will ... BMW(drive) 21:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

British Isles is not a political term, and predates the formation of the British state by some two millennia. The problem here is some editors trying to turn it into a political issue. I shall attempt to be more circumspect in my edit summaries from now on, but shall not refrain from reverting what I consider to be incorrect or wrong-headed deletions of the term. And since it was HighKing who brought up this dispute, I would like to ask him a simple question. How come almost all your edits to Wikipedia are to remove the term British Isles? If it's not political, what is your motivation? If it's just a simple desire for accuracy as you see it, why concentrate on that particular term? You've been doing it, under your previous account, long before the task force was thought of. ðarkuncoll 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(quick note that is not intended to be inflammable: the "British Isles" are historically very limited in scope. As one noted scholar recently noted (and I paraphrase) "neo-Imperialists are prone to expand that definition to mean all of the islands belonging to the UK, contrary to its proper usage. You do not hear the phrase 'Canadian Isles', you hear 'Islands of Canada' when it comes to geography, but you only hear 'British Isles' in political or neo-Imperialist terms") BMW(drive) 22:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoever said that is simply wrong, I'm afraid. In my experience, the term is used precisely because it is neutral, and carries no implication of political ownership. ðarkuncoll 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, woe. Diverted onto the definitions of a commonly used geographical term, which in certain contexts including its beginnings in English language usage is embroiled in politics. Also intruiging is the notion that some non-blackface sheep is the most common in the country with the confusing name which for the sake of clarity we're allowed to call the RoI. Trust evidence from references will be forthcoming. But I digress. It is a highly charged topic, and all concerned should minimise raising the temperature in edit summaries. In the past I've noticed some rather dodgy summaries from TharkunColl, and it is to be hoped that he'll make every effort to avoid treading on toes, as should everyone. Failure to keep snarkiness in check undermines rather than helps making a case. . . dave souza, talk 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See dave, I did say that it was a content dispute :-) However, my reading of the "tone" of TharkunColl's reply (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that they are AWARE of the complaint, and of the issue ...and I anticipate future immediate improvements...am I correct in my reading? BMW(drive) 23:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly hope so. It is a prickly subject, and care is required to maintain a reasonable level of civility. When a source clearly says one thing but editors take issue with political implications and want to change it to something else, it's inmportant to try to avoid giving or taking offence in discussions. As you say, those concerned are clearly aware of the required standards of behaviour. . dave souza, talk 23:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's a geographical term, for which there is no easy substitute, but lets' not get into the content dispute.:) If there are going to be sanctions for actual edits, rather than for wikiquette, which is what this board is about, I definitely don't think one person should be singled out over another for punishment, just to make an 'example' of them. That seems very wrong. If people's edits are problematical, they should be considered on an individual editor basis only but treated fairly and equally. But wikiquette is not really about that sort of stuff, this isn't really the place to impose anything on editors for their style of editing so much as their manner of editing or something- even then wikiquette board is rarely the place people go to decide on blocks or something, it is one of the first steps in WP:DR. As to 'tag teaming'- there's no evidence any of the editors are in particular off wiki communication and organization. If they just happen to share an opinion but are operating independently, that's not tag teaming an to say so is an unpleasant accusation. It's late here so I hope you all can understand vaguely what I mean.:) Sticky Parkin 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a long history of this type of behaviour. I lodged this complaint last May and you can see that older complaint could be a cut and paste for the current one. If you search the admin noticeboard, you'll see that Tharky is no stranger to this behaviour. I'll say again - the behaviour of reverting edits because, basically, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and his constant trying to attribute a political or underhanded motive to my edits has to stop. Even to the point of sanctions if the pattern doesn't change. I've reverted the current crop of articles that were reverted, and I'm happy to discuss these articles on their talk pages. Perhaps in the meantime a voluntary 1RR be imposed on all articles where editors object to the removal of the term British Isles? --HighKing (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are no stranger to the content dispute aspect of this report yourself, and have been warned and blocked precisely for your British Isles issues in the past. You also have different conduct issues, such as templating people with warnings if they criticize your editing. Sticky Parkin 13:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)You haven't answered my question above, as to your true motives. I suggest that it is you who should look at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I shall revert your arbitrary deletions. ðarkuncoll 13:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well this response pretty much sums up Tharky's attitude. He has just reverted 3 more articles, no discussion or attempt to provide any kind of verifiable references. And continuing to ask for "true motives" is nasty and underhanded, and a crude attempt to avoid examining my edits or providing references. He is in breach of editing policy, as well as several other policies such as WP:AGF, etc. We've tried in the past, and he agreed to stop this behaviour, but he simply waits for a period of time and then continues to edit-war. He has also pretty much ignored this Wikiquette alert. What is the next step towards getting this editor blocked for disruption? --HighKing (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. You will notice that my edit summaries make no mention of your motives at all. This is what you complained about, right? As for AGF, it works both ways you know. ðarkuncoll 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking for "true motives" and calling my edits "arbitary deletions" here makes it clear that you are still attacking the editor and ignoring the edits. You have deleted my work and my references without regard for discussion and have offered absolutely no justification in terms of references or citations for this. You are wikistalking, and trying to disguise it by attempting to attribute a motive to my edits. To this point, you haven't even acknowledged that there is anything wrong with your behavior. You simple can't continue to revert my edits without an attempt to justify your version. --HighKing (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the references you deleted. Don't revert my edits without a discussion on the Talk page to justify your version. --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree totally Tharkun, your being accused of reverting, when some editors have their own agenda to remove the British Isles from Wikipedia, and constantly revert themselves then try to get others banned. very much pot calling the kettle --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Rocky, many editors on WP have an agenda. Some editors even have extreme views on things. I don't, and I've always stated that my interest is accuracy. This is an encyclopedia after all. But seeing as how you and others continually try to attribute a political motive to my editing - no doubt so that the reverts can all be justified as combating some sort of republican anti-British POV pushing edits - let's meet this head on for once. Your challenge now is to now put your money where your mouth is. Either back up, with facts and diffs, your insinuation on "agenda", or withdraw your comment. Failure to do so will prove my point. --HighKing (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've returned - I'd recommend (starting today), a 1RR on all related articles, concerning adding/removing or altering the term British Isles (this covers both Tharky & HK); any takers? GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - it is ineffective at resolving the core issue that would result: slow edit-warring. They should continue to pursue dispute resolution, and discuss their differences (even if it's through article RFC or mediation). If they cannot stop edit-warring, then they both can be prevented from doing so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly i don`t have the time to lavish going through wikipedia looking for this and that. Secondly i have made a generalized comment and have not mentioned yourself in this edit, and nor any other editor for that matter, so i don`t have to back anything up. --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(Res to Ncmvocalist). Seeing as the adde/remove dispute is mainly between Tharky & HK? the Mediation Cmte would seem the correct route. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

