Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/Archive/2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

The following contents are the archived alerts in 2007. Scroll down for the full navigation or select one the individual pages below for the specific time period.

NOTE: Archive format was changed on April 8, 2007 and again on July 5, 2007 to begin archiving by bot.

Prior to April 8, 2007, incident reports were only archived by date.

After April 8, 2007 and prior to reports archived on or after July 5, 2007, incident reports are listed with subheads describing the topic of the alert, under section headings listed by date.

Reports archived on or after July 5, 2007 are listed by topic heading only, in chronological sequence, but without separation by date headings.


Contents

Archived alerts in 2007

2-January-2007

3-January-2007

  • Ilena (talk · contribs) (WQA AN) appears to be back to her old behavior: assuming bad faith of all that hold opinions other than her own, ignoring NPOV completely, being uncivil, making personal attacks, ignoring wiki policy and guidelines as it suits her, ignoring help from others, disrupting editing efforts, edit-warring, etc. An experienced perspective would be very welcome. 23:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You cite a posting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, now archived, that resulted in a very long discussion, with that last comment on December 31st. If the problem is reoccurring, you really should post again to that forum, so the admins and others who were involved in the last discussion can pick up the thread. John Broughton | Talk 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • She seems to be quieting down again after some points concerning her & WP:BLP were finally understood, mediated, and better addressed at Wikipedia.--I'clast 09:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd rather see it re-examined right away to avoid the possibility of her coming back in full-force attack mode. Thanks for the perspectives and advice. --Ronz 17:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Ronz, she has had some substantial points that have been ignored, derided and may remain unaddressed or unresolved; frankly I want to finish trying to accurately analyze her positions & draw some conclusions w/o the continual distraction & challenges. Who knows, at least Fyslee thanks me for progress.--I'clast 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm not stopping you. Again, thanks for your perspective. --Ronz 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

4-January-2007

  • Smiloid (talk · contribs) has been adding NPOV tags to the Tarot article since mid-2006. Dispite debate from others and, what looks like a mediated decision (I can't really tell), he continues to add NPOV, world-view, etc., tags. Could someone step in and help him come to some sort of resolution? I've never posted an alert before, so my apology if I'm not doing this properly.--P Todd 04:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll take a look (I've done a few minor edits - there is certainly a lot of duplication, so I'm going to need some time to figure out what to combine). I also note a good posting on the talk page, to Smiloid, about the purpose of the page, and I'd like to see his/her reponse. John Broughton | Talk 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • While there is a great deal of work still needed on the article, there seems to be progress, albeit slow, so I consider this closed. John Broughton | Talk 14:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 199.62.0.252 (talk · contribs) and 170.215.15.99 (talk · contribs), in addition to being suspected sockpuppets of blocked user VacuousPoet (talk · contribs), are making disruptive edits to Evolution in violation of WP:POINT. The user objects to the exclusion of "abbot" from the introduction of Gregor Mendel, and is insisting that no professions of any figure in the article be mentioned unless Mendel's profession is mentioned. The latter IP is also adding the word "Abbott" in front of Mendel's name in other articles. N6 06:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If you've not already posted to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, please do so. If these two accounts really are sockpuppets, that's the best place to shut them down and get the edits reverted (typically, sockpuppets can't be reasoned with). John Broughton | Talk 15:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • There's already a case open. I was noting disruptive wikiquette in addition to suspected sockpuppetry. N6 20:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Update: no postings by either account since January 5th. In general, it's my sense that sockpuppets are not amenable to any kind of reasoning, which is primarily what this page offers (and warnings, which again probably don't work). John Broughton | ♫ 17:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Doctor of Philosophy Schwnj reversion. see Talk. 13:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • (Please, a bit less terse of a request is appreciated.) I don't see an incivility or real problems here, just a need to follow Wikipedia processes regarding reverts (should be limited to vandalism and clearly non-useful changes). I've posted a lengthy comment on the talk page, and have done a small edit to the article. John Broughton | Talk 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been trying to start discussion on the use and alternatives to behaviour message templates dealing with personal attacks, assuming bad faith, and incivility. So far I've commented here Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Civilx.2C_AFGx.2C_.26_NPAx, and pointed it out to a few for comment. No response yet, so I'm looking for more appropriate location for such a discussion. 17:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

6-January-2007

  • Cunado19 (talk · contribs) persists on adding a politically charged sectarian image to Shi'a related articles (by the way of editing the universal templates). The image in question is a user-made fictional drawing of a sword, and is not akin to a political/organisational seal/logo. As such it is easy to avoid controversy by using an alternative symbol that is devoid of such messages. S/he was informed of this, yet insists on reverting without heeding the discussion. Kaveh 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That's BS. The "politically charged" wording is in Arabic, and it's a common Shia slogan meaning "Ali is the friend of God". This user keeps accusing me of putting up slander when it comes down to a difference in opinion over aesthetics. Cuñado - Talk 02:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

7-January-2007

  • Crass accusations of bias and racism by User:Darkcat21 on Talk:X Japan, following an ongoing disagreement over the application of capitalization-related Wikipedia guidelines. - 15:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've removed the offending language on the talk page and have posted a note to the user reminding him to observe WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. John Broughton | Talk 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk page vandalism on Talk:Bad Boys Blue (removal of content in a Talk page, see [1]) by several IP addresses from apparently similar netblocks (same location?). I haven't traced the IP-s yet, but I think it's the different fans with their vested interest (or just one) doing the job... 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, your posting is a bit, um ... belated - the last edit to the talk page was on October 31st. I've archived the (restored) contents of the page; that preserves them while putting them out of sight to those not needing to look at old postings. John Broughton | Talk 22:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Raving mockery and accusations of bias by User:Smashingworth on Talk:Lavenski_Smith, following a dispute on the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion". User has also twice removed citation tags on unsourced statements. Please assist. Joie de Vivre 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've not had a chance to look in detail at this, but I find at least one of your edits to be less than constructive. You put a Template:Unreferenced tag on the Lavenski Smith article despite it having three external links, and you put "cn" tag on the education stated in the article (BA, JD), even though the very first external link (to a .gov website) says exactly what the article says regarding the education of Judge Smith. John Broughton | Talk 03:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
External links are not citations. I was correct in placing the tags. The easiest way I can explain is to ask that you will familiarize yourself with How to cite sources and Biographies, which neatly explain how to properly cite a source. (It does not involve the External links section.) This may be surprising, but placing citation tags was the most constructive thing I could do, other than removing the unsourced material outright -- an action which is actually encouraged! The article currently violates the official policy of No original research, which is what citation tags are used to highlight - information that needs verification. Joie de Vivre 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm fully aware that references are different than external links, thank you. I also agree that the unreferenced template can be used even though there are valid external links in an article. That doesn't necessarily make placing the template constructive, however, particularly if it's done in the middle of an argument between editors. On the other hand, if you think that placing a "citation needed" tag on the sentence listing the education of a judge - information that was available via the first external link - was appropriate, and if you think that such information is "controversial" - a requirement for removing unsourced material that you didn't mention - then we don't really have anything further to discuss. If you want to acknowledge your mistake on that, then I'd be happy to look at the situation further. John Broughton | Talk 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not place the ((unreferenced)) tag "in the middle of an argument" -- placing the template was part of my initial edit. User:Smashingworth responded to this first edit by calling it "absurd" and reverting it, despite the fact that citation tags are required. I made a single attempt to reinstate the changes, because it is especially important in biographical articles to cite all sources. It was my understanding that placement of citation tags on unsourced statements requires no discussion, especially when no content is being removed. Currently, without the tags, the article violates Wikipedia:No original research. What are you saying that I did wrong? Joie de Vivre 14:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Okay, I stand corrected - you continued to argue over whether the article was adequately referenced when the central argument is on the use of "pro-abortion" versus "pro-choice". That's "less than constructive", in my opinion.

From what I can see, the vast bulk of the article was never "original research", as its current state (footnoted, courtesy of another editor) attests. Further, I have no idea why you believe that without tags, an unsourced article violates WP:NOR. Creating information without a reliable source violates WP:NOR; failure to provide references is simply failure to provide references. Until someone researches the situation (or, in this case, fixes the dead links, which I did), it may not be possible to tell the two apart (although OR is virtually never the dry recital of facts that makes up most of the article), but the two are fundamentally different.

As to what you did wrong, you placed "cn" after the following sentence: Smith, a life-long Arkansan, received both his B.A. and his J.D. from the University of Arkansas. You did that despite the fact that the important information in the sentence (his education) could be found by clicking on the first external link in the article, with is fully WP:RS compliant.

I am in no ways taking sides here - I just left a note on Smashingworth's user talk page about what I consider an improper posting on the article's talk page, and another note on the article's talk page about what I consider to be an incorrect labeling of one of the footnoted sources. I'm simply saying that there are better and worse ways to have an argument, and this seems to illustrate some of the latter, although I wouldn't nominate it to join Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. -- John Broughton | Talk 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Followup to previous request: User:Smashingworth is becoming outright abusive at Talk:Lavenski_Smith. This user actually created a top-level header titled "Joie's Record of Editing Hypocrisy Reveals True Motives for Crashing This Page", and proceeded on a long-winded, accusatory rant about my edits in other articles, threatening "discipline" for the "crusade" they imagined as being behind my actions. Despite maintaining complete civility, this user has described me as "a shill for Planned Parenthood" and as the "Politically Correct Thought Police". I would like to request that someone other than User:John Broughton assist on this. It's nothing personal, but my last request, which was answered by this user, was met only with discussion on this page, and no input at the article itself. Joie de Vivre 22:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Suit yourself. I don't work full-time here, so sometimes things take a bit of time. The section of interest on the talk page that you mention was created, oh, about 66 minutes ago. 22:35, 8 January 2007 John Broughton | Talk

8-January-2007

  • User:Dking says on talk page Talk:Lyndon LaRouche that those who disagree with his edits are "programmed" and cannot understand his ideas.[2] He has engaged in a revert war to insert material that goes against consensus at Lyndon LaRouche. 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sheesh. If "programmed" were the worst that someone called me, I'd be living a very happy life indeed. Please give strong consideration to ignoring such comments.
    • As for the reverts, which are more important, the rule is that an editor get three in 24 hours in any article (see WP:3RR, and after that it's an automatic block if someone reports that editor for excessive reverts. I'm not encouraging anyone to use their full "quota" - an editor should go to the talk page as part of the process, as minimum, to try to work things out, after it's obvious there is a disagreement, but the policy does mean that a single editor can't indefinitely hoist his/her view of an article on everyone else. John Broughton | Talk 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

10-January-2007

  • Pretty much your standard edit war, Talk:Yisroel Dovid Weiss#Response sums it up: about whether or not subject can be called rabbi as per every r s on the guy, or if unsourced opinions about him should determine content. certain amount of prevarication on the part of some participants, refusal to discuss reversions etc. thnx in advance.  ⇒ bsnowball  18:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Boy, that talk page is a rat's nest. No one apparently believes in intenting, and much else in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines seems also to be ignored. As best as I can tell, there are three main discussions going on (rabbi or not; scandalous sex; and some fine point of Jewish law [custom?]); it might help if the talk page were refactored accordingly. And, of course, accusations of improper behavior everywhere.
    • I posted a warning at User talk:Lurgis regarding one egregious posting, but that isn't likely to make much difference. You've mentioned (on the talk page) taking this to arbitration, and I think that's probably the right answer once mediation has been tried - you really need with mediation you get someone who's willing to dedicate a few hours to getting to an agreement on language like Weiss is addressed as and uses the title "Rabbi", but the source of his rabbinical ordination is unknown. -- John Broughton | Talk 19:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The scanadalous sex rumors concerning Mr. Weiss were posted once. No one put it back on until they find an appropriate source (I would add that these rumors are as widespread as those concerning Liberace's sexuality during his lifetime--just to give you illustration of the restraint honest editors are exhibiting in their faithful adherence to Wikipedia guidelines). The problem is that the other side insisting that Rabbi Weiss is a Rabbi and that he was not condemned by Neturei Karta (therefore making it impossible for him to be an adherent of Neturei Karta proper) and it is exceedingly inappropriate for them to remove the helpful fact-based edits because of their political and possibly racist agenda. I believe it also very likely that these "editors" are the same four of five followers of Mr. Weiss. Whatever the case is, this should be addressed and Weiss (or his editors) ought to be appropriately sanctioned. 66.93.254.200 15:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • This is the page to discuss editor behavior. For example, using the phrase possibly racist is a borderline violation of WP:NPA; putting "editors" in quotes is a violation of WP:CIVIL.
        • As for sanctions, content disputes - is Weiss a rabbi or not - fall under the provisions of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. There are no sanctions in Wikipedia for content disputes that do not violate other rules (such as the ones I just cited). An editor can be stupid or ill-informed or misunderstand WP:RS or whatever, but there is no one here authorized to make such judgments or to issue "sanctions" for them. Rather, the policy on resolving disputes that I just cited lays out an incremental process for escalating the dispute, all the way up to the Arbitration Committee if that's what it takes to block one or more disruptive editors and let reasonable editors continue to edit and discuss improving articles. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • MidiUser (talk · contribs) has restored some copyrighted material that was removed from Montalbano Innovation and Development Inc., as well as reverted and spread a list of companies across various articles. It looks like MidiUser may have been restoring his own edits as 24.46.106.121 (talk · contribs). Advise and comments are appreciated. 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • 24.46.106.121 claims to be a part owner of the company. [3] --Ronz 03:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • 70.19.3.194 (talk · contribs) claims to be the same part owner. [4] --Ronz 16:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • This doesn't rise to the level of needing administrator intervention. In fact, I'm a bit concerned about WP:BITE, although I agree that the three accounts appear to bave been using Wikipedia as an advertising forum. While there is certainly a problem with copyrighted info on the main article in question, I think the real question is whether it meets notability standards per Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). If not, there shouldn't be an article at all, and no cross-posting in other articles.
      • I think you've got two options. You can leave the copyright notice up, which will probably result in the article being deleted on that grounds, and deal with a least one unhappy user. Or you can take the notice off, and AfD it. Given that there are all of 9 google results for the company name, including two from Wikipedia, the likely results of the second approach are pretty clear. But that might make the user(s) feel a little better, since they'll get their day in court, unlike the copyright evaluation process, which seem like a black box to me, at least. Your choice. John Broughton | Talk 20:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the advice. I'm going to remove the tag, document what's going on, and wait awhile to give the editor(s) involved a chance to weigh in before considering an AfD. --Ronz 15:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

11-January-2007

  • This user has a long history of personal attacks against me (see his talk page and his userpage), and now writes this. Randroide 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The edit you pointed me to says (where the user most violates WP:AGF): He is not the polite person he simulates to be. He is a fanatic of conspirationist theories as he has proofed doing what he has done. I'm going to post a note about that on the user's talk page. Some advice to you: (1) there are major personal attacks that are unacceptable (see WP:NPA for the list) and then there are minor personal attacks. This is clearly a minor one. The right way to deal with such minor matters is to ignore them. (2) The best way to spend your (limited) time is to focus on improving the content of Wikipedia articles. If you spend time arguing with other editors about what they think of you, or say about you, then neither you nor the other editors are doing anything to improve articles. (3) The last posting on the user's talk page was November 27th, so the personal arguments seemed to have stopped. I'm going to post what I hope is a very polite note to the user, because I don't want to contribute to this personal argument starting again. John Broughton | Talk 13:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your intervention, John Broughton. My fear is that, ignoring offensive remarks, I would allow the other user to smear my reputation. Well, the "user contributions" tool is there to show who I am, but... Randroide 14:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Good editors will pay attention to what the content changes you are suggesting, and won't pay attention to attacks - in fact, many editors, including me, tend to think less of the comments of someone who makes personal attacks, because such people don't seem committed to Wikipedia values.
        • Also - do keep in mind that there are 1.5+ million Wikipedia articles. When you make an edit to an article you've never edited before, you're probably an unknown. And what editor has time to check the contributions and user pages of every other editor? The probability is overwhelming that you're going to be judged on what you say (your edit), not who you are Only if you get into a fight will someone (more) likely look at your past (to see if you seem to be a reasonable person or not, and therefore how seriously to take your opinion). John Broughton | Talk 01:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • An edit-war appears to be starting on Design methods over the tags on the article. 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Now in mediation; seemed to be a constructive discussion, judging only by glimpses of edit summaries. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 02:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • User:KazakhPol's been warned numerously to be civil, but continues uncivility, accuses other editors (1 which is new) of being members of the organisation which is being disputed, (which is not an argument for or against the disputer). He regularily accuses others of vandalism, despite being told to look up the definition of a wiki vandal. He keeps 'throwing the rule book' at others but hardly ever gets it right, and violates it himself. He threatens to block, or ban people that disagree with him, although he is not an admin, and continues to edit war. Of serious concern is his insistance on keeping a libelous article about a British Lawyer Makbool Javaid (see decent version: [5]), quoting references that contradict what he claims, giving them a pretense of legitimacy see:
- Talk:Hizb_ut-Tahrir, - User_talk:Aaliyah_Stevens#Vandalism, - Talk:Terrorism_in_Kazakhstan, - User_talk:SlimVirgin#User_KazakhPol 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reference is made to the following [talk page] and the comments made: "They are free to expound on their fantasies in the creationism articles." It is generally felt that no alternative points of view can be submitted to the page and a suggestion for mediation was rebuffed by the same user. It was pointed out that 46 percent of Americans have a similar opinion, making it a substantial showing worthy of mention in the article, but this has not resulted in a change in the user's stance. A prominent authority has been found critical of the proposed views on the current article page, which should permit inclusion into the topic under the NPOV guidelines. It is possible that the user has violated the 3-revert rule as well. Please advise.17:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, the introduction of creationist arguments into a page about radiocarbon dating is in fact a fantasy, and comes close to being covered by WP:FRINGE. The only purpose of such an argument is to claim that radiocarbon dating is totally unreliable, something that would come as a shock to the thousands of scientists who have used it, relied on it, and found it to be extremely useful. As for the 46 percent who "have a similar opinion" (this presumably is rejection of evolution), a large percentage of Americans at one time (for all I know, still do) believed in UFOs, despite the absolute lack of any reliable evidence. Public opinion polls should be cited only when the content of an article is about what the public thinks. If "fantasy" is the worst comment that a creationist encounters here at Wikipedia, he/she should consider him/herself to be fortunate.
    • Regarding mediation, you can ititiate a mediation proposal without the agreement of other editors, if you want.
    • As far as 3RR violations go, the information at the top of this page has a link to the place to file a 3RR complaint. Generally, however, stale complaints (where the most recent revert is at least a day old) are rejected. And, quite frankly, there is a good chance that the reviewing admin would consider attempts by an editor to insert creationist arguments into an article on radiocarbon dating as nonsense/vandalism, and reject the 3RR complaint on that grounds. But you're free to file a complaint if you want. John Broughton | Talk 16:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

12-January-2007

  • Editors expressing hostility and abhorrence towards another user at [6]. Possible intent to be disruptive. 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've posted a note on the user's page about wising up and stopping the kind of petty things he has done. If this continues, please consider dropping me a note on my talk page, rather than here, with another diff. John Broughton | Talk 02:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have removed multiple and extended personal attacks against me from [7] and left a template stating:
    Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. The personal attacks were restored as if they were so-called "vandalism." They are not vandalism. The removal of such personal attacks against me is a legitimate deletion of material that violates the stated template's guidelines and rules against personal attacks "anywhere in Wikipedia." --NYScholar 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am happy to see that those personal attacks have now been removed via an administrator's aid. --NYScholar 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A user who is indifferent to Wikipedia policies of notability, verifiability, citation and no original research repeatedly adds an unsubstantiated line and repeatedly removes {{fact}} tags. About twenty diffs obtained and available in a list if needed. It began at what is now article talk page section Talk:Vanderbilt University#PSK October 2006 (one post); the rest is in PSK January 2007 section immediately following it. — 09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've posted a note at the user's talk page regarding these policies and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (this is a textbook example) and WP:COI. So far, this seems a minor, albeit very irritating point of contention; I'm hoping that a note will suffice. If it does not, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page and I'll see what else I can do. John Broughton | Talk 14:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • A number of snide remarks and nasty accusations here. 12:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Repeating material posted yesterday, due to the reverting of the personal attacks: An administrator already agreed that they were personal attacks and that they needed to be removed; they were removed "as per CSTAR" (the admin.), but then today someone else has restored them. Please removed these personal attacks as per Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you..

<<*I have removed multiple and extended personal attacks against me from [8] and left a template stating:

  • Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. The personal attacks were restored as if they were so-called "vandalism." They are not vandalism. The removal of such personal attacks against me is a legitimate deletion of material that violates the stated template's guidelines and rules against personal attacks "anywhere in Wikipedia." --NYScholar 04:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am happy to see that those personal attacks have now been removed via an administrator's aid. --NYScholar 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

>>

  • [Updated complaint]: I am not happy to see that those personal attacks have now been restored by another user or sockpuppet named "Yandman" at [9]. Moreover, my earlier attempt (which was reverted several times by Morton_devonshire) who then reported me for my reversion of the personal attacks (blanking them out, ultimately blanking out the user name), eventually led to me (the complaining party) being blocked (for a few minutes, which accidentally led to over an hour, due to the block not being removed when the administrator requested it be removed.
    • Due to the problems relating to blocking, I am not posting (or editing out the personal attacks) any further on User_talk:Morton_devonshire, as he and others clearly were conspiring (irony of ironies, given messages on his page) to draw me into an argument so as to get me "banned" from Wikipedia (!). I suggest that these users need to be warned against such behavior in Wikipedia and perhaps that they need to be blocked and/or banned for apparently engaging in it.
    • Just blanking the references to a user's name (or users' names) in the personal attacks does no good now, as the personal attacks remain and due to my complaint and posting of this Wikipedia:Etiquette notice referring to them, it is clear who they pertain to.
    • Nevertheless, such behavior needs to be addressed and the offenders need to be warned and/or blocked and/or banned from continuing in such behavior. Users' talk pages in Wikipedia are not for making personal attacks on other Wikipedia users. That is against Wikipedia:NPA, which says that personal attacks should not appear anywhere in Wikipedia, which includes users' talk pages. Thank you. [Updated: I have now also requested assistance with this matter on the talk page of CSTAR, who helped yesterday. Perhaps CSTAR can help again. Thank you.] --NYScholar 00:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I do note that references to a specific user seem to have been deleted; that is only marginally better than a "named" personal attack; it is still tantamount to taunting. I will leave a message on that user's page.--CSTAR 01:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The user in question M-d claims now on his talk page not to have composed that material himself (untrue; he signed [some of] it originally), and yet it is currently now moved to his archive (page 7). That is pure deception and does not solve the problem of the (now-archived for all posterity) personal attacks. Once again, I refer to W:NPA and add the template (as I have done before): Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. This is still outrageous. [The user (M_d) is now removing large portions of text from an article tagged re: neutrality and clean up issues w/o concern for other users and previous consensus discussions on its now-archived talk pages (4).] I repeat: such behavior needs warnings and/or blocking and/or banning. For the record, I have not been "blanking" that page (since my initial attempts on Jan. 11 to remove the personal attacks).--NYScholar 04:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I repeat myself: "Just blanking the references to a user's name (or users' names) in the personal attacks does no good now, as the personal attacks remain and due to my complaint and posting of this Wikipedia:Etiquette notice referring to them, it is clear who they pertain to." The fact is all that material still resides in Wikipedia, now in the user's archived page (all the same as before) and in "history"; I request that an administrator delete the material completely from Wikipedia (from the archived page and also from the history of changes). It amounts to slander. Thank you. [Sorry: typo corrs made; Updated: CSTAR please see your talk page for updated request for assistance. I thank you for warning, but the warning is doing no good, as the user has archived the material rather than totally deleted it. It's his talk page; clearly, he can delete it. If he doesn't, I ask an administrator to do so, to issue a strong warning and/or block and/or ban, and to delete all vestiges of this abusive material from the history of all talk pages. Thank you.] --NYScholar 04:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the material from the talk page archive. That is clearly in keeping with CSTAR's warning to the user; it should also be removed from all the talk page histories by an administrator (CSTAR or someone else). Thank you.--NYScholar 05:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

13-January-2007

  • Personal attack at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. See this diff. 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC) ...and, continued in this diff. 01:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have posted a note to the user asking that he/she stop making such comments on article talk pages. John Broughton | Talk 01:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

14-January-2007

  • Personal attacks at Talk Save Indian family Section 14.4 and Talk Save Indian family Section 18. Possible attempts to disrupt.14:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have posted a note on an editor's take page about compliance with Wikipedia rules. The editor is new and I hope is simply unaware of Wikipedia rules. If the problem persists, please post here again or drop me a note at my talk page. John Broughton | Talk 16:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Further problems. Continued personal attack on He posted on the Project Gender Studies Talk page after notification of violations. Also on another editor's talk page threatening disruption by placing AfD on other article.19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I've posted another notice, and am having a civil discussion with the editor. With regards to the AfD, the language on the page reads (now) By the way, I will soon start an Afd in Bride burning article. That's a statement, not a threat. If you have a documented reason to believe that this AfD would be in retaliation, please let the editor know about WP:POINT by posting something on the user talk page (politely, please). Otherwise, please observe WP:AGF, at least in form. Thanks. John Broughton | ♫ 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