From the brief look I took, it also involves MBM. It doesn't really matter whether mediation is formal (link you've given), or informal (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal) - whichever works, but regardless, all the involved editors need to agree to being subject to mediation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It involves more editors than that. There's also User:Blue Bugle (banned for sock puppetry) and User:LemonMonday (who was warned here and here. He has made three reverts so far today, two without an attempt at discussion - Cup and ring mark, Old time music and Drovers' road. --HighKing (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The best solution to this problem is for all involved editors to agree not to add or remove the term "British Isles" from any Wikipedia article until this issue can be resolved. An exception can be made in cases where a clear consensus emerges, of course. Edit warring is disruptive, regardless of the rate of edits, and if the involved editors can't restrain themselves voluntarily then other methods can be looked into. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe the best solution is to adhere to existing policies for providing references, remaining civil, and discussing the edits. The problem here is that Tharky and other editors make no effort to follow these policies. Making this out to be solely a content dispute means you are condoning Tharky's (and other's) behaviour, and even giving weight to the unfounded allegations of an "agenda" on my part. That said, I'm very happy to go along with whatever the community decides *after* the issue of Tharky's behaviour has been dealt with properly. --HighKing (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree to this. I will not add, remove or otherwise modify references to the British Isles (unless obviously wrong and with agreement) provided HighKing and others also accept this proposal. LemonMonday (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In response. You were warned about this previously, most recently by Alison here, yet you've already reverted three times today - Cup and ring mark, Old time music and Drovers' road. --HighKing (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Both sides must agree, that adding/removing or alterting British Isles on Wikipedia is a powdered keg. Thus my reason for calling an end to the changes & reversions. Tharky & HK have both been giving 'advice' on this topic before. As for Tharky's conduct? he must curb is opinons & use more discussion/less reverting. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

GD, your comments are in danger of turning this into a content issue, and that would suit Tharky no end as he wouldn't have to address this ongoing issue. This is not about the content. This is solely about behaviour. And if you have any reason to believe that there are problems with my behaviour, then we can address that here also. But let's not divert this discussion into an argument about content - we are already dealing with that on WP:BISLES and in other places, as you know. The issue of Tharky's and others behaviour must be dealt with once and for all. --HighKing (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I read ya. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

HighKing, you're aware that your actions are provoking disruption by another user, that these changes are contentious, and that this matter is the subject of an ongoing attempt at discussion. Until there's a resolution, then, why won't you stop? Why not make a gesture of good faith in the interests of reducing drama and disruption? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are asking me to stop making changes because I'm provoking disruption. Hang on - I don't force Tharky or any other editor to behave in a disruptive manner, so I don't accept the accusation of provoking anything. And if I behave in a disruptive manner, point it out. In effect, you are suggesting a form of censureship. You are asking me to stop editing. Let's dig further. You say that the changes are contentious. I ask why? Which edits are incorrect? Where am I pushing a POV? Where are my edits out of line with the (draft) WP:BISLES recomendations? Have I done something wrong? And I'm curious as to why you see fit to focus on my behaviour, and not address the complaint on Tharky's behaviour - your suggestion to stop editting suits Tharky's agenda and effectively condones his behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last question, I am not focussing on your behaviour. My proposal was aimed at defusing the content issue which is fuelling the conduct issue, and I then replied to your response. Let me put my suggestion differently. Why not wait until the draft is no longer a draft? There is no deadline for when these changes have to be made, after all, and it's much easier to resolve content disputes (and avoid user conduct problems) when you have a policy or guideline to justify your edits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be much more amenable to your suggestion if I saw that the community had an appetite to comment on and even to threaten to sanction Tharky's behaviour. If the community does not, then it condones it. As you can see, it appears to be an effective tactic for WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues. In effect, perhaps we will see other editors adopt these tactics.... --HighKing (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

When WP:BISLES reaches a conclusion, you've got an excellent basis for saying that your edits are in keeping with WP guidelines, and by extension, that reverts are WP:POINT violations. Until then, I think WP:BRD is the order of the day. TharkunColl has at least agreed not to attribute any motive to you in further edit summaries. That's encouraging. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing new here - we've been here before to no avail. TharkunColl agreed not to attribute any motive yesterday, but hasn't committed to following WP:BRD, to provide references where requested, to stop reverting without discussion, etc. And from what I can see, there's no appetite among admins to point out anything erronuous with his recent continuing behaviour. And I don't need to wait for any conclusion in WP:BISLES as the basis for editting or not - they are already reasonable edits, whereas Tharky's behaviour is in breach of policy. --HighKing (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) As far as I can see - essentially what's happening is that TharkunColl is a "sore loser". He's long supported the idea that 'British Isles' is a neutral and inoffensive geographical term that's been in continuous use back to the Ancient Greeks. Unfortunately his ideas have been repeatedly demonstrated to be untrue - with extensive supporting references. Rather than following the Keynes idea of "When the facts change, I change my mind" TharkunColl is determined to insist that he was right all along and to engage in any kind of tactic to try to "win the argument". His aim in inserting (or reverting) the term 'British Isles' in articles is to try to continue a fighting a war that he has lost on the actual British Isles article page - although he did pop up recently there and delete a bunch of text and the supporting references (tsk tsk). The idea that one should assume good faith with TharkunColl became ridiculous long ago. This has become a personal obsession for him and apparently no amount of reasonable discussion (or reputable sources) will change his mind. Expect his campaign to go on. 'British Isles' will be put in where it doesn't belong, protected where it shouldn't be, and defended where it's indefensible. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's really unhelpful. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it? Why? It's how I see it. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit Irish ;) dave souza, talk 21:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC) <Scotticism>

It's definitely a bit odd that one is apparently not supposed to criticize an editor's behavior even on a page dedicated to discussing behavior. Wouldn't it be nice if the purpose of this page was only ever to alert how well editors were behaving? It would be nice, but it isn't the case. Thus, regrettably, I'm afraid that I stand by the comments. I believe they are true. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's what I believe. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind people what I've said about a plague of very similar IP addresses popping up and disruping articles and discussions. ðarkuncoll 23:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary Breeak

Comment This stupid, time-wasting non-argument is now spreading and damaging articles all over the project, and it's time it stopped. Even in the diffs presented by User:HighKing it must be obvious that the campaign has become vandalism. Removing/re-phrasing statements such as "David contrasts with the other national patron saints of the British Isles, Saints George, Andrew and Patrick ... in that he is a native of the country of which he is patron saint, " and "Derry was the last city in the British Isles to be enclosed with defensive walls, and has the only surviving complete series of city walls in the islands" and "the roots of old-time music are in the traditional musics of the British Isles (primarily English, Scottish and Irish)" and "Cup and ring marks ... are a form of prehistoric art found predominantly in the upland parts of the British Isles but also in some parts of continental Europe" needs to stop. PR^talk 10:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Deliberately inserting "Patrick" in the St. David article, just for the purpose of inserting the term "British Isles", is a deliberate ploy to incite a reaction to the point of disruption. Check the edit history, and you will find that Tharky made that change first. The motivation for this edit was nothing more than disruption, and the deliberate insertion of a term known to be controversial.

Tharky also editted the Derry article, and inserted the term without reference or discussion. When I provided a reference from the official website (which does not mention British Isles), it was quickly reverted by an account User:LemonMonday whose sole edits are reversions of mine. Even though this account ha been warned by Alison, this account continues to disrupt and reverted three of my edits yesterday.

I fail to see your point regarding the Cup and ring marks article. Perhaps you can clarify?