15-January-2007

What to do with such edit summaries, like this: [10]. Some guys (Juro, Tankred, PANONIAN) tend, and love to call me vandal/sockpuppet of somebody. I reported it many times on the since dismissed WP:PAIN, but I met only incomprehension, and/or frigidity, no matter that the use of the word vandal/sockpuppet/troll/etc is strongly restricted, and - at lead by the guidelines - without proiding evidences, can be considered as personal attacks. I just did that. My warnings were removed [11] under the same summary. Common thing happening to me day-by-day. --Vince 23:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

User:VinceB has used sock puppets in a disruptive way and has been blocked for it after my suspicion was confirmed by CheckUser. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VinceB. As to the supposedly removed warnings, VinceB put them on my talk page in violation of Wikipedia's policies and he was blocked for it again (see User talk:VinceB/Blabla1). Both blocks were applied by previously non-involved administrators. Tankred 02:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Accusations of vandalism and sock puppetry are not considered by most admins, in and of themselves, to violate WP:NPA; saying so in edit summaries is not disruptive per se. Responding to such "accusations" by posting warnings on user pages is disruptive. John Broughton | ♫ 18:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Following edit summary on Taj_El-Din_Hilaly 08:56, 15 January 2007 88.113.137.249 (Talk) (reliable; whose opinion? in any case, as long as the group is not named or referenced in any manner, your site means diddly squat. stop being a stubborn moron (even though youre a self-hating white)). This appears uncivil. 10:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've noted a 3RR violation and repeated violations of WP:AGF by one editor, who also has a history of vandalism, and will make sure that action is taken on these. John Broughton | ♫ 20:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

16-January-2007

  • [12] It´s not the first time: See also User Talk Page and User Page. User contributions could also be relevant Randroide 10:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • For non-Spanish speakers, in the link provided in my comment that has been reported by Randroide, he coordinates with Gimferrer (who was blocked forever in Spanish wikipedia) to make the article about the Madrid bombings of 11 March 2004 say what they want it to say and they prepare an edit war thas is happening now after the rest of users have exhausted patience.--Igor21 11:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I've already had discussions with Igor21 and one of his supporters. I understand that there is a long-running dispute here. I'd encourage (a) some thicker skin here - if I were to fight over edits for months at a time, I wouldn't be surprised if someone called me a "fanatic", and (b) following Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
        • Just a little remark for the records. Southofwhatford is not a supporter of me. Southofwatford was an editor who started time ago a process of discussion with Randroide to agree on the text. Because agreement was imposible in spite of the fact that more than one page of talk was filled each week for many months, they started the elaboration of a RFM. Randroide boycotted it when was ready to be presented. Then southofwatford started to elaborate an RFA, He said that he needs some time and I suggested to let pass by Christmas time to everybody calm down. Using this period of rest, Randroide completely changed the article while southofwatford warned three times to not do so. Then I restored the original statement in the introduction and you know the rest of the story. I want to apologize to southofwatford since 1)he has always followed the rules to the letter and because I suggest the waiting Randroide destroyed unilaterally the original article 2)my dificulty to remain impasible in presence of Randroide maneouvers has caused southofwatford to appear in this page without having done anything wrong.--Igor21 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not personally going to intervene further here unless I see significantly worse behavior than was just pointed out; other editors are welcome to involve themselves if they and to. Randroide - if you really think much is going to come out of repeatedly asking for chastisement of another editor - as opposed to you trying to work constructively with others - you're dreaming. John Broughton | ♫ 17:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Randroide 10:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) John Broughton mentioned "Thicker skin". LOL!!! XD. Thank you very much for the naked downeartherness in your suggestions. I just bought a set of Dragon Skin, so there will be no furhter "asking for chastisement".
        • You just established what is the "acceptable" (ahem) level of personal attack in the page, so I will accept that level (always in the "receiving" end) as a minor nuisance. Offensive remarks about me in "the real world" affect me nothing, the problem is that Wikipedia is a private venue, and I thought there were some standards of civilty here, and that one is supposed to be the "Neighborhood watch" to guard those standards. It seems that´s not the case. Cheers.
        • AFAIAC, this case is closed. Randroide 10:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Fine. If you want a better understanding of why policing civility is so difficult (and limited), you might look at the (now defunct) WP:PAIN process. And may I suggest that you stop putting your signature at the beginning of your remarks? John Broughton | ♫♫ 15:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

17-January-2007

  • Could someone look at List of web chat sites in regard to it's appropriateness? 17:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The article was (as mentioned on its talk page) created based on an earlier, similar article, List of social networking websites. As it happens, that article was nominated earlier today (for the second time) for deletion. You might look at its AfD to see the arguments being made and help you decide if you want to submit List of web chat sites to the AfD process as well. John Broughton | ♫♫ 02:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

19-January-2007

  • There is a widening pattern of personal attacks by User:Dking. See this diff at Talk:Political cult. 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Please limit complaints to this page to cases of serious personal attacks. I note that I have posted, previously, a comment on the user's page about observing various rules related to personal attacks, and also posted a comment supporting a WP:COI review, but I'm not going to harass him over this edit, which I consider, at most, a petty insult. I strongly recommend that you just shrug such things off. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 03:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, that attack wasn't even directed at me. I was pointing to a pattern of activity by that user. I appreciate now that you have already intervened.--Tsunami Butler 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Proraceskier1232 has left unwanted messages on the user talk page User talk:Lpgeffen. Some of these message advertise vandalism elsewhere. Other examples of vandalism by this user can easily be found in the edit hitory. Paul 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The user was blocked 8 minutes after your item was posted here. In general, this isn't the right page to report vandalism - see instructions at the top of this page for where vandalism reports should be posted. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 03:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

20-January-2007

  • User:Ebizur calls a user an idiot for restoring information that Ebizur deleted: [13]. User talk:Ebizur shows that Ebizur had previously been warned for using personal attacks by User:Kjoonlee. 04:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've posted a note on his/her talk page. Having said, that, please back off. I really think you should be a bit more thick-skinned; every minor transgression of Wikipedia rules (and there are a lot of rules) does not merit something resembling a strict warning on a user talk page. Yes, he's been warned once before, but in the overall context of his contributions, a minor, occasional flare-up of temper really merits very little attention. That's not a free pass - if he were running around insulting lots of people, or spewing strong invective, I'd certainly post a much stronger note. But that's not the case here.
    • And yes, I've read his posting on your talk page; my note to him commented on that as well.
    • As I said to Ebizur - I really hope the two of you can cooperate - you both bring something valuable to the article. It would be great if both of you continued to contribute there and elsewhere. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 20:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I am thick-skinned enough. I just believe that users should not violate the rules which keep wikipedia orderly. Perhaps I should have said 'notice' rather than 'warning', but the remnants of the WP:PAIN noticeboard do say to post a 'warning', so I did so. I note, by the way, that Ebizur has made multiple personal attacks recently (subsequent to calling the other user an idiot), so this is not just a single minor violation. I hope that he will cease doing so now. As for the related content dispute, an agreement has been reached. HalfOfElement29 04:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm glad an agreement has been reached on the content dispute. As to Ebizur has made multiple personal attacks recently, I looked at his edits (all of two) since I posted a note to him, and saw no problems. If you see anything egregious in the future, please feel free to drop me a note at my talk page; I'm always willing to say if I think someone has crossed the line, and that includes a posting to their talk page where appropropriate. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 03:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

21-January-2007

  • There are issues with User:Nateland both on his talk page and the talk page of an anonymous user which is being abused. 06:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • User:Nateland is still going about antagonizing people here on Wikipedia. A page protection has been requested (and granted) due to an edit/revert war which was started focusing around this user’s behavior is continuing in the User Talk: namespace (see User talk:Nateland and User talk:Illuminato for more; page history may have to be consulted for some). 08:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Judging by this comment on the 26th, the user does understand that he has made mistakes, and is trying to stay away from the situation that cause problems for a few weeks. At this point, I would ask both sides to the argument to (or, at least, whoever happens to be reading this belated posting) to be civil, assume good faith, and not issue warnings or argue over minor transgressions. Please try to focus on content if at all possible. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 02:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Laurence Boyce, in pushing his own anti-christian agenda, has included internal and external link titles on his user page which the majority of Christians would find offensive. Specifically he refers to Christians as Jesus Freaks.23:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

23-January-2007

  • User:Threeafterthree, in using a purely arbitrary, childish judgment in removing my links in all of my contributions throughout the last year to Geocities-hosted pages with relevant content, as well as in replying to my inquiry -Just the kind of guy I am I guess.
Here is a copy of the exchange:
QUOTE:There is nothing wrong with pages hosted on geocities. What's your sanctimonious reason for taking upon yourself the crusade of removing these pages? Bo Basil 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Just the kind of guy I am I guess??--Tom 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)UNQUOTE
The links were:
http://www.geocities.com/teflonivan/2idf.htm (A rare glimpse into the IDF), on the IDF article,and
http://www.geocities.com/teflonivan/1entencookies.html (The Original Entenmann's Chocolate Chip Cookies Recipe) on two relevant articles.
again - the pages contain meaningful, useful content, and I intend to restore them to the relevant articles. Bo Basil 12:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We can do better than geocities for sources can't we?--Tom 15:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have maintained the site myself. The content speaks for itself. It is imperative to analyze instead of performing underinformed censorship. Desist from the practice, and thank you. 16:51, 23 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs)
      • And you are whom?--Tom 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I am somebody that uses concrete, factual information, and has a site that serves people who want to know. Since you had such an easy time hunting down my URLs, then please replace the links. It should take you very little time if any. Thanks. 18:49, 23 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs)
          • geocities.com is not considered a reliable source as far as I can determine. I actually remove those links whenever I see them, so nothing personal. I am sort of a mindless pileus as it were. Carry on.--Tom 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, a third-party evaluation:
    • Both of you would do well to reread WP:Talk page with regard to indenting.
    • Bo - please sign all posts to this page, per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages (yes, this isn't a talk page, but there is a dialog going on)
    • Tom - the And you are whom? posting was either catty (not constructive; please stop) or indicates that you should (re)read Wikipedia:How to read an article history. I'm inclined to go with the former, given other things you've said, above. Catty remarks might not violate the letter of WP:CIVIL, but they certainly violate the spirit of that guideline.
    • A large part of the problem here, I'm guessing, is the failure by Tom to cite WP:V and WP:EL and WP:RS. Unless policy and guidelines are cited to support an action by an editor, the discuss inevitably looks like just a difference of opinion between two editors - and that isn't easy to settle. What should be discussed is whether the links do or do not meet those these policies.
    • In general, geocities links do not meet these three policies, but there are exceptions. Wikipedia just blacklisted any links to blogs.myspace.com because it was decided that there were no exceptions that justified any such links. I mention that as an example of why a blanket shoot-on-site rule is not appropriate for geocities links, although it's fair to start with a presumption that they are probably inappropriate.
    • Article talk pages are the right places to discuss deletions of links (assuming edit summaries don't suffice -- usually they should). Wikipedia:Resolving disputes lays out a process whereby content disputes (like this) should be settled, starting with informal discussions. Please do not post anything further here arguing that the above two links are or are not appropriate (among other things, that depends on what article they appear in, and whether they are used to support text in an article or are used as an external link, which has weaker requirements).
Thank you for your time. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Very well said John. I will try to cite the proper Wiki policy guidelines in the future. I usually do but did not in this case. Sorry for being catty if I was. Cheers! --Tom 13:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

24-January-2007

  • 70.23.199.239 (formerly 70.23.177.216) violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF repeatedly (IMO). The editor continues to use the terms "vandalism" and "censorship" in talk pages & edit summaries when describing their disputed re-insertions of content about race to the Nadine Gordimer article. That issue went to an RFC and outside editors pretty much uniformly agreed that neither the incident nor the racial makeup of the participants were notable; 70.23.199.239 is the sole advocate of the material & reinserts it without addressing suggestions. On the user talk pages and on Talk:Nadine Gordimer the editor repeatedly assumes bad faith, uses aggressive language, speaks disparagingly of "wiki norms", conspiracies to conceal information about Black attacks on white people, and so on. --16:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If you're dealing with a disruptive editor, you pretty much have to take the matter up the line until the problem editor either stops or is blocked by an Arbitration Committee hearing, although sometimes the admins at WP:AN/I will step in if there are violations of something worked out via mediation. Mediation is the next step after an RfC - see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
    • I will say that after reading the talk page, it appears that a number of editors agree that this user's arguments are unpersuasive. If so, an edit summary of "revert per consensus, see talk page" is adequate for reverting article edits by 70x (but do see if there is anything useful you might keep before reverting). Because there are several of you, you should be able to keep the article under control without violating WP:3RR. I strongly recommend that if you take this approach, you simultaneously offer mediation to 70.x, who presumably will become frustrated because his/her edits don't last long, and because of the 3RR limit he/she faces. (And do post a 3RR warning once he/she hits 3 reverts within a 24 hour period.) Offering mediation is, in my opinion, the strongest evidence there is that this isn't just a clique trying to "own" an article, but rather several editors trying to deal with one problem editor. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 18:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks John Broughton. I did post a "3RR notice" on the user's page when they reverted 3x in one day, and it unleased a torrent of complaints ... It sounds like mediation is the next step. --19:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay. As for as 3RR warnings go, I'm not sure how you responded, but basically you don't need to. A 3RR warning is simply letting an editor know about a policy. He/she may think it doesn't apply at the moment (that the reverts weren't reverts, or were justified as vandal-reversion, or whatnot), but you shouldn't argue about that. You've complied with the process; the user can delete the warning (perfectly acceptable), chose to ignore it (probably stupid), or say anything he/she want, but he/she has been warned, and that's all that an admin looks like if there are in fact 4+ reverts within 24 hours and the 4+ reverts have been properly reported as a 3RR violation. And you don't need to repost the 3RR warning each time (if it's more than 60 days, I'd probably do so again as a courtesy); the assumption is that a once-informed editor is an always-informed editor).