Overall though, I agree that Tharky's behaviour must be stopped. It is disruptive, with no regard to policies or the accuracy of articles. Reverts were made with personal and untrue comments. No attempt is made to provide references or to discuss edits. As far as Tharky is concerned, every edit is politically motivated and must therefore be reverted. That position, if it remains unchecked, must be swiftly dealt with. The current situation is highly disruptive and a big waste of time. --HighKing (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Deliberately inserting "Patrick" in the St. David article, just for the purpose of inserting the term "British Isles", is a deliberate ploy to incite a reaction to the point of disruption." Excuse me? Wasn't the whole point of your complaint here that I was ascribing motives to you? What's this then? ðarkuncoll 11:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

@ HighKing - what I'm seeing (just from the diffs you've provided!) is damage to articles caused by a campaign to force others to change their use of the English language. Even if it were based on a substantial and important point of view (and I've seen no evidence for this), other people are being put upon - in order to disrupt the editing process and impoverish articles. I knew that George is a non-national saint, I didn't know that about Andrew and I'm startled to be reminded that Patrick fits the same pattern. It's important and useful. It's time you did similar things and ceased this vandalism. PR^talk 14:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Damage to force others to change their use of the English language, or to even slightly respect a change that is already happening - as per verifiable sources? There are lots of people for whom the fact that (i) "British Isles" is offensive and (ii) that it's falling out of use for that reason, are both news. Even UK civil servants were advised not to use the term when speaking to Irish civil servants already several years ago. Important? Substantial? Oh yeah. Does TharkunColl care? Oh yeah! He's going to make the whole world see his point of view by pushing the term wherever he can across WP. PalestineRemembered can be shown the evidence, if it would make any positive difference. TharkunColl has seen the evidence lots of times. I don't see that it made a positive difference in his case. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Wallamoose

This user deserves to be banned. These are just a few examples of his behavior; he's causing conflict all over Wikipedia as he makes nothing but partisan edits. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Rehnquist

"So unless you are brain damaged you can't argue he didn't apply the 14th amendment to women. Are you brain damaged?"

"Your edit is worthless. It simply restates and requotes what is said and quoted directly above it. As usual you demonstrate your inability to read or reason."

"I find it difficult to believe you are a High School graduate... If I were your professor you would receive an F and I would recommend remedial GED classes." [note: Wallamoose is not a professor at all].

"...because of your emotional problems and delusional mental state all of their efforts have been obstructed."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now

"I don't have to hide behind anonymous edits like you do sicko. Sorry for this trash stalking me onto this board. Unfortunately the anonymity of the internet allows perverts to carry on with their fantasies."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clarence_Thomas

"It gets old going round and round with this delusional liar."

"I don't have time to go round and round with you and to expose your never-ending lies."

"Do you ever get tired of lying?"

And to an administrator, Bearian, who is a lawyer and professor, Wallamoose said: "...you are not qualified to be a lawyer or professor." "All I can say is YIKES, to your ignorance."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Calm_Down

"I'm sick of dealing with a crazy stalker and his (smallish) band of fools."

"You are obviously a sick and delusional individual."

You can also see other warnings Wallamoose has received on his talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RafaelRGarcia (talk • contribs)

I have advised the other party of this WQA entry (as the complainant should have done) and have requested their comment. BMW(drive) 21:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The other party has stalked my contributions page since last month, and knew of the complaint's being filed pretty much immediately. He's been going around to articles I've contributed to just to meddle, and he posted in response to the alert on two admins' pages soon after the complaint was posted here, so I knew he knew. Also, the other party has requested I not post on his talk page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are supposed to advise the other party. Both your activities and theirs will be taken into account. I advised them on your behalf. Can you show the diff's of his "advising" the admins?BMW(drive) 22:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time right now; I'm studying for finals. Look at Bearian and Ruslik0's talk pages; it happened today.

Anyway, more fuel to the fire!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Might_I_suggest...:

"I think it's pretty clear that this user has serious emotional and mental issues and is taking them out on me."RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose has begun whitewashing his talk page so that he doesn't look as mean as he's been. Observe: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWallamoose&diff=244239621&oldid=244234380 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ruslik0#Wallamoose

"This guy is obviously nuts." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The above comment quoted by RafaelRGarcia summarizes my opinion of him. I would only add the word delusional for further clarification.

RafaelRGarcia has admitted to stalking me (see my talk page) and has refused to stop. The problems with this individual predate the posting of the accurate headers you noted. Because of his activities I feel it's important that anyone viewing my talk page be made aware of the issues involved and the type of person I'm dealing with.

Since you've taken an interest I hope you'll put a stop to his abusive behavior.

This WikiAlert is just one of many many many examples.

As you've noted:

"If you file a WikiAlert, you have to: Notify the reported user(s). Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here."

So once again we have an example of a user failing to obey the rules and harassing me. Then making excuses for it and blaming others.

I've given up on bringing his activites to the attention of Admins as I've been unsucessful in getting the situation resolved. It's been a waste of their time and mine, (though I posted some of his inappropriate statements to an admin board in the past). I go about my business as best I can while having to deal with this individual who displays serious emotional and mental problems.

You can also check out his post on the ACORN discussion page: Revision as of 21:41, 8 October 2008 and 22:35, 8 October 2008. Had he ever been on that page before stalking me and posting harassing comments? And also his posts on my talk page after I asked him to stop posting there. And his reverts of my good faith edits on Rehnquist. (Do you want details?)

Regarding the Clarence Thomas article, it's not appropriate to maintain a smear job on a Supreme Court Justice (who RafaelRGarcia has repeatedly referred to as a Perv), and I've been patient and worked through the appropriate channels to the best of my ability to address this. If an Admin. wants to resolve the problem that would be great.

A dispute resolution process has begun on the talk page there, and I hope it will be successful. I'm looking forward to working on other projects (as I did when I left that page alone after posting and RfC the last time we had this problem). In the interim nothing has changed so I'm trying again, despite the difficulty in dealing with RafaelRGarcia's stalking, harassing and inappropriate behavior.

I don't have the time to refute every allegation against me, but I think it's pretty clear that this user has serious emotional and mental issues, and is taking them out on me. His taking a bunch of my quotes out of context doesn't prove much, other than the difficulty of dealing with this person. If you look through his edit history you'll find countless personal attacks on me, abusive edits, and other evidence of his harassment. I suggest you compare that to my very reasonable efforts to make good faith edits.(Wallamoose (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

I would add that many administrators have made suggestions and comments to RafaelRGarcia, but they've been ignored. If it would be helpful to cite more examples of his abuse I am willing to do so. Please let me know. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Really Wallamoose, did you indeed call people "brain damaged", insult their education, etc? Your post above shows some serious anti-editor beliefs. No matter what you think about an editor, there is never a need to insult or be otherwise uncivil towards them. BMW(drive) 23:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured that I have never called anyone brain damaged, no matter how much their behavior and statements might indicate that to be the case. I don't think I've attacked anyone's education, since I can't possibly know any details about anyone's background, but I may have suggested that claims of advanced degrees aren't supported by an individual's arguments and approach to legal scholarship.(Wallamoose (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

FYI: Wallamoose has a very loose definition of the word "many." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would move to submit RafaelRGarcia's statement above this one as Exhibit A. This Exhibit clearly supports any statements I may have made addressing his mental health and competence.(Wallamoose (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

I think Wallamoose's continued display of behaviors speaks for itself. Or rather, as I learned in law school, "res ipsa loquitur." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This pest has now stalked me onto the Keith Olbermann board where he has posted a description of one of my suggestions (that I posted on the discussion page) as nonsense and then described my word choice as foolish. Is it reasonable for someone posting a Wikialert about me to act in this manner? Please ban this user. Should I initiate a Wikialert about him, or are his actions here sufficient proof?

He says I'm "causing conflict all over Wikipedia" as I make "nothing but partisan edits", so let's look at one example. I've tried to change myself or tag the statement: "Rehnquist violated his supposed principles" repeatedly. Is this an appropriate way to phrase a description on Wikipedia? Supposed principles?