25-January-2007

  • User:NE2 keeps going against consensus at WT:NYCPT. He keeps on listing unilateral Xfds, and this is the second time he has done so, and makes unilateral edits without seeking consensus. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to respond to this except to say that Imdanumber1 is the one in the wrong here; he has removed listings on TFD several times. --NE2 01:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • And you keep on making unilateral decisions without seeking consensus, and that is acting in bad-faith. --Imdanumber1 (talk | contribs) 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not going to wade into all of the details here (because I'm not going to research who did what to whom when); I'm just going to make a few points and hope they suffice:
  • Content disputes, such as "going against consensus", should follow the process Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
  • Anyone is free to do an XfD at any time; this is disruptive editing only if the editor has agreed not to do so, or if the editor does so repeatedly for the same page when (essentially) nothing has changed since the last XfD. There is no requirement that any other editor agree whatsoever before an XfD is done. That's not to say that all XfDs are constructive, but editors are allowed to make mistakes without being chastised for them.
  • More generally, I fail to understand the implied problem in making "unilateral decisions". Per WP:BB, editors are supposed to take the initiative. They are, of course, also supposed to stop being bold when they run into someone (reasonable) who disagrees (see, for example, Wikipedia:One-revert rule), but "unilateral decisions" are only disruptive when they're part of an edit war. Per WP:OWN, no group of editors owns an article (in the sense of requiring prior approval for edits). Again, this is very subjective - an editor can be unconstructive by making edits he/she knows others will revert, and thus are going to have to be discussed on the talk page anyway, so I don't encourage that, but editors need to remind themselves of WP:AGF and act as if any such edits were well-intentioned, even if they believe in their heart of hearts that they were not.
  • Removal of someone's else's XfD is, in my opinion, absolutely crossing the line unless the editor who posted the XfD is a known vandal, sock puppet, or under ArbCom probation. That one editor feels another editor's XfD is unconstructive - or even if the XfD in fact IS against consensus - is in no way a justification for removing it. An XfD is a discussion; if an editor disagrees with the XfD, the appropriate action is to participate in the XfD.
  • I strongly recommend that you do not use words like acting in bad-faith. In fact, I strongly recommend against commenting at all about another editor's motivations, ever, anywhere on Wikipedia. You should comment only on edits - that an edit was not helpful, not constructive, not what was agreed to, not in accordance with X or Y policy, not a good idea because of reason 1 or 2 or 3; not as good as doing it M or N or P way; whatever.
  • I believe Talk:Jung Myung Seok needs outside attention to keep it moving along. I'm especially concerned with user:Uptional who I believe has made no attempts to reach consensus with other editors and mostly ignores attempts to discuss specific issues. His first edits on the username deleted most of the article [14] and left this message [15]. Uptional is a follower of Jung Myung Seok and very probably his PR guy. I'm especially concerned now because both sites linked as "supportive sites" in the article contain unfounded defamation on people who criticize Jung Myung Seok [16][17]. My patience is getting tested because I don't know what wikipedia has in place to deal with this sort of thing. Please advise. 06:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Removal of an extensive amount of well-sourced information is vandalism. If you revert the removal and the user puts it back, eventually he'll need to stop or violate WP:3RR. If he does 3 reverts (removal of information) within 24 hours, you should warn warn him, since that's a required step before admins will block him (typically, for 24 hours, first offense) if he does 4 or more reverts in 24 hours.
    • I have removed his last comment to the talk page (see edit summary of the removal for explanation).
    • I have posted a message on his talk page that puts him on notice that his postings on the article talk page have violated a number of Wikipedia rules.
    • With regard to the RFC, that is sufficiently old to have fallen off the RfC page, so it's really a moot point. I agree that the language was hardly neutral, though generally that's not that big a deal - editors typically make up their own minds when they get to the article, so an RfC, no matter how badly worded, is usually constructive in that it get bring other editors to the page.
    • With respect to the external links section, Wikipedia isn't responsible for what other websites say, even though we link to them, as is the case pretty much for any website that has links to other websites. On a larger note, the preference of a lot of editors would be to remove all the links that go to blogs or other sources that fail WP:RS and WP:EL. That would be both of the two favorable links; I don't know (without looking in depth) how many of the six unfavorable external links would also go if this approach were taken. Your choice.
    • Finally, as to "what Wikipedia has in place", the various processes for solving a content dispute (as opposed to personal attacks) are laid out in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Is a message at the top of the Template disambig page reading "For the kinds of templates used in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Template messages" disallowed by WP:SELF, or is this too strict of an interpretation? See history for discussion. 18:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Since Template is an article, you really should discuss issues of its content at Talk:Template, not here. But I'll give you my two cents, for what that's worth - I think you're confusing a disambiguation link with a "self-reference", the latter being where one article quotes another. A disambiguation link is no more "self-reference" than is a wikilink in an article, in my opinion. (I will concede that the fourth example in WP:SELF is quite poor; you might want to post something at Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references page about just deleting it or coming up with a better example. [That talk page is another place you could discuss the issue if you believe you are right and can't convince others at the article's talk page, by the way.]) -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

26-January-2007

  • BenBurch and FAAFA have been persistently inserting and defending libelous material in the Free Republic article. I have tried to remove this libelous material pursuant to WP:BLP. The Free Republic website was a sole proprietorship prior to mid-2001. Therefore any article about it is a biography about a living person: its proprietor, Jim Robinson. Other events, notably the City of Fresno calling Free Republic a "hate group" and being sued, indicate that Robinson will not hesitate to take legal action. Any doubts about me, or that I am trying to act in the best interests of Wikipedia, may be resolved by reading this official ruling. These two editors have chosen to ignore that ruling, call me a sockpuppet, call me a liar, and attempt to have me blocked. They have made an endless litany of false accusations at WP:ANI, WP:RFCU and the Free Republic article's Talk page. I would like to resolve this dispute and continue making good faith efforts to remove libelous material and protect Wikipedia from needless litigation. Warning them does absolutely no good. They have been warned again and again on their Talk pages; check their archives, including FAAFA's prior username, NBGPWS, where he was blocked for a month. Someone needs to step up and do the right thing. Thank you. Dino 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Untrue. Free Republic has a documented history of being so extreme (up until 9/11 when they underwent a 'sea change') that they theorized that Clinton bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City so that he could pass anti-terror legislation....
[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae09bb25c23.htm The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire]
[www.freerepublic.com/~actionnewsbill/links?U=%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2Fbrowse More claims from this time period]
And even speculated that the US. Gov, not Al Qaeda, bombed The USS Cole : "IMO the Cole bombing, if not another American Reichstag event, is AWFULLY convenient for a lot of Clinton goals.." [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a208ce00453.htm Cole bombing - An American Reichstag?]
And the owner of the site himself was so extreme and outside the mainstream that he threatened he would 'take up arms' and 'be ready for war' if Bush were elected, calling him a 'cokehead and a felon'. [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bd2556430e.htm JimRob calls Bush cokehead and felon] I have never added anything to the Free Republic article but documented claims [see] Free for all at Free Republic - Salon.com from verifiable secondary sources. Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This page is not, repeat, not the proper place to debate the content of an article. Nor is it the place to discuss content disputes. Allegations of libelous information should be posted to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. (Dino - this was pointed out to you on the 25th.) Content disputes should be resolved in accordance with Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. This page is only for reviewing the behavior of editors with respect to guidelines such as WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. FAAFA - please note that regardless of whether an editor is acting properly with regards to content that he/she wants to put into or remove from an article, there are also procedural rules for editing articles, and for interacting with other editors that are just as important. I therefore warn all editors involved in this matter that the Arbitration Committee does not evaluate the validity of content when it decides whether to ban users or otherwise enforce procedures; it looks at whether Wikipedia procedures were deliberately and repeated violated, particularly after warnings and blocks.
  • I'm going to draw a line in the sand here - since Dino has expressed an interest in ending the personal aspects of this dispute, I will put the matter on hold for the moment. If there are further problems after today, I ask that the matter be posted on this page again, as a separate alert (with a reference to this alert), but this time focusing solely on behavior such as personal attacks. [I will also look at any postings of negative information without adequate sourcing, if those are occurring, since adequate sourcing (see WP:RS) is absolutely critical for articles about living persons and existing corporations and other such entities, though, again, the proper place for initial reports of these is WP:BLP/N.] Other editors are free to review this matter and respond immediately, below; this paragraph only applies what I personally am going to do. -- -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

27-January-2007

  • User:Naylor182 made a personal remark on another contributor regarding their "professionalism" in a thread about an AfD, and then ignored the message on his talk page. This started when he stated that the South Park WikiProject produces alot of fancruft and then User:Mr._Garrison then made an unfriendly comment. This is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park 17:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sheesh. He said For someone who wishes to be a Wikipedia administrator, you do not show much professionalism. That's about as trivial a violation of WP:CIVIL as I can imagine. This is where cultivating a thicker skin is the best approach. There are literally tens of thousands of discussions going on every day on Wikipedia talk pages, and there isn't a corps of full-time editors on call to chastise an editor - particularly a constructive one - for the slightest possible infringement of any and all rules.
    • And as for not responding on the user talk page, the posting wasn't a question. It would have been more courteous to reply (the post included a request regarding future actions), but it's not a major breech of protocol to not reply, in my opinion. (I, personally, would probably have replied by putting up a post that said something like "Noted.")
    • WP:CIVIL includes the following advice for reducing the impact of incivility: Do not answer offensive comments. Forget about them. Forgive the editor.
    • In summary, it's understandable to be irritated by remarks of others, but such minor matters are an opportunity to practice handling poor choices of language and minor slights in real life - that is, to practice handling them correctly by ignoring them. Somebody wise once told me: Pick your fights. None of what has been mentioned here is worth - in my opinion - starting or continuing a fight. I suggest moving on. -- John Broughton ☎☎ 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Editing differences at the University of California, Riverside page. Myself and other fellow contributors have been talking about appropriate edits and changes in the talk page. However, one contributor has been blatantly ignoring discussion talks about the article, and in turn has gone from anonymously editing to making an account OCDpatient (talk · contribs) to revert deletes or changes of anything the user has tried to add. Cosecant 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I've also warned the problematic user that his or her user name is inappropriate under WP:Username, and will report this infraction tomorrow if it continues.--Amerique dialectics 00:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment The problem with the user name is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names, with strong consensus emerging to disallow. --Ginkgo100talk 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

what is wrong with my version? i have a feeling that you two are the same person who has two accounts. and you are making personal attack by calling me "problematic." you should apologize. --OCDpatient 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry are very serious and should not be made without good evidence. It's also a bit ironic for you to make this sort of accusation casually, considering you were falsely accused of being a sock no more than a couple of hours ago. --Ginkgo100talk 22:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Since I also posted a note on the user page strongly recommending a username change, I suppose that would make three of us as some sort of very unusual sock puppet trio. I'm pretty confident doing a checkuser (it would never get that far, of course) would prove our separate identities. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 22:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 02:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