Also, as long as we're here, could you clarify for me Wikipedia's policy on sources? Are books good sources to use on an online Encyclopedia? (Wallamoose (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I assume this is rhetorical? If the book is readily available, it's generally a valid source. BMW(drive) 23:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I deny stalking Wallamoose. I looked up Keith Olbermann on my own to read up on what he's doing lately, and then I saw Wallamoose trying to infuse POV language into the article by posting suggested changes on the Talk page. The Rehnquist edit I made is straight from TIME Magazine. Please ban Wallamoose.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose has now called me a "pest" on multiple occasions. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Keith_Olbermann#Intro_Needs_Work for an example. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, in fact he called you a pest a few lines above BMW(drive) 23:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose uses purposely inflammatory section headings on his own talk page, and even tried to vandalize my talk page with them in the past. Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARafaelRGarcia&diff=243565025&oldid=243564902 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#My_efforts_to_stop_RafaelGarcia_from_destroying_Wikipedia_articles_with_his_biased_opinion_and_malicious_editing and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Stalking_behavior_by_RafaelRGarcia RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

All editors are supposed to attempt to solve problems via talk pages. Rafael, I suggest you do your best to a) stay away from Wallamoose, and b) try not to get into edit wars with them. Wallamoose - you are significantly to blame for much of what has happened here. Whether you think sarcasm is a way of life, I'm not sure. Stay away from Rafael, or at least try and leave his edits alone. Overall, Wallamoose should probably deserve a few days rest from the project. However, as Rafael arrived at this forum specifically asking for a ban (which he's not allowed to do), I tend to think that both parties either a) both deserve a week off via a ban, or b) should both voluntarily ban themselves and come back with the goal of IMPROVING Wikipedia, and IMPROVING interpersonal relationships. Everyone has something to add on Wikipedia, and everyone deserves to be treated civilly. Based simply on the text above as posted by Wallamose, I will be re-warning the editor. I would expect additional issues to actually recieve a ban. BMW(drive) 23:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: I do not believe that the complainant acted fully in Good Faith in this situation either. There has been a degree of "egging on" and I have placed a level 1 note to such effect. A level 4 on personal attacks has been placed on Wallamoose. BMW(drive) 23:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I am amazed by your conclusions. Despite your statement that both of our actions would be considered, it appears that you've mostly gone after me. If you look at my edit history you will find that I have made no attempts to bother RRG and been busy doing my own thing. I have refrained from an edit war on certain issues I've repeatedly raised and sought your insights on issues for which I was unclear. So I find it outrageous that you would single me out for possible sanction. I am very disappointed. While you've made a target for sanction, RRG as continued to harass me and other users. He's stalked me onto at least two other boards and continues to revert my good faith edits on the original boards over which we disagree. I am amazed and bewildered by your unwillingness to address the situation fairly. I would write "shame on you", but I'm sure that violates some kind of Wiki policy. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I deny the charges of harassment and stalking. I did happen across Wallamoose's attempt to POV up the article on Keith Olbermann, but I restrained my comments to content, not to the person. In contrast, Wallamoose has been trying to remove or alter my reliably-sourced edits to multiple Supreme Court topics since last month, ever since he started the first of two Clarence Thomas edit wars. In any case, we've both been warned, so a wise editor would take the warning under advisement and move on. PS: Wallamoose asked about the policy towards citing books because I mostly use books in my citations, and Wallamoose has often challenged them. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose's behavior continues. He called BWilkins "grotesquely unfair" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#October_2008 and he also refuses to remove inflammatory talk page headings. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What will it take to make this guy's actions clear? You really don't see what's going on? What do you think the comment directly above this one indicates?

I thought it was self-evident from his behaviour on this board and the incidents I've mentioned what's happening here. I said to let me know if you needed more details.

And as far as being sarcastic, I'm doing my best to have a sense of humor about this harassment. But don't worry, my sense of humor left once I realized your investigation and actions would be overwhelmingly one-sided.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Now he's changing the title of this request on this page to make it look like it's about me! Wow! Revision as of 04:35, 11 October 2008 Listen, I don't have time to defend myself with every diff where he's doing this kind of thing. I just want him to stop harassing me. And I don't think it's fair to ban me when I'm being harassed and just trying to make it stop.(Wallamoose (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

That is a lie. This section has always been named after Wallamoose.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

MarshalN20 and Bicycle Kick

When I first came across the edit warring between user:MarshalN20 and User:Selecciones de la Vida ([24]) and heated dispute on the talkpage I did not get involved, I did not know much about the various claims and it takes me quite a long time to read in Spanish. I went to an admin who is proficient in Spanish and asked him to get involved. Mariano posted his view on the talkpage and then after no response removed information that makes no mention of "bicyce kick" in the Bicycle Kick article. MarsalN20 then responded claiming that he should be consulted on his talkpage before any changes are made to the section and reverted the edit with the misleading edit summary that he was shortening the article when he was actually reinserting information.

I then became involved removing the some of the same information as I too failed to see the need for a large section which makes no mention of the Bicycle Kick. I explained my edit properly in the edit summary. MarshalN20 then restored all of the deleted information again, (possibly using an IP to do it the first time).

I then sought the opinion of user:Alexf, who stated "I see a candidate for Dispute Resolution and I see gross incivility by User:MarshalN20".

I admit that my conduct in this situation has not been ideal, I should not have allowed myself to get drawn into defending myself against his allegations and abuse. I should not have presented a case that Marshal was owning the Peru section, which in hindsight should have been approached more tactfully. And I should not have tried to defend myself against his allegations of offwiki collusion and bias by postulating the existence of a paranoid conspiracy theory.

This comment from Mariano sums up my position perfectly:

There are several things that I believe should be removed and other things to improve, but I feel it would be useless to take any action if you are going to take it as a personal attack and revert it to your liking. Mariano

Throughout the whole discussion MarshalN20 has used personal attacks and made unsubstantiated allegations (diffs provided below). Myself and the other involved editors have tried to remain calm in the face of such provocation. I have repeatedly asked him not to be incivil or make personal attacks, unsubstantiated allegations and misrepresent other people’s words. I have implored him to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA on several occasions but his attacks and incivility have not stopped or lessened, showing a complete disregard for the official policies. I am going to take the content dispute to WP:FOOTBALL, I hope someone here can succeed in explaining the importance of civility to this editor as I have tried my hardest and feel that the task would now be better undertaken by uninvolved editors.

• comparing people to dictators
• calling people imbeciles
• calling people worse than dirt
• unsubstantiated accusations of bias
• False accusation of vandalism
• False accusation of vandalism
• False allegation of personal attacks
• After Selecciones defended himself against the allegation of collusion MarshalN20 insinuated that we had conspired against him
• After I pointed out several of these incidences of incivility to him he began defending his right to make such insults. In his response to my comment he tries to claim that making a nationalistic jibe comparing a Chilean to Augusto Pinochet is OK because its funny. Claims that the use of the word imbecile to describe other editors is OK because it appears in the dictionary and calls Selecciones dirt again.
• He made unsubstantiated allegation that I am aggressive and lying after I tried to explain that nationalistic comparisons to dictators are not justifiable. This edit also shows that he holds the view that because people like Hitler and Saddam Hussain have supporters, it is justifiable to compare people to them.
• After I again asked him to read WP:NPA he claimed that I deserve to have personal insults and allegations made against me showing a fundamental disregard for the policy. EP 22:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this is the time where pleading my defense would come in handy. To begin with, I know that English Peasant (or "EP") uses very cute sentences and tries to fit everything together to make it seem as if I'm some sort of sadistic bad guy that just wants to grab a stick and smash it against everybody's head. Well, there's no denying from my part that at several times during the discussions I let my heart take over my brain, but then again if you carefully examine each of the things that "EP" presents you will notice that for every thing I said and every action I took there was a reason. Now, whether it was a good or bad reason, that is up to you to decide.