30-January-2007

  • Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) is apparently following me around and calling me a disruptive or tendentious editor in as many public forums as possible. This appears to be a deliberate slander campaign, and is getting annoying. Could someone take a look please? [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] >Radiant< 17:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I suggest that the process at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-30 Radiant and "Notability" Guidelines would be a better place for discussing this. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 22:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I suggest not. The above is not an attempt at mediation, but rather a series of false accusations and personal attacks, and Jeff admitted on the admin noticeboard that this is in an attempt to get me "dealt with". >Radiant< 12:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Okay, let's put that down as an unsuccessful attempt to avoid getting crushed between two large, moving objects. May I try something else: the two of you seem to be working well together at Wikipedia talk:Trial adminship; perhaps the unpleasantness of the past could just be put behind, for the moment, to see how things go from this point out? -- John Broughton (☎☎) 07:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

31-January-2007

  • I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at this edit summary by 172, as well as this one. --Tsunami Butler 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The editor is using "cult" a little too freely in the edit summary, I think, but the best response is to deal with the matter as a content dispute, unless the personal attacks get more detailed. With regard to the second edit, I believe that the cited edit did in fact misstate what the newspaper article said; I have revised the article to more closely match the cited source. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Does someone have an advice for me regarding User:GLGerman#Really bad experiences with and User talk:Irmgard#Evangelical - as you see, this is going on for months now. His German user page is very similar to this one. We do indeed have different viewpoints, judging from many discussions in German Wikipedia: he supports pro gay issues and liberal churches, I personally share regarding homosexuality the view of my United Methodist Church and am theologically close to Paleo-orthodoxy (both in my view not really right-wing evangelical positions). I would rather not escalate this issue to a major war, but I can't feel that such statements are furthering the Wikipedia community. Generally, I appreciate working with users who do have different views (also regarding gays or religion) and I see such collaboration and mutual correction as an improvement of articles - here I feel somewhat helpless. What can be done? Irmgard 17:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • First, the rules for things like civility and personal attacks and even how to resolve content disputes differ completely depending on the version of Wikipedia (German, English, Dutch, whatever). So it would be inappropriate (and pointless) to comment on what is going on between the two of you on the German wikipedia.
    • Turning to en.wikipedia.org, would it be possible for you to list an article or two in which you've had differences, and in which you'd like advice? (I've looked at your user talk page here, and don't rally see anything very egregious - nothing that I'd suggest anything more than shrugging off.) The only article I see mentioned is Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist), and there isn't anything on the article's talk page about content disputes, which I where I'd expect things to be thrased out, so that didn't provide any obvious clues to what you see as the problem here. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • In English Wikipedia there is just the fact that I added some references to the Spitzer article which was followed by his "accusation" on my user talk page that I did write these articles (I have no connection whatsoever to the articles or the organisation) - and, yes, on my User Talk page I told him and another guy to stop bickering on my User Talk page. So, on the English Wikipedia there has IMO nothing happened worth mentioning. But still he writes here that he had really bad experiences with me, and as a generalization that I get critized a lot as Evangelical in the German wikipedia (I do get criticized by him and two or three of his cronies, that's as far as it goes) - is there anything to be done about this "internationalizing" of a local antipathy on the German Wikipedia? Irmgard 12:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I think the answer to your last question is basically "no". I also think that what is posted on your user page isn't going to make any difference one way or the other in how other editors react to your edits here on the English Wikipedia. If I were you, I'd simply delete the section entirely (that is allowed here) and continue trying to make constructive edits to articles. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 07:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Ok, I'll follow your advice in both points. Thanks Irmgard 14:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Peakdetector apparently has issues with Deadspin and rest of Gawker Media. It started with vandalism of the Deadspin and leaving uncivil comments on talk pages (i.e. Talk:Deadspin, but now leaving Afd tags without completing the process (see Deadspin, Gawker, Will Leitch, Nick Denton). Could be ignorant of Wikipedia policies, but might just be trying to be a nuisance. Either way, he is disruptive and I've left him messages, none of which he has responded to either with words or behavior. I'm not sure what to do, since not knowing how things work isn't necessarily against the rules, and there's only so far WP:AGF can take you. Ytny 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Let's start with the easy stuff: putting AfDs on obviously good articles (I've not looked, but I'm guessing these are) is a violation of WP:POINT, and the fact that the complete AfD process was not done (which would have brought this to the attention of a lot of people, including admins) is probably evidence of posting tags to disrupt. Again, this depends on the article, but if (say) an editor put an AfD tag on George Washington, that isn't anything but vandalism.
    • For vandalism, the standard procedure is to (a) revert it, and (b) post a warning on the user's talk page, starting at level 1 if it is minor, and at a higher level if appropriate. The list of warnings is here. After the user has received a level 4 warning, if he/she vandalizes again, then the next step is to report the user to WP:AIV. That usually results in a block (if the report is recent, and if the reviewing admin agrees; it's ideal if the AIV report contains diffs if the user has some constructive edits).
    • This warning, then block process doesn't require any response or acknowledgement by the user who is being warned; it doesn't matter if he/she deletes the warnings (that's not a violation per se; it's assume he/she read what he/she deleted); and it doesn't matter if the user posts a rebuttal on his/her page or attacks the editor doing the warning (e.g., warnings are "uncivil", warnings are "personal attacks", warnings are "violation of AGF", warnings are "harrassment"). It's up to the admin on the AIV noticeboard to decide the validity of the warnings. (Note: the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is relevant here.)
    • I'll try to take a closer look at this; I hope this helps in the meantime, and other editors are of course welcome to comment. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It looks like this has attracted the attention of other editors (not surprising if these were in fact bad faith AfDs), and Peakdector hasn't posted since the 31st, so I'm declaring this matter closed. If there are further incidents, please start a new thread. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 01:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Okkar continues to make accusatory remarks on Wikiproject Myanmar (Burma) (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Myanmar_(Burma)#Victory), users' talk pages, making cruel accusations of people's political orientations and harassing members for failing to follow his/her viewpoints, remarking on the editors, and not on the content. His/her contributions can be found here.


2-February-2007

  • Can someone look into this? Thank you. --NE2 20:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I see a long-time contributor to Wikipedia exchanging messages with you, and he's a bit frustrated with some renaming/moving that you did and with your arguments that what you did was correct. I haven't looked at the actual moves, though some of the other editor's arguments do appear a bit persuasive on their face, and I won't, because you're not bringing a content issue here but rather one of etiquette. So: in my opinion, while a purist could criticize bits and pieces of what the other editor said, the vast bulk of the comments were civil, and I'm personally not inclined to get involved by posting anything on anyone's user page.
    • May I suggest that you temper WP:BB by also observing Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - that is, the moment your boldness hits resistance, you should go into discuss mode, not press on. Further, for moves, if your boldness is going to result in something not easily reverted, then discussion beforehand seems merited, as irritating as it may be to have to delay something that may seem obvious for a couple of days. In addition, trying to see the merit in what the other editor says - he/she may not be 100% right, but typically other (long-time) editors are not 100% wrong that often - is among the best ways to arrive at something acceptable to all. And finally - I realize that article names are important, but really, to have a huge honking fight over the name of some places in New Jersey - really? -- John Broughton (☎☎) 06:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not certain where to place this; I have been falsely accused of personal attacks by User:Dreadlocke, first on the Talk:Psychic page, and then on my own User talk:Noclevername page. As far as I understand the rules, I have not done anything wrong and have attempted to remain civil, only to be met with increasingly strident repeated accusations that I was violating the NPA rules (all while he kept repeatedly telling me in his posts to "keep cool" and to restrict my comments to the article). When I attempted to discuss the matter on his talk page, assuming that he had simply misinterpreted or misunderstood my posts, I was rather rudely informed that I was "not welcome" to do so. I am uncertain what to do; ignore it? Seek an administrator's help? I am not experienced in Wikipedia, and I find this situation confusing and frustrating. --- Noclevername 03:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

3-February-2007

  • Can someone take a look at Mike Cline (talk · contribs) and User_talk:Mike_Cline#Conflict_of_interest.3F? I got involved thinking this was a minor COI incident, but I now count five articles he's written and another he's substantially contributed to, all on subjects his company consults on, in all cases introducing his company's published material and his company's founder. 05:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please look at User_talk:Sanchom, User_talk:88888, and Talk:Comb_over. You will have to look into the history of User_talk:88888 since some parts of the discussion have been deleted. I'm interested in a civility check for both sides of this discussion. 19:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Seemed pretty civil to me; I didn't read every word, but the tone of what I saw seemed quite acceptable. Deleting stuff on one's user talk pages is acceptable. At one point, it looks like there was no response (except deletion) of a proposal for a third opinion; I suppose that's incivility, but at worst it's still minor and the right thing (as was done here) is to ask if the user missed the question when doing the deletion.
    • The only other things that comes to mind, reading the discussion about the text in the article that was in question, is (a) labeling unsourced but almost certainly common/reasonable knowledge as "original research" is, in my opinion, a mistake; putting "fact" on it if it's minorly controversial or you really think that a citation would add value is, in my opinion, sufficient; and (b) there was room for a compromise here, I think: rather than "the two most famous men who ... ", it could have simply been "two notable men who ... ". If there's a content dispute involving two reasonable editors, as appears to be the case here, it's actual unusual not to be able to reach some sort of compromise that's acceptable, although it's also common (as is the case here) for one editor, perhaps one who feels less strongly, to just drop the argument and concede the point, particularly for minor points. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 20:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like somebody to weigh in on recent edits to the HoHos article. Belina007 added a paragraph that I feel is bad information and is unsourced. I reverted it, and posted a notice on User Talk:Belina007 asking him/her to please source the information and write it according to WP:NPOV guidelines. The paragraph has recently been added back, just as before, with no sources. Belina007 has not responded to my comment on his/her talk page, and writes no edit summary. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I really feel that this paragraph does not belong in the article, at least without sources. I'd fix it myself but I don't have the source that Belina007 apparently is reading this info from. 05:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • My suggestion is to revert unless sources are added or Belina007 communicates, and warn with {{subst: uw-unsourced2}} or {{subst: uw-unsourced3}} or {{subst: uw-defamatory2/3/4}}, progressing in number each time (I've already warned him/her with the 1st template). If Belina007 continues not to respond and just add the section after the 4th template warning (there is no unsourced 4th template, but this counts as defamatory, so you can use that one) you can report Belina007 at WP:AIV. I haven't seen this in practice so another editor may come and contradict me (feel free to, John) but the claim of going from size 6->size 24 in 2 weeks, no other edits, and no communication, I think the templates are the best way to go. And I have to go! I'm late! RB972 05:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Good advice. The following words from WP:BLP are also relevant: I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. Wikipedia:Libel is also relevant, although I find it lacking in such basics as actually giving an operational definition of libel. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 19:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

4-February-2007

  • Have a look at User:Prosfilaes's endless reverts at [Unwinnable article history]. Dispute resolution has already been done (WP:3O) - with result in Talk:Unwinnable#Third opinion. However, User:Prosfilaes refues to accept the decision and continues revert-warring. He removes all warning templates placed on his user page. He removes comments from the article talk page. He uses personal attacks. So we are all too frightened to do anything. The user seems less concerned with the welfare of the article (he has now slapped an "OR" banner on the page in a fit of pique) and more concerned with "winning a battle" (the wikipedia-as-MMORPG mentality). Its hard to know how to proceed in this situation as the dispute resolution has already been done, but the user won't accept the result. What now?
    • In general, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes lays out a policy for dealing with content disputes. You've done a third opinion; the next step is an RFC.
    • He removes all warning templates placed on his user page. - This is a point of widespread confustion. In fact, the current policy is that removal of warnings is acceptable. A user deleting a warning is presumed to have read it. Warnings are still visible via the history of the user page, albeit researching them is a bit more work for admins. Please do not argue further over this point.
    • He removes comments from the article talk page.. This is generally unacceptable per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (exceptions include such things as personal attacks; talk pages aren't sacrosanct if used inappropriately). I reviewed the talk page history and found only one example of this, on January 28th, and have posted a note about it on Prosfileaes' user talk page. As to handling this in the future, you should simply revert the deletion if you believe that the original posting was appropriate for a talk page; WP:3RR means that any edit war over this results in an automatic block for the editor trying to keep a comment off a talk page (again, assuming that it really does belong there; if this is a gray area, it's best to discuss it on user talk pages).
    • He uses personal attacks. I read the talk page, and saw no evidence of personal attacks. He said some negative things about edits by others, but that does not constitute "personal attacks".
    • he has now slapped an "OR" banner on the page in a fit of pique. Pleae note the WP:AGF guideline. Unless he actually said this (and it's hard for me to believe someone would say that he/she was going to do something "in a fit of pique"), or something similar, it's not clear what the factual basis for your statement is. Similarly, more concerned with "winning a battle seems to me to be problematical given the AGF guideline. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 19:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