One of the first things I would like to clarify is that User:Alexf had already spoken to me about "civility" and I had already complied to his terms. You can see this in the discussion of his talk page: [25]. Furthermore, you can take note that I kept on messaging "Alexf" about the incivility from "EP," and yet I got no reply back from "Alexf." After "Alexf" sent me his message concerning "Civility," you can see that I kept myself calm and responded to the inflamatory arguments of "EP" with a very calm nature. Yet, "EP" seems to be highly agitated and frustrated, to the point that he has even had to take his wife into the discussion, as you can see in this message he sent to user "Selecciones de la Vida": [26]. In other words, it's not me that is angry or frustrated. "EP" even direcly states: "The guy is driving me up the wall" Therefore, it is him that has apparently gone crazy with all of this situation.

Next, he talks about how I called "people" dictators, dirt, and imbeciles. Yet, he is once again lying. The only person to whom I said those things was User: Selecciones de la Vida. As far as it concerns me, one user does not constitute a whole "people." As you can see in the talk page of the bicycle kick, "Selecciones" and I have been holding a very long discussion on the matter. During that discussion, eventually things heated up and both of us began to indirectly insult (either through jokes or simply angry comments) each other. I kept trying to seek for outside help from that point, includig messaging people such as User: Victor12 and even requesting a review of the article in the FOOTY article: [27]. Basically, I cannot get accused of being some sort of crazy aggressor if I did seek third opinions, but I never got any reply from any of the people or groups that I contacted. On the other hand, "Selecciones" did manage to get other people into the article but the only two people that came up, "EP" and a user named "Mariano," both did not understand the problem at hand and instead they began to edit the Peruvian section like "wild beasts" (without meaning to insult).

For example, look at this comparisson of the "Before and After" user "Mariano" edited the Peruvian section: [28]. I mean, what was the point of that? As a serious Wikipedia editor, it seems quite apparent that "Mariano"'s edit made the "Peruvian Claim" section of the article "Jorge Barraza's Claim." How exactly is this good editing?

Then, I am accused of "false allegations" of vandalism and personal attacks. This is the problem I had with vandalism in the article: [29]. This IP address got temporarily banned after the 3-edit rule. How is this a "false allegation of vandalism"? Next, throughout the bicycle kick discussion page you can see that, just as others claim I have made personal attacks against them, I have also gotten personal attacks. The user that specially did those attacks, of course, was "Selecciones de la Vida." Yet, like I explained earlier, such results came about because of our heated discussion that found no solution because no third-person wanted to actually help in the article. User "EP" got involved in the discussion and, instead of looking for a compromise that would satisfy both "Selecciones" and me, he completely became one-sided in favor of "Selecciones" claims and attacks. I ask, isn't Wikipedia a place where people are supposed to come and help in order to find solutions? Yet, "EP" came in there and simply expanded the problem.

Going back to the problem of Pinochet, I still will back up my statement that I meant it as a joke. As you can see in the discussion, user "Selecciones de la Vida" did not take the thing as a horrible insult. He simply said it was "incredible how I lied and equated him to a dictator." That was the only time I ever said anything about Pinochet, and that was the last time the term was discussed until user "EP" once again sparked the conflict. I ask, yet again, why does "EP" keep seeking to make fire out of ashes? If the discussion on Pinochet was not even a big deal, and it had already died a plenty of time before "EP" got involved in the discussion, why does he have to once again bring that up and make it seem as if it where an actual big deal?

Lastly, I never said that "EP" deserved "to have personal insults and allegations made against" him. Such a thing is a lie, and you can read that yourselves in the link that he has provided for you. In other words, this is a complete lie that holds no foundation.

If you wish to ask me any direct questions about my actions or about this situation, feel free to send me messages on my talk page. I am not angry, and I am most certainly not seeking problems. If you want me to clarify anything, simply send me a question and I will answer it. Thank you for taking the time to read this.--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My comment "I shall expect further allegations and insults rather than reasoned debate in response" your response "You shall expect what you deserve", what you state is pretty unambiguous. You claim that after Alexf asked you to remain civil "you.....complied to his terms" and acted with a very calm nature. Calling people hypocrites and liars, and presenting a defence for ignoring the civility rules ([30]) accusing them of aggression ([31]), bias ([32]) and insinuating offwiki collusion ([33]) when they are asking you to remain civil and avoid personal attacks suggest otherwise, all these edits happened after Alexf's request. I could have gone around giving specific examples of your hypocrisy and making snide comments, but instead I asked you to read the civility guidelines, and tried to illustrate what personal attacks actually are, after you made the unsubstantiated allegation that I had made them against yourself ([34]). You then engaged in a defence of all of your right to make personal attacks ([35]). I realise that still attempting to engage with you is futile as you have made it clear that you are unwilling to accept that personal attacks on Wikipedia are inappropriate, and are unwilling to accept that any of your comments have been inappropriate or inflammatory EP 17:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet you continue with your aggression. Seriously, you've got some serious issues to work out. Like I said, "You shall expect what you deserve." If you think that you deserve "further allegations and insults," then that's your problem. Still, I never said that you actually deserved such things. After all, I'm not in your brain and therefore it is not really up to me to decide what exactly it is that you want to expect. All of those things you point out came as self-defense from your aggression. Like I said, I had already spoken to User: Alexf, but you kept on attacking me even though he had allegedly also contacted you. Do not try to hide your own mistakes by making me look bad. lol. For "bias," I have already posted in the bicycle kick section my evidence as to why I think that you're completely biased against the Peruvian section. In other words, I have provided evidence to my statements. Moreover, I have every right to claim that you are attacking me. Also, I really do not understand why you act in such an arrogant manner. If you can't learn to work with other people by actually abiding to compromises or acting kind, then you might as well go make your own encyclopedia. Furthermore, I already stated before that I did get agitated during the discussion, but I have also stated that after User: Alexf came things for me really did calm down. Of course, you keep trying to push your point in here. Please learn to be more civil and stop attacking me.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

MarshalN20, the situation has not calmed down at all even after the suggestion that was made by User:Alexf. To further clarify the point English peasant made, you stated I'm sure Pinochet's way of making arguments must be a Chilean thing which can very well be interpreted as an attack against all Chileans. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

To you and English Peasant the situation might not have calmed down, but as far as it goes for me it has. If the two of you need some time to chill out, then that's your problem. As far as it concerns me, I am completely calm and once again have made my head come into place as supreme over the rest of my emotions. You and "EP" keep taking things out of context. The statement was meant directly towards you, and you accepted that by stating: "It's incredible how you lie and equate me to a dictator." Please stop trying to rally behind English Peasant's comments as you're certainly not helping in getting him/her get calmed down. Also, I would sincerely recommend for you to also seek some way of getting calmed down. lol. Perhaps try thinking about something cold, deserted, and somewhat pointless, like Antartica, or the Atacama or Sahara deserts. Such a thing worked for me. Best of luck on that, though.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't take your recommendation, neither the Atacama, Sahara deserts or Antartica are pointless. The Atacama desert is incredibly rich in copper while Antartica features the largest fresh water reserve in the world. The Sahara desert is also a very viable option for both wind and solar energy. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. See, there you go. Just keep thinking those nice thoughts and you'll eventually get back on track like me. No more aggressive attacks. It's that simple. I really do hope you become calm. Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the false accusation of vandalism, look at your edit, you simply moved the Chilean section below the Peruvian one then accused the IP of deleting sources in the same minute. The fact that he later got blocked for violation 3RR is irrelevant, the issue is the inappropriate use of edit summaries and vandalism warnings. EP 17:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet you keep on lying. As you can see here, [36], I discussed the changing of the names of the sections and then the IP Address began to vandalize the article. I went through every single step of the process with the IP address, contacted other users for opinion, and at the end the IP address was banned because of the 3 edit rule. You're creating a straw man out of something that has been already solved simply for the purpose of, not surprisingly, attacking me. Please stop your attacks against me.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322 (talk · contribs)

User FireFly has accused me on both my talk page and his of being a troll, seamy, sordid, mean, and of disrupting a page with pointy edits. The dispute seems to be centred over my addition of an orphan tag to the J. C. Massee page, which I justified on the talk page. When questioned he repeated the accusations, and when asked to justify them or remove them he responded by saying I was "a not fair and rational editor". I think this goes a bit far. When another editor warns FireFly for his behaviour, he removes the template with the edit summary "removing other unfair and irrational comment". I originally thanked him for removing the accusations from my talk page, but he then immediately repeated and extended the personal attack on his talk page.