6-February-2007

  • Please take a look at User:Thunk00. He and another anonymous commenter (AnonFE) are using the Talk:Fire_Emblem page to air personal vendettas (specifically, Talk:Fire_Emblem#Quit_adding_Fire_Emblem_World_to_the_list_of_external_links.). They are completely false (elaboration and proof can be provided if necessary), and even if they weren't they have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia or Fire Emblem and are nothing more than hurtful, offensive slander. Any help on this matter is greatly appreciated. Thanks. 02:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • What I see is what looks like a bunch of pre-teens arguing about who did what to whom, when, and why, at other websites, including one editor (presumably the same person who posted this alert) posting a response in a section that hadn't seen any activity for six weeks - that would be re-open the argument, I suppose.
    • I've posted a note about what talk pages should be used for at the article's talk page, in the section with the squabbling. I recommend following it.
    • Finally, I think you have little idea what serious WP:NPA violations really look like. I suggest that you read the advice at that page and at WP:CIVIL regarding minor stuff - ignore it. The world will be a better place if you do. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 17:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I apologize for incorrectly placing my complaint; I'm not familiar with Wikipedia and this SEEMED like the best place to do it. Second, I (the person who reported this) have never posted on the Talk page. My concern was that the Talk page was being used for, as you called it, "a bunch of pre-teens arguing about who did what to whom, when, and why," and it was degrading into hurtful slander, so I thought it seemed like the time for some kind of administrative intervention. Anyway, thank you. 17:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • You did post to the correct page; I apologize if I gave the impression that you did not. What I was grumping about was the elaboration and proof can be provided if necessary comment included in the alert, which seemed to suggest continuing the off-Wikipedia fight here. To summarize: the talk page was being misused; I've posted a note about that on the talk page; and hopefully editors will stop bickering about personal things and discuss only content issues. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please look at Talk:USS Liberty incident#Totalitarian Ethnic Activism Destroying Scholarship which is a pretty blatent personal attack by User:63.3.10.2.13:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's pretty hard to make much of an impact on anonymous IP editors, particularly because there isn't any guarantee that the account is being used by just one person. Looking at the edit history here, there are at least three threads: constructive edits to articles about TV shows, raw vandalism, and crankish ("fanatic zionist") postings, just recently. It's not clear that's the same person.
    • In any case, I've deleted the comment; it goes over the line when it mentions another editor by name uses the wording it did. And I've posted a note on the article talk page about why I removed it; that will hopefully encourage others to remove it if it's reposted.
    • Finally, I note that the anonymous editor's "NPOV" tag on the article was removed by two different editors (correctly, due to lack of any specific details on the talk page). The second time was after a different anonymous IP address reposted the tag - which makes me suspect that this individual has moved on to another IP address. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

8-February-2007

  • Please can someone look at Restormel Castle. An anonymous IP has added a paragraph titled Controversy over the site. The same paragraph also appears at Pendennis Castle, Tintagel Castle, Chysauster Ancient Village and many others. To me it was a blatant attempt at publicity, so I removed all occurences. They soon reappeared, with an additional copy on the talk pages, claiming a political fact is not against wikipedia rules so long as neutrally written. I personally think the paragraph is very POV oriented, and should not be in the article. Even if it was neutral, it is not relevant to the article. I do not want to get into an edit war, so I just want to get some more opinions please. 22:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've edited the Restormel Castle page; please take a look. The information added is relevant, in my opinion; the problem was that it was at excessive length, which is an WP:NPOV violation. So yes, it should be in the article (in my opinion), but not so much as it was.
    • When you have a content dispute with another editor, a good place to look is Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. You'll find mention there of the "third opinion" process, for cases when just two editors (as appears the case here) disagree. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 18:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • My objection is that an anonymous IP, has added it to all English Heritage sites in Cornwall, plus the English Heritage page. The actual story is that three people performed an illegal act, conspiracy to cause criminal damage, which nearly resulted in a custodial sentence. There is no mention of this in the paragraph. Plus the fact they also change the location from England to UK, it is just a blatant attempt to get publicity. 20:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • This is not the place to argue over content issues, as stated at the top of the page. I have suggested a rewrite that is three sentences long rather than an entire section; if you feel that is unacceptable, all I can suggest is that you follow the procedures in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, as I mentioned before. (Yes, the cited BBC story is mostly about the three protesters who were arrested; it's up to the discretion of editors to decide what parts, and how much, of any news source to actually use in an article - only the most relevant should be used, even if that isn't the main thrust of the article.)
        • As for blatant attempt at publicity, Wikipedia generally discourages any comments about an editor's motivation (see Wikipedia:Assume good faith). If you think that the editor might have some connection to the organization he/she is posting about, you could mention the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy on his/her user talk page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Points taken, thank you for your input. 20:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

9-February-2007

  • Hello, I have place a tag regarding original research and non-objectivity at the Electronic voice phenomenon article. I have expressed my concerns as best I can, and an editor keeps removing the tag and insulting me rather than dicussing the issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon#content_policies_tag-05:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • If I hadn't already read all the complaints about your behavior on your user talk page, and comments about you elsewhere, I'd be more sympathetic to the language you presumably object to (because you hate the article, complaining across the help boards, because you are too lazy to check for yourself). Given your edits to date, I'm not sure that this language rises to the level of violating WP:CIVIL (and certainly isn't a violation of WP:NPA).
    • What I am sure about is that, to date, you appear almost totally unable to figure out that when lots and lots of people have negative things to say about you, and they are established members of a community while you are not, then it's your behavior that is the problem, not theirs. You seem to think that you add value to Wikipedia by tagging lots of things as needing work, when in fact there are hundreds of thousands of articles that have tagged for many months as needed to be fixed in some way. There is no corps of volunteers standing by, waiting to rush in and fix, at an instant's notice, anything that any editor thinks is a problem. Please consider doing constructive work in Wikipedia rather than continuing to provoke others with pointless tagging. If you don't want to work on adding information to articles you're personally interested in, then take a look at Wikipedia:Maintenance - there is plenty of work there, of a wide variety. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 18:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It doesn't seem that you have analyzed the situation with any degree of diligence. I have placed many tags, and there have been a very tiny number of complaints in proportion to the number placed. Of the complaints, here is a good example of how things worked out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nixie_tube#references_tag. It seems that at the articles where there has been an objection to a tag, the objection is resistance to fixing the article, not to the tag. Placing the tag calls attention to the problem, and others intervene to fix the article. In the electronic voice phenomenon article, it appears that there has been an ongoing POV dispute, and that at the time I found the article with the random button, the article was dominated by one POV, which included an editor with a strong conflict of interest. Now other editors are involved, the tag I placed has been re-instated by someone else, and discussion is going on. The great resistance by one editor to allowing the tags to remain was not helping the article. Also, I do not insult anyone, and I do not believe it is acceptable for anyone to insult me. -MsHyde 19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

11-February-2007

  • Talk:Gus Grissom - Sections were removed for violating WP:ATTACK or for containing off topic content[23]. The removal was reverted[24]. 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The comments were unacceptable, some from both sides of that discussion. I removed the blatant personal attacks and archived the discussions as they were not discussions about content of the article. I also added the talk header at the top to explain to editors the purpose of the talk page. A lot of the comments were being made from a often changing ip address, so there seemed to be no route to take for a personal warning. I did explain to one editor that was identifiable on their talk page the reason for the changes and prompted them to remain civil. Sancho McCann 18:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

12-February-2007

  • User_talk:Khoikhoi - Please, check this page. User User:Nareklm not only persistently attacks other people, such as AdilBaguirov and several others, including myself, accuses people of being sockpuppets, but also uses foul language, such as the following: Who the fuck is this guy? he comes out of no where and starts supporting these guys they are sock puppets! Nareklm 15:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Please, address the issue, as this user's activity is very disruptive. Thanks. Atabek 08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I never attacked anyone yet you use sock puppets. Nareklm 19:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

14 February 2007

  • Please take a look at Talk: Columbia Pacific University. The repeated accusations of "libel" by one editor - and recently, mention of legal consequences ("...and libel is a crime.") - have become troublesome. 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The statement I would like to remind you the undisputable fact that publishing a false and defamatory statement damaging a person's reputation is libelous, and libel is a crime. is, in my opinion, approaching a violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats. I will post a warning on the user's talk page. But generally I find the discussion to be reasonably civil, and I urge the editors of the article to (continue) to focus on finding and adding statements supported by reliable sources to the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please take a look at Ben Bledsoe. An unregistered user keeps putting what sounds like an advertisment in the article and has started an 'editing war'. I want unregistered users blocked or this guy blocked but I am unable to do that (I am unsure how). Please help. 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've put a note on the user talk page asking that the user provide a source or not add the information. But - really - you've got a lot to learn here:
  • You're relying solely on the edit summaries to have a dialog with the user. That's wrong. Post something to his/her user talk page (again, I've done that), or to the talk page of the article, and say, in the edit summary, "see talk page". A talk page is a good place to have a discussion; it also brings the matter to the attention of people who may not be following edits of the article that closely.
  • You're having a fight about some information that the user wants to add to the article that is unverified. Text such as He is currently planning a European Tour is a little-bit advertising-oriented, I suppose, but it's well within the acceptable range: It's a fact, unverified, but a fact, as opposed to, say, "He is a tremendously promising artist and leading talent", which would be unacceptable as puffery.
  • You're both getting close to WP:3RR violations. I'm not sure at all that you, personally, could convince an admin that you were reverting vandalism here (which would mean you could do unlimited reverts). If I were an admin, in fact, I'd be tempted to block you for removing info rather than the anonymous IP editor for adding it (except that you've not been warned yet.)
  • That one anonymous IP editor has made four edits to the article in the past two days is nowhere near enough of a problem (if a problem at all - see above) to justify protection of the page against all anonymous IP edits. You're welcome to follow the process for getting such protection (just click on the link), but I warn you that not only is a reviewing admin unlikely to act on your behalf, he/she is likely to put a 3RR warning on your user talk page.
  • I strongly recommend that in the future you (a) edit down anything you consider puffery to consist only of potentially verifiable facts, rather than removing it, and then (b) put a {{fact}} tag on what is left, which asks the editor to provide a source, and warns the reader that the statement is unsourced. (Rules on negative information are different - remove it on sight if not adequately sourced; that's not the situation here.)

15 February 2007

  • Please take a look at Talk:Police memorabilia collecting, the original author insists his are the only valid edits, that he is the only expert on the subject and thus the only one qualified to edit the article, and has now started bringing personal attacks from userpages into the article talkpage. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement has tried to talk him into being an editor who works well with others, without success. Please help, thanks. 07:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It looks like User:SGGH has taken an interest in the article, and has made some constructive suggestions on the talk page that may be acceptable to all. I suggest waiting to see how that turns out; if there are still problems in a week or two that don't seem like they are being resolved, feel free to post here again. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please have a look at IMADEC University and its talk page. An unregistered user – apparently affiliated with the institution – keeps deleting sourced and, IMO, relevant and NPOV parts of the article and has also blanked the talk page at least three times. Does not write edit summaries, does not respond to requests for discussion. The article doesn't get a lot of attention and my experience with WP conflicts is limited, so it would be good to get other users' opinions. Brindt 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The user was blocked earlier today for 24 hours, for removing content. Blanking the talk page is vandalism. If he/she does it again after the block expires, just revert and report the blanking at WP:AIV; I can assure you that the next block will be longer.
    • I note the offer of User:Bobzchemist to act as unofficial mediator here. I am skeptical of the usefulness of this offer, given that the unregistered user has only - at least by my cursory look - been interested in deleted information that is properly sourced. I suggest responding with a very brief comment that you'd like to hear what the other user objects to in the article, since he/she has been deleting information, and then you'll respond. I think you're dealing with a vandal here, essentially, so reverting and reporting is really the only thing you need to do. Wikipedia has pretty good (quick) responses to this. If for some reason you can actually get a dialog going (again, I'm skeptical), then presumably mediation would be useful. In general, you'll find guidance at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, but, again, that's based on editors who want to engage over content, and doesn't really apply (yet, at least) in this case. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Intervention is needed for User 74.195.3.199, who is back up to his old tricks again: personal attacks on other editors (example: [25], adding gibberish to pages, and refusing to listen to any other Wikipedians who attempt to set him straight on policy. He's been blocked before and comes right back again with the same behavior. There's enough here for a RfC (several editors have commented on his conduct) but seeing as it's an IP number, I don't know if that is even doable. 20:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, you can do an RfC with an anonymous IP editor.
    • The user here seems to have a limited amount of self-control, unfortunately, because he (I'm guessing) seems generally well-intentioned, if often clueless even after reading policy, and it would be nice if he were to concentrate on improving articles.
    • My suggestion is that you use the standard warning grid - see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and specifically the npa series. (You'd put something like this on the talk page: {{subst:uw-npa2}}.) I suggest starting at level 2, incrementing by one each time; after you give a level 4 warning, if the user does this again, post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents requesting admin assistance and mentioning the user was blocked once already for this problem.
    • Don't argue with the user - just post warnings and civilly explain any real questions (rhetorical ones like "WTF are you warning me about?" can be ignored, as can complaints that he didn't mean to offend). Don't be overly sensitive here - just post warnings about profanity and other attacks that occur in edit summaries and talk pages of articles, or on your talk page, not on the user's own talk page.
    • Adding gibberish is just vandalism - see the page for warnings about that. When/if you post a level 4 warning and it occurs again, report it WP:AIV; blocking is pretty automatic. Again, your role is to simply to escalate the warnings if inappropriate behavior occurs, and then to report any violation that occurs after a level 4 warning. It doesn't matter if the user deletes warnings (don't revert; deleting is acknowledgment of reading, and the user's contribution page can be easily checked to see the deletions) or protests; an admin will make the final decision. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for the suggestions. I did leave a Level 2 template on his Talk Page...I'd previously tried to explain to him why people kept blocking him/etc. and he blew it off. Someone else blocked him for incivility tonight. I'll keep an eye on the situation and avoid arguing with him. DanielEng 05:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

17 February 2007

  • Can you look at Talk:White_people? User:LSLM keeps making remarks about what he thinks the political views of editors are, along with insults to Americans...09:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've looked. This involves a long-running disagreement that you (under your current name, and as User:Thulean) and others have had with LSLM and others. LSLM has been warned previously about civility, and has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing (and you've apparently gotten a fair number of complaints yourself about your behavior); I'm not going to waste anyone's time by reminding them of policy.
    • I will say that insults to Americans is not, as far as I known, the type of thing that is covered by Wikipedia policy. If it were, would Wikipedia ban "insults to members of the KKK"? insults to gay and lesbian activists? insults to conservative talk hosts? Would editors be able to say anything negative about anyone? The purpose of talk pages is not, of course, to discuss subjects of articles, it's to improve articles. But commenting on an article is often commenting on the subject: for example, "This article on the XYZ freedom fighters is too positive - it doesn't mention their killings of innocent civilians, or how they financed themselves by drug smuggling." So saying something negative can certainly be about the article as well as the subject. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The user Bridge & Tunnel has been making bald accusations on user Bi of bad faith, and also trying to include into articles information which is questionable at best. Bridge & Tunnel also seems to be a WP:SPA. See [26]. 06:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


18 February 2007

  • Can you look at Talk:Frederick Baron? User:Jance is unclear on the concept of WP:NPOV, and has stated that a particular point of view simply does not belong in an article because she thinks it is a "pack of lies."[27] The problem is not simply with this article, because User:Jance (who also edits as User:67.35.126.14 and, I suspect, User:Jgwlaw), has systematically eradicated verifiable information from authors that she disagrees with from articles about civil justice related issues, causing severe POV problems. 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

19 February 2007

User also reported on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Seven reverts before warning; three more (so far) after warning. 20:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
User has also (as noted here and here) harassed the subject of the bio article personally by email. Is there a Wikipedia forum/noticeboard which specifically addresses this kind of activity? Athaenara 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have most certainly NOT harrassed said user with e-mails. Ataenara has NO evidence to support such a scurrilous accusation except for the word of said user. I dispute the accusation utterly, and consider it to be libelous.
I have no idea why an editor like Athaenara is being so one-sided in this dispute. It's a disgrace. In addition, Athaenara is aallowing "SethSwirsky" to post personal attacks against me on Athaenara's own talk page, but deleting my responses. MoeLarryAndJesus 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the date of last harrassing email from MoeLarryandJesus was February 9, 2007 12:49:30 AM PST. Should I post a screenshot?
Furthermore, as proof of his personal bias towards me, read his reasoning for changing the disputed line of text. Do you think it reeks of a some poilitcal bias and personal hatred?): From MLJ: "In my latest edit I have used the term "former liberal" instead of "conservative." I can see why someone would not want to be described as a conservative these days, since the word has now taken on very unpleasant meanings. In America these days "conservative" is now synonymous with "torture-loving warmongering religious fanatic." I would certainly never want that label attached to me. Hopefully "former liberal" is not as controversial. MoeLarryAndJesus 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)". As I said, I would never gotten involved in this if someone didn;t alert me to it. The line should read: Swirsky, a self-described Democrat in the Henry "Scoop" Jackson tradition, writes articles for...". At the HuffingtonPost.com that is what is stated in my bio: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-swirsky/ (click on bio). There are other places on the internet that attest to that. I am a registered Democrat -- the POV of MLJ ddisagrees with me and it's why, for the last 4 days +, we have to be engaged in this nonsense. You should see how his original vandalizations of my political bent read. I am convinced that --through his behavior, his unkindliness and his explanation in his latest edit that it's personal with MLJ -- and would request that he be banned from posting on the page a number of people have obviously have worked hard to honestly contribute to. -- Seth Swirsky 22:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not continue discussion regarding your original disagreement on this page. An editor responding to this request will come to where the discussion is currently taking place to help out. Sancho McCann 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll repeat - I have sent no "harrassing e-mails" to this "SethSwirsky." As for my "personal bias" against "him," I have no idea who he is. My edit calling the real Swirsky a "former liberal" is fully supported by a cite to an article by the real Swirsky called "Why I Left The Left."
There is absolutely no independent source for the claim that Swirsky is a registered Democrat, but even if he is, my edit says nothing about his party affiliation, so that's a red herring. He is undisputably a conservative, but I have magnanimously agreed to go with "former liberal" instead. It's absurd, and my "torture-loving warmongering" comment was written with tongue in cheek due to the absurdity of this fight by "SethSwirsky" and Athaenara to keep "conservative" out of the bio. MoeLarryAndJesus 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

MoeLarryAndJesus (talk • contribs) has been blocked as of 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC):

  • "blocked (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours"
  • "extreme 3RR violation (more than 10 reverts) after warnings:"

Details in block log. 22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: MoeLarryAndJesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) blocked indefinitely as of 23:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

20 February 2007

  • Jjean3 (talk · contribs) has been posting links to a color blindness test he's developing. He's been asking for feedback on to improve the test, and now is accusing editors of vandalism when they remove his link. He's also removed spam warnings and a suggestion to read WP:COI. Someone who can read and write French might be helpful, because his English appears limited. He's also editing as 90.30.155.22 (talk · contribs) 00:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC
    • I am *Jjean3 (talk · contribs) and very hungry against --Ronz or90.30.155.22 (talk · contribs) (it is the same) , he always destroy my work .
    • he vandalism my work .
    • until he destroy my work , sorry but i write again my work, until an administrator say me why my test is not valable. i think just a person who is color blindness can say that my test is not good but no --Ronz who just destroy without purposeful.20 February 2007
I have written to Jjean, explaining that the non-inclusion of the link is not a critique on his/her work, but because of editors not believing that it will improve the article. I have asked him to participate in the ongoing discussion regarding the appropriateness of certain external links in that article along with the rest of the editors working on that page. Sancho McCann 17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Link: [28]. A user S. T. Webb who for several weeks has been posting complaints about edits to the article about Robert Latimer. An identical post was deleted by another recently, but it seems that s/he might benefit from a calming outside view about how opinions are best expressed. 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you look into changes made by Kshatriyaaz. He has made several inflammatory updates without sourcing and reverts when others make reasonable changes. Link: [29]
    • The reason for the changes to his/her edits has been provided on his/her talk page. Motivation to provided reliable sources was given. It's now been a couple of days since the last attempt to include that same information. Sancho McCann 18:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

21 February 2007

User:Icar has been repeatedly describing me as "a Stalinist", "a communist", "a pest", "a disruptive editor", and comparing me to persecutors of the 1950s and himself to a victim (see this, this, and this). He has recently harassed me on my talk page, re-posting a personal attack he had made on another user, and one which I had erased (here and here). His contributions are almost entirely connected with a group of articles to which I have recently contributed, where I had initially removed the POV and insufficiently verified information he kept pushing, and his disregard for basic wikipedia conventions on neutral tone and reliability (see, for example, Talk:Leonte Tismăneanu). Dahn 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually in those 3 quotes he didn't describe you as "Stalinist", but your position as "Stalinist stance". I also couldn't find it where he called you a "communist".
Moreover, I doubt he is chasing your contributions, a much more fairer assessment would be he's interested in the history of Communism in Romania (unless you have solid evidence for your claims).
On the other hand you also have a long track of POV pushing (see your numerous edit wars in Vladimir Tismăneanu , Leonte Tismăneanu and others - which perhaps are not relevant now - plus the interference of User:Khoikhoi who occassionaly reverts all the changes of other editors to the last change made by you and that without absolutely no reason as he is absent from the debates and he is not adding content whatsoever in those articles), so unless you'll find a mediation/arbitration to decide where the middle ground is, I personally do not find your accusation solid (though I disagree(d) with many things Icar added). Daizus 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Now, I'll wait for neutral users to become involved, if you don't mind. Dahn 00:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
After carefully reading Dahn’s report and following step by step the development of the story I am very inclined to second Daizus’ conclusions. As for Icar, his article edits appear to be much better than his talk page contributions, where he sometimes seems to be unwary in the choice of his vocabulary. Nevertheless, he is a valuable contributor and there is no apparent reason to doubt his good faith. --Vintila Barbu 08:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As I have said: I'm still waiting for neutral editors. Dahn 09:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It is strange that Dahn resorted to complaining. In fact I am basically persecuted by Dahn, who systematically removes my contributions on all pages. There is something wrong with the way he deals with editing conflict. Instead of discussing and then changing, immediatly he reverts. He may or may not leave a dismissive note ("rv vandalism" is his favorite, which I apply to him only in retaliation). Another dishonest behavior is enlisting the help of people unrelated to the article in question. User:Khoikhoi did a few reverts at Dahn's request without having the slightest idea what he was doing, just beacuse he and Dahn do such services between themseves. Then three other users Mardavich, User:Domitius and User:Artaxiad also joined in reverting to Dahn's versions. None of these users ever made any contributions to related articles. My personal opinion is that User:Dahn suffers from the WP:OWN syndrome. It is a lie that I posted a personal attack on his page. I posted there a reaction to user Khoikhoi's acknowledging that he just acted according to Dahn's wish and blindly reverted to Dahn's versions. Dahn has the habit of erasing comments he dislikes. I repeated the comment on Khoikhoi's talk page. He did not erase it and it is really not a personal attack. In fact, aside from the obnoxious treatment I receive from Dahn, I find WP quite a friendly place...(Icar 14:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
Mardavich sided also with Khoikhoi in an edit war he had with me in Albert Wass article (with the same symptoms: Mardavich hasn't contributed in any way to that article or to its talk page, moreover I addressed his behavior on his talk page and I got no response!). I believe these are "friendships" over Wikipedia translated as mutual support to avoid 3RR violations. I will look if this falls under the incidence of Wiki rules, if so, this POV pushing should be exposed. Daizus 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
To all parties involved. Please avoid continued discussion of the issue on this page. Editors will come to you when responding to this. Defense and additional accusations are not necessary; an experienced editor will be able to help out based on the original posting alone. Sancho McCann 17:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Could someone take a look here? Repetitive revert changes, WP:OWN behavior and uncivil attitudes by Viriditas has caused one seasonededitor to leave the article completely and caused others (including me) to lose their tempers at the user's unwillingness to work within a group, He has been active in edit-warring for almost a month, breaking 3RR at least twice (no action taken due to the edit summaries concealing the reverts until it was too late to report them). Independent, informal evaluations had been asked for in the past, yet Viriditas pays no attention to their conclusions, and has edited vitually every edit (not just mine) that is added to the article.Arcayne 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

22 February 2007

  • User:Pakalomattam added content to several articles ([30], [31], [32]) using a five-digit system for numbering the years (e.g. "02007" instead of "2007" - like the Long Now Foundation). I changed the dates to the standard four-digit style, but he reverted them. I explained on his talk page why four-digit years should be used for both technical and aesthetic reasons, but he insists he is free to use five-digit years because WP:DATE does not explicitly say not to use them. Following some discussion he posted a rather confrontational ultimatum on my talk page ordering me to change his edits back or change the manual of style by Saturday, and that the issue was simply a case of my opinion versus his. I feel I have made it quite clear to him why four-digit years are the accepted standard on Wikipedia, but he is clearly not accepting this. I feel he is straying into WP:DE territory and would rather not continue arguing the toss alone. 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