• Discussion on my talk page (removed by FireFly332): Please stop
• Discussion on FireFly332's talk page, including warning by 3rd party (removed by FireFly332): Uncivil accusations

Yours, Verbal chat 14:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin: You were perfectly justified in adding the tag, and he knows it. I suggest a short block, but I'm not an admin so my opinion doesn't count. =P Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 15:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin: In passing, Firefly322 (mistakenly) bandied the troll word about at Talk:Taede A. Smedes after I asked for the subject's notability to be established. Like Dendodge, I'm no admin so probably can't help, but I thought this might have some bearing here. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest moving this up to a WP:RFC/U if other editors have encountered problems in the past too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it that serious? How does one go about that? It does seem there is a history of poor behaviour from his talk page (including a mediation cabal attempt) Verbal chat 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: In response to the (polite) notification of this discussion, Firefly322 says "you are doing harm to wikipedia" along with those I "associate" with, and that "[my] behavior in terms of editing is not one to be modeled"(sic). Obviously the "doing harm" comment is a further attack. It seems Firefly has had a few civility problems, and this needs to be sorted out. Verbal chat 15:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing of the sort. No he's not perfectly justified in adding such a tag. The tag is completely unnecessary and in fact its a blight on the article that would make other editors not link to it. Verbal appears to enjoy engaging in WP:tendentious editing, espeically in articles related to religion and other edgey topics. He or she demands justification of other editors who disagree with him by purposely baits editors. I do believe that user's behavior here is WP:TROLL and that my comments in his or her case and in the context that they exist justly stand on the grounds that WP:Break all rules and that he or she and the so called "third parties" are doing harm to wikipedia. An absolute applicaiton of any rule WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, is in the words of Terry Eagleton "errant nonsense" and "unmitigated garbage." --Firefly322 (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Firefly has previously edit-warred to remove made accusations of bad faith when removing article tags at J. C. Massee; perhaps there is a feeling of article ownership there. In this most recent example, I think Firefly's remarks are certainly incivil. It is good that Firefly since removed them, but unfortunate that other comments have given the impression that Firefly still believes them to be "accurate". I've left a note, by the way, about the removal of user talk page comments from User talk:Verbal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are abusing the concept of WP:OWNERSHIP. More damage to wikipedia. Not less as you might be thinking you are doing. I have not "edit warred", I think. You are mischaracterizing me. More damage to wikipedia, at least that's how I see it. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

An absolute applicaiton of any rule WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, is in the words of Terry Eagleton "errant nonsense" and "unmitigated garbage."

No - WikiLawyering is "errant nonsense". Applying WP:CIVIL, a Wikipedia policy, is all that is happening here. You are not overly civil and feel that you own the article. The tag is designed to help articles when not much links to them. Verbal is trying to assist and advance Wikipedia - you are trying to make sure everything is how you want it. </rant> Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 15:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The disucssion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup routinely calls tags snags and editors are busy trying to fix this. Verbal has snagged this article not tagged it. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Firefly, I presume that instead of accusing me of abuse and damage, your intent was to deny that you feel that you own this article. As such, I am quite willing to accept that denial at face value in the interests of having a productive discussion.

Moving on to the issue of the "orphan" tag: it is perfectly normal for articles to be tagged as orphans when "few or no articles" link to them; such tagging is intended and expected to encourage other editors to add links. Tagging an orphaned article is in no way trolling, disruptive, or damaging to Wikipedia. User:Verbal was perfectly justified in adding that tag, and User:Maunus was justified in restoring it after you removed it. By contrast, it is disruptive to remove a tag whose purpose is to assist editors in improving Wikipedia. In general, when you see a tag that you wish to remove, you should either address and resolve the issues raised by the tag (for example, by finding reliable sources or finding articles that could link to this one) or propose its removal on the article Talk page, and engage in a discussion which is civil and assumes good faith of other editors.

On that note, please remember that Wikipedia:Assume good faith is a policy, unlike Wikipedia:Break all rules, and repeated failure to adhere to it may result in you being sanctioned to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of a warning tag off of your own Talk page is tacit acceptance of that warning. So, the warning has been acknowledged. Although edit-warring is not necessarily "incivility", the nasty commentary about editors is purely uncivil. I don't see a new reason (yet) for an additional level of warning, however, additional edit warring, or incivility, I would recommend a block for disruption. I am disturbed by the attempts to "turn the tables" on others, rather than understand one's own behaviour ... especially when it's been pointed out by numerous uninvolved editors. BMW(drive) 15:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(ECx2) Firefly, you are placing a user's suggestion as more important than a long-standing, consensus-supported template and accompanied process. The tag was correctly placed - you are the only person who disagrees. Consensus gathered, discussion over. There's no need to prolong this. If an admin wants to block for a couple of days... Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 16:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors can continue to engange in this wolf-pack WP:tendentious editing (calling snags tags) for now and try and justify it here. As I've pointed out. These tags are considered nags by other editors. Like any policy or guideline, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL can be abused in a two-way street fashion. I am a bit excited now, I can admit, but I can assure you that I am trying to act in good faith fashion. A faith in wikipedia and what matters. I believe every time a good policy or guideline comes about, a group editors try and find a way to use it in ways that it should not be. I believe that is a lot of what I am wittnessing here. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, what you're witnessing here is a group of people who have gathered consensus, considering long-standing precedent and Wikipedia policy. Let's just end this pointless debate here, or you'll probably find yourself with a block. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 16:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A good editor (when they come across an article with an Orphan tag) will rise to the challenge to de-orphan it. Orphan tags therefore serve an extremely beneficial and appreciated purpose on Wikipedia. Just because one or more editors don't understand it (and therefore don't like it) does not change the inherent benefit. BMW(drive) 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out here that in my talk page comment before I placed the tag I suggested another article that could be linked to J C Massee, but I don't know if it is the right NBC. I also made a few other improvements to the article. Verbal chat 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• The tag in question does not have good consensus support. Other editors consider it an annoyance and there is currently an independent proposal that it should be placed upon article talk pages rather then on the article page itself. I am among them - this tag and related activity seem to be unnecessary busywork which detract from our main purpose. In this case, we see that the tag has caused more harm than good. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this page and its primary editors show a biased selection of users related to the type of topic that they are editing on. The paged is used to zero in on editors no so much for wiki-ettique as it is to zero-in on editors who write in edgey topics by baiting them. And that editors here are going along with such a practice. These can't represent consensus, because a lot of WP:UNCIVIL commentary is ignored: Bull###..there are several other nasty-grams that I got, which I create dif links to. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left Firefly a formal warning for this incessant failure to assume good faith. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The incivility is continuing, unfortunately, as in this edit summary [37] which now accuses me and others here of behaving inappropriately. The accusations now made on this page by Firefly against me and others need a formal response now, I feel. Is it time to ask for administrator intervention at ANI? Verbal chat 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to leave it for now. It's understandable that Firefly might think the warning wasn't justified, and I've tried to explain my reasoning on my own Talk page. The important thing going forward is not to "argue about arguing", if you know what I mean. There is still an encyclopaedia out there, waiting to be written :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine about the warning you provided, but the continuing attacks, which escalate each time, are tiresome and slightly upsetting. Verbal chat 19:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Verbal, you're not doing yourself any favours right now ... meanwhile, Firefly is attacking uninvolved, neutral volunteers, which is likely going to provide him/her with a nice long rest from editing Wikipedia ... BMW(drive) 23:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User: RafaelRGarcia

Stuck

 – Taken to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I've tried to ignore this and go about my business, but it hasn't worked so I'm asking for help. Here is some information that illustrates the problems I'm having that haven't been addressed:

From My talk page:

For the record this individual has now resorted to stalking me around Wikipedia. If anyone can suggest how to get rid of this pest please let me know. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Your edits are, quite rightly, listed in your contribution history, and anyone and everyone is able to "stalk" anyone and everyone else. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a page about this subject. I'd suggest both of you read it to keep this from escalating anymore. Thanks, Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 23:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the information you've provided puts a stop this behavior. He's also ignored my request to stop posting on this discussion page. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

You've wikistalked me since last month, so you have no right to complain. I just started to check your contributions elsewhere today, and I now see your pattern of edits and how much conflict you're generating. You've been abusive in your language towards me and other editors, so you'd never be successful in getting action leveraged against your opponents without also getting in trouble yourself. I'll stop posting on your talk page when you stop talking about me. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The abuse continues. (Wallamoose (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

No prob. Once you say not to post on your talk page, you can revert further posts. Other than that, I'd really suggest you guys let it go. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note the false accusation that I've Wikistalked him. My edit history makes clear this is absolutely false.

Despite the above discussion RafaelRGarcia's stalking and harassment have continued.

He followed me to the ACORN board and posted the following Revisions on 21:41, 8 October 2008 and 22:35, 8 October 2008

Wallamoose tried the same self-referencing in the article on Clarence Thomas, so it may well be him. He had added a sentence complaining about article "protectors" who wouldn't let him decimate the section on Anita Hill. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaks for itself.

:Actually, I'm using my real name. You're the anonymous one.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another false and harassing accusation.

If RafaelRGarcia has any history of posting on that article I'd like to see it. Can anyone explain why he went there posting this other than to harass me?

The abuse continued on the Keith Olbermann board:

Here's another try...

Olberman has established a niche on cable television as a political commentator and fierce critic of prominent Republicans and Republican policies. He's also gone after other political figures such as Hillary Clinton, and is seen as controversial for his vigorous expression of his viewpoints. He's gained notoriety and additional viewers since making vitriolic (sp?) attacks on George Bush and Bill O'Reilly a centerpiece of his show. (Wallamoose (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Using a word as charged as "vitriolic" is foolish. Why don't we change the lead for the Bill O'Reilly article to talk about how much he loves shouting and cutting out microphones? Why do we have to talk about O'Reilly in the lead of Olbermann's article? We don't talk about O'Reilly's harsh criticisms in the lead of his article. Also, all cable spokespeople are "niches" compared to the traditional broadcast networks. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RafaelRGarcia is being investigated by Admins for stalking me. I'm sorry to see that he's continued this activity on this board. If anyone has any suggestions on getting rid of a pest please let me know.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Wallamoose is complaining to admins about me, but I am not being investigated. In contrast, Wallamoose has a Wikiquette alert filed against him for insulting editors and administrators. If he is rude to you, don't hesitate to complain at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Wallamoose .RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Established a niche" is interesting (and, I see, supported by a NYT article, at least going by its title). The thing is that the lead needs to reflect the article, so what you should do is try to figure out how we should express that idea in the body of the article. Then we can adjust the lead appropriately. Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I think the word niche is appropriate and supported by the rest of the article... For what it's worth regarding Vitriolic...

(Wallamoose (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

The word "vitriolic" is too charged, and POV. It paints a negative picture of the speaker. If you add it to this article, I will add it to Bill O'Reilly's, because he gets just as angry.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RRG, don't make threats to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. You seem to have come here and plopped down in the middle of a productive discussion to continue jousting with Wallamoose, who has been pretty easy to work with on this article. Please remain civil. Dayewalker (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My coming here has nothing to do with Wallamoose. I came to read the article and then stumbled upon Wallamoose attempting to inject charged rhetoric into the article. I am not threatening to disrupt Wikipedia; but I am pointing out how neutral Bill O'Reilly's lead is, so why should Olbermann's not be? Wallamoose has been very uncivil to me; I'm not the one who merits warning. For more information, read the Wikiquette alert on him, as I'm not here to bring that up.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How are you not here to bring it up? You've already linked to it once and told people to go there to complain. Dayewalker (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You can clearly see that my comments were limited to the article until Wallamoose blundered in to accuse me of stalking him. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, responding to an accusation of stalking by linking to your own Wikkiquette alert and encouraging others to complain there isn't exactly the right way to deflect those criticisms. Dayewalker (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's out of my hands at this point. I can't let a comment like that slide. Wallamoose is very rude in all situations. And he's been stalking me since last month; he keeps trying to revert edits I made to Supreme Court articles. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD)It's not out of your hands, but it is irrelevant to this article. You can't accuse him of stalking when you clearly came to this page following him. Please don't continue an argument onto an irrelvant page. Dayewalker (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I deny coming to this article because of Wallamoose. Olbermann is increasingly relevant to me with elections coming up, so I looked him up. Also, Wallamoose accused me of stalking him after stalking me himself. And again, I didn't bring it up. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of the content I'm posting. But I think it speaks for itself. You'll notice I refrained from engaging RafaelRGarcia, but his personal attacks and feuding with other users continued.

On the Rehnquist article Garcia has no edits going back to Sept. 22.

I make three good edits. 05:59, 8 October 2008 05:59, 8 October 2008 05:59, 8 October 2008

Garcia reverts all of them.

Also makes further “edits” that effectively revert more of my changes. Does this violate the 3RR rule? I’m no expert.

One of his edits says, “to find the info, get off wikipedia and read some cases.”

How much more time and effort do you want me to expend exposing this guy’s improper actions?

Two more of my good edits. Check them out for yourself. I believe there is also extensive discussion on the talk page. But it’s hopeless with RafaelRGarcia. He doesn’t care. He just wants to harass.

16:19, 8 October 2008 16:19, 8 October 2008

Now he seems to be using anonymous edits to do the same thing. I don't know for sure, so maybe you want to check it out.

16:41, 9 October 2008

11 minutes later he’s back doing more damage.

There are many more examples, but I have to just wonder how many examples does it take? How much is enough?

This user posted a WikiAlert about me, another attempt at harassment, despite his own incessant harassment, stalking, and abuse of me and other Wikipedians. I trusted in the WikiAlert process when I was told that both sides would be investigated or considered. I was disappointed to find that was not the case, but I'm going to give it another try and hope for the best! (Wallamoose (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Wallamoose is filing this Alert as retaliation for the Alert filed against him. This complaint is nothing but a repost of his talk page and some other talk pages, so it has no new information that BWilkins hasn't considered. There is no truth whatsoever to the charge that I am stalking Wallamoose. However, he's been trying to remove my edits to pages since last month. He saw the list of articles I have contributed to on my userpage, and ran over there to change the articles. He's repeatedly been trying to slant the articles since last month. His edits to the pages for John G. Roberts and William Rehnquist demonstrate this. He also openly flouts warnings placed against him and called BWilkins "grotesquely unfair"; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#October_2008 . This issue has already been considered and should be closed for now. Today, Wallamoose was given a Level 4 warning for his behavior. Administrator Bearian also gave Wallamoose a warning last month: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Warning . Proof that Wallamoose has been stalking me since last month is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Warning_and_advice . Here, Wallamoose had blocked my Good Article nomination of William Rehnquist to complain about the Clarence Thomas article more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Rehnquist/GA1&diff=241734629&oldid=238501623 . Even user Censei, who's been blocked for disruptive editing, recognizes the severity of Wallamoose's actions, and gave him a warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Calm_Down RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to let RafaelRGarcia's actions speak for themselves. My edit history clearly shows that I have NOT stalked him. The record makes clear my good faith efforts to put a stop to his harassment.(Wallamoose (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Quite the contrary. Wallamoose continues to ignore the warning he received from BWilkins as a result of the alert against him. He continues to use inflammatory section headings on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWallamoose&diff=244488841&oldid=244482126 . And he has attempted to use the talk pages of other articles to further cause conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKeith_Olbermann&diff=244488290&oldid=244484889 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AClarence_Thomas&diff=244488530&oldid=244469912 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAssociation_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&diff=244487947&oldid=244461706 . RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

By all means read the links Garcia has provided. All of my efforts have been in good faith. And I'm sorry it's come to this. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Wallamoose is whitewashing his user talk page by cutting out evidence of issues currently under discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWallamoose&diff=244494288&oldid=244493617 . RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWallamoose&diff=244494558&oldid=244494288 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWallamoose&diff=244494626&oldid=244494558 .

Wallamoose is now using section headings to mock BWilkins: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=prev&oldid=244495761 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RafaelRGarcia continues to stalk my every move and to make allegation after allegation against me. He's attacking me for editing my own talk page? Take a look at how many of his warnings are on his talk page. Will it ever end? Please make it stop. Is there a way to block him from watching what I'm doing and following me around to harass me? Should I do what he's doing???? PLEASE ADVISE!!!(Wallamoose (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

No, there isn't a way to stop him from watching what you're doing. The best thing you (RafaelRGarcia and Wallamoose) can do is avoid each other from now on. This is the only thing I can suggest. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 02:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So am I to understand that I will be reprimanded when I respond to posts attacking me all over Wikipedia by this stalker? I'm not allowed to inform other users that he's stalking me? Or to refer to him as a pest? Would it help if I provided the definition of pest? I don't know how else to describe his activity.

"R(afael)RG(arcia), don't make threats to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. You seem to have come here and plopped down in the middle of a productive discussion to continue jousting with Wallamoose, who has been pretty easy to work with on this article. Please remain civil. Dayewalker

How are you not here to bring it up? You've already linked to it once and told people to go there to complain. Dayewalker (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC) (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD)It's not out of your hands, but it is irrelevant to this article. You can't accuse him of stalking when you clearly came to this page following him. Please don't continue an argument onto an irrelvant page. Dayewalker (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Even other users noticed that he's stalking me! This is ridiculous.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Replied on Wallamoose's talk page. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 03:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is just more material copied and pasted from another talk page, and is not new information. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose continues to nettle and stalk me, in contravention of his Level 4 Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RafaelRGarcia&diff=244508955&oldid=244508416 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RafaelRGarcia&diff=244506106&oldid=244504717 . I insist that he stop. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I'm going to be punished. I just don't have the time to provide all the diffs for his harassment. Now he's deleting my talk comments from a page he followed me to. Oh well. I mean what can I do? (Wallamoose (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

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

KACEY CHRYSLER

BIOGRAPHY ) KACEY CHRYSLER - MR.VERSATILE WHAT CAN'T KACEY CHRYSLER DO??? Kacey Chrysler is 21 years old and is the new flourish of a hip hop artist/singer/songwriter that has emerged into the music industry. He is from East New York,Brooklyn & possesses the skills to command the stage that is always a performance that should not missed. His father has always been absent from his life and his mother constantly suffered personal complications, and due to those conditions, Kacey was raised by his grandmother.She sent him to music school at an early age where he learned to fluently play the piano,flute,& drums. This gave him an appreciation and love for music. Kacey's grandmother Novella Harris impelled him to work hard and master whatever tasks he attempts. She planted a seed in him at an early age to be be versatile and flexible by involving Kacey in numerous recreational programs and activities throughout his youth.Kacey is influenced by the music of artists such as lil wayne for his ambition, energetic performance and delivery as well as his lyrical ability. Also he admires Jay Z & Kanye West for their versatility and businessmen qualities. There are also comedy clubs that Kacey showcases his talents as a comedian. Kacey loved the stage and enjoys feedback from his audiences. once an audience experiences Kacey's stage presence you cant help but be captivated by his obvious passion he has for being on stage.Kacey continues to write original material for all of his comedy showcases as well as his musical compilations because he believes that originality expresses who you are as an individual.This enhances the hip hop music that Kacey does because it gives him more ideas on how to master his craft and allows him to produce exactly what an audience craves.An oustandingly energetic and very impressive performance which Kacey delivers each and every time regardless if its a crowd of 2 or 2,000 people. Kacey has also achieved the accomplishment of getting his singles featured on compilations hosted by Nas,DJ Khaled,DJ Whoo kid and Jae Millz.They were entitled Coast2Coast Vol 33 Hosted by Nas,Coast2Coast Vol 30 Hosted by DJ Whoo Kid(THISIS50.com EDITION),Coast2Coast Vol 24 Hosted by DJ Khaled, & Coast2Coast Vol 20 Hosted by Jae Millz. He has also performed with Legends such as Hot 97's & Infamous Video Music Box Uncle Ralph McDaniel's, Hot 97's DJ Envy, Power 105's Curt Flirt, Rah Digga ,& DJ Jazzy Joyce, & Cash Money Records June Balloon .Uncle Ralph Mcdaniels stays current with Kaceys music by communicating with him through Myspace.Uncle Ralph even complimented Kacey on his hard work & said to kacey, "Kacey, You Are The Future!.Those were really inspirational words which means alot to kacey because Uncle Ralph Mcdaniels is without a doubt, a Hiphop legend and Icon. Also Legendary Power 105 Curt Flirt introduces Kacey as a veteran to the industry and even made an attention grabber statment right before Kacey performed at his last showcase with Power 105 & Cash Money Records saying "Kacey Chrysler is Hot and a Veteran to this industry and somebody better sign him soon!".These words coming from another legend has done nothing more than fuels Kacey's ambition and hunger to suceed in the music industry. But Kacey's success is simply the result of his determination to be successful. Kacey has also pursued a career in acting performing in the well known off broadway plays entitled" The Wiz" with Kacey as the Wiz. As well as the wiz kacey has acted in another off broadway entitled "A Hip Hop Story" with Kacey as West. Kacey Chrysler has performed these plays nationwide and is still currently operational. Kacey believes that no matter how good you are at something, you can always improve yourself to be better and thats why Kacey continues to perfect his craft where ever he sees fit along with making any adjustments based on both positive and negative feedback from his peers and fans. Kacey sets himself apart from others by his versatile style and ability to change up along with producing his own tracks which produces a new and unique sound which exhibits that his style is fresh and hot and is clearly different.From this point Kacey will continue his quest to be the best and to stand out among all of the rest! MYSPACE.COM/KACEYCHRYSLERMUSIC BLOGTALKRADIO.COM/KACEY-CHRYSLER GOOGLE: KACEY CHRYSLER KACEYCHRYSLER@YMAIL.COM AIM:KACEYCHRYSLER CHRYSLER ENTERPRISES (347) 413 6390