23 February 2007

  • I would welcome outside input at my comments on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#My response on the matter. I think User:Durin might be going a bit too far in his methods with not just me, but others who he contacts about images, etc. Clearly investigating family members of Wikipedia users is a bit beyond the line. I am also concerned about an unresolved threat, where another user stated he had friends who lived in my area and that he'd been in touch [33]. As far as I can tell, no action was taken against the person who made that statement; a statement which scared the hell out of me and made me fear for the safety of myself and my family. I actually no longer edit Wikipedia from home or work because of this, only public locations. Please note that I'm not filing any complaints against Durin and dont want to get him or others spun up. I just would like some neutral comments about the conversation on the pump page to see if I myself have done anything seriously wrong. Thank you -Pahuskahey 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You are upset about and accuse me of supposedly contacting people (including government agencies) to investigate your family members, but have no desire to spin things up? For the record, as I have now stated multiple times, I investigated the source of the image Image:Soninafghan.jpg which you uploaded, by using statements made by you about this image and the person displayed in the image (age, service, location of service, rank, and death). I used these statements and compared them against these resources:
  • I could find nothing that matched. Nothing. That is why I call into question the veracity of your claims that this was your son, killed in the war on terrorism. I did not contact any government agencies (as you claim). I did not contact anybody in the "real world" regarding the veracity of these images. I used the information you gave and information publicly available on the Internet, and that is all. Period. Images on Wikipedia are routinely reviewed for their source, attributions, and copyrights. I am sorry you find this troubling. --Durin 16:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No one is making accusations, I am asking for neutral people to give an opinion; I thought this page was for that purpose, not for you and I to hash it out further. No intent here to stir things up, just wanted to hear other songs and not just the same old tune. -Pahuskahey 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You have repeatedly accused me of investigating your family members offline. You have zero evidence of this and have been shown multiple times now how I ascertained the results that I did. Yet, the accusations remain. Casting about on various forums and continuing to maintain that I have made such a gross violation of privacy is not a positive process in any respect for you, me, or the project. I have requested you begin an RfC. Please do so. That is a preferable forum for this; you would surely get considerably more input. --Durin 16:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • RfC says you have to have two people and have an unresolved issue which has failed to be resolved through other methods. It also says an RfC should not be taken lightly and only used as a last resort. Since the photos themselves have been deleted, that issue would seem to be resolved. After reviewing the situation, I will admit you that based on what you have said, you appear to have only used the internet and not contacted government agenices. Although, at first, it seemed like this was what you had done. And, also, what would have happened if these internet sources had given you a confirmed name? You then would have had my son's name and thus my last name, easily tracing it to me. I also do not accept that you ever had enough info to ID him. You took a lot of info pieces from the picture and the shadow box program, assuming a great deal which I never verified. The picture is gone though and I will not re-upload it, so no further need to beat it death. I was hoping for 3rd party opinions on this page, not a continuation of the debate. -Pahuskahey 16:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Stevenstone93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has 233 edits, almost all of which are to his own User and User talk pages (he seems to be using the latter in part to communicate with his schoolmates). He has made edits to only three articles, but in each case his edits were reverted as unhelpful and/or vandalism. I'm not sure if all this warrants a block or perhaps just a friendly warning that Wikipedia is not a personal web page or a social networking site. I leave it to the more knowledgeable folks here to deal with. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive185#From AIV. —Psychonaut 20:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I see now that both the user page and the user talk page have been PRODed. If anyone wants to take a look at this report, s/he should best do so in the next couple days. —Psychonaut 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate it if someone could have a look at Nomenclator's behaviour on the Veganism Talk page. Specifically, behaviour such as: editing someone else's comments[34], generalized belligerence towards other editors and repeated [35] personal attacks [36]. S/he has been warned/cautioned on more [37] than [38] one [39] occasion and it is still happening. To make matters worse, the his/her new argument is that it is impossible to have a NPOV [40] article on veganism. 22:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

24 February 2007

The behaviour of user Gravitor is becoming more and more disruptive. Violations appear to be WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:Civility. This user uses edit summaries such as "reverting to last NPOV. Discuss on talk page" when he is the one that refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page. A poll was taken, showing that his viewpoint was in the minority opinion, yet he continues to make dramatic reverts to a very old version of the article without commenting. It was explained that one should attempt to modify the text, as opposed to revert, in order to help acheive consensus, but this was to no avail. A summary of his behaviour is given here, as well as above in the same talk page. His personal behaviour is most clearly seen here: Talk:Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Please look at the edit history of the article. This user is also deleting my complaints from his talk page. While others must share some of the blame, he appears to be engaged in trolling, and is bringing the worst out in everybody.

In short, I would like to know if there is anything that can be done, or if I should accept this type of behaviour as being inevitable form time to time at wikipedia. 15:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

25 February 2007

27 February 2007

  • Dokdo wars heat up. In "The Dokdo wars heat up" section, a user has intentionally spurred the fire of the dispute at the Dokdo talk page by introducing a biased anti-Korean link and a malicious comment about enjoying the fight between the two parties. 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I contend that the link was neither malicius nor spurring dispute, nor was it directed towards any users. As I noted on the talk page itself, the link may have been found on the pro-Japan section, but the quoted sources themselves are Korean. The time period contended by the external link also happens to be missing in the actual Ryukyu Islands history section, which starts in the 18th century. I'd also note that this user has also made both personal attacks and ethnic attacks towards me previously (see Talk:Baekdu Mountain. Judge for yourself whether or not his comments on that page were made maliciously and in bad faith. He has accused me of "extremely provocative and insulting battle spurring comments", but perhaps he should read some of his own comments and see if they were made with exactly this intention he accuses me of.--Yuje 04:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a general comment toward both the Korean and Japanese sides and the style and wording of the comment is enough to heat up the battle even more. Good friend100 23:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)



3 March 2007

Provide evidence, or stay away. Provide here all links from the history where you think it is a personal attack. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
My Talk Page
[[41]]
[[42]]
[[43]]
Karlovy Vary Discussion Page
[[44]]
[[45]]
[[46]]
[[47]]
[[48]]
User:Piotrus' Talk Page
User_talk:Piotrus#EN_nomenclature
User:Rex Germanus' Talk Page
User_talk:Rex_Germanus#Renaming_articles
I've asked him to stop here, and he refused here.
kthx. Antman -- chat 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh man, I hope some administrator will take a look on it very quickly, that's ridiculous, it's nothing uncivil. Also why don't you tell them about your attack userbox and about this [49]. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You removed a lot of context, liek this [50] - it is the complete conversation. Your edits are disruptive, you are saying that you will ignore consensus and a couple of editors noticed that (like Rex Germanus, Piotrus and me) but all what you can do is to cut some edits from the context and report your version. You have two userboxes claiming you as a german imperial patriot and that you support Danzig isntead of Gdansk. If someone notice that in the middle of the discussion about Carlsbad/Karlovy Vary (exactly the same as Danzig/Gdansk) you claims him as a personal attacker, that's ridiculous. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
What? Antman -- chat 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
What what ? Suddenly you know nothing about your uncivility, what a surprise ... ? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 17:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I am having trouble reading your English. Antman -- chat 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry Tulkolahten, this wouldn't be the first time Antman wasn't able to back up what he claimed. He once claimed I called him a nazi, I said I would leave wikipedia if he showed me where ... I'm still waiting.Rex 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm as I see he is not able to be so patient and read non-native english, any native speaker can do it, if not, then it is something wrong there. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I just don't feel like taking the time to try to read what you are writing, as it is just an attack anyways. Antman -- chat 22:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You don't even read that and you are blaming me, uf ... too much for me ... ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 09:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's face it, you are both about as bad as each other, & neither of you know when to leave an argument alone. Regards to both, Johnbod 13:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

4 March 2007

  • Can someone look into User:NawlinWiki? He seems to be deleting articles without considering their notability properly - from the comments on his discussion page it seems as though he is only considering whether articles are notable to him personally.
Can you please provide a link to an example or two of this for someone to evaluate? --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • New personal attacks by User:Dking. In this edit he says that editors who dispute his edits are "programmed by LaRouche" and have "memorized a lot of empty cant." --Tsunami Butler 15:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree; he is commenting on the contributor(s), not on the(ir) contribution(s). Seems to me that the mediation process should address such comments: they seem to create an unproductive mediation atmosphere. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure if this is the place for this. User:Matthew is currently having an argument with several editors about content at Talk:Family_Ties. While the discussion is a legitimate one I find he is being deliberately inflammatory. --16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. There was possibly a very minor violation of WP:AGF on his part, but he was only pointing out the Wikipedia policies that govern appropriate article content in a non-wikilawyering way. He probably should have referred to WP:POINT instead of WP:SPIDER, but I see no significant Wiki ettiquette violations on his part. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A Mandriva wiki (not part of Wikipedia or Wikicities, AFAIK) had some outdated information, so I asked in Mandriva Talk for someone to make an update there, since contributing to its Talk page requires registration. I made a short announcement about it, if someone could change the wiki there, but User:Chealer removed it and branded it as offtopic. As far as I know, content in talk pages should not be removed. Comments? -Mardus 23:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • User:TVshot appears to be skirting a very fine line of uncivil behavior, and his userpage and contributions seem to indicate that he is editing with disruption in mind. 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm sure people have their eye on him now. I would recommend disengaging for now. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 06:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

5 March 2007

  • Davémon appears to be WP:TROLLing the Image development (visual arts) article or has a personal competitive business interest in monopolizing terminology. His edits are not in good faith. The user is rejecting the community input after an AfD discussion. The page history shows that the user is in clear violation of disruptive editing WP:POINT. The user is taking advantage of the fact that art-related wikipedia articles are easy to label original research because they consist mostly of WP:POV. The user is also scrutinizing the article with a double standard. When the article was not sourced, he added a {{Original research|entire article no doubt}} tag but then put a soft {{Not verified}} tag on the corporate image page which has alternate use of the term. The user threw every argument in the book against the article, and then archived the failed arguments and the note to "keep" after the AfD before requesting a third opinion so at a glance, the only arguments that appeared on the page appeared to be a dispute between two users. Clearly this person is gaming the system. If this person is allowed to scrutinize POV to this level, wikipedia will be nothing but a bibliography. 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Just an update on my suspicions. The way Davémon request and harshly rejects sources on harmless statements in which the accuracy and neutrality of the statements are not disputed, leads me to believe that he wants to horde the information. Once it's posted on the wikipedia, he can use it to his career knowledge benefit, and then get it removed easily by accusing it to be original research so that competitors may never find it. To me, there is no other explanation as to why someone would be so quick to use wikipedia rules at the strictest level against harmless material. Oicumayberight 08:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

6 March 2007

  • I am not sure where to place this; I have been falsely accused of a personal attack by Longend. on Homer slips. page for making a comment on his bad language on his discussion page. Longend removed my comments, homer slips thanked him on Longends discussion page and a friend of homer slips told them to check me for sock pocket. Why am I made to be into a criminal for telling homer slips to stop using bad language and name calling?
Saintrotter 6 March 2007
  • At Talk:Frank R. Wallace#Request for Comment: acceptable sources (see e.g. this revision), user Bridge & Tunnel has been throwing out random nonsensical ad hoc arguments regarding the admissibility of certain sources. Even after his arguments have been rebutted in detail, he still repeatedly insists he's right. Someone please look into this and put a stop to it. 19:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

7 March 2007

  • Per the talk page at Talk:Firestop_pillow, user User:Ahering@cogeco.ca is having trouble understanding the Attribution policy ("I'm referencing real experience and the pix to back it up in reality, not some fancy stuff a professor wrote in a book", "my knowledge on the subject matter is not book knowledge, it is hands-on"). Could someone else help explain ithe issue to him there? 14:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Two editors, User:Kemor and User:Payne2thamax are engaging in a flamewar via the edit summaries in the history page at N.W.A.; this has been going on for over 24 hours. 23:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Both editors warned at respective talk pages (level 3 for Kemor and level 4 for Payne). --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 08:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

9 March 2007

  • User 200.168.32.36 has removed particular content from the trance music article five times, despite being reverted each time and warned twice. Refer to his talk page for the diffs. I'm not sure this qualifies as vandalism, but it is repetitive disruptive activity and should be stopped. 11:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn by poster; will be treated as vandalism. 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Per the talk page at Talk:Tin Oo, user User:Okkar is having trouble understanding the Attribution policy ("Read the source... pay attention when you read the article, it is historical fact, you should take a visit to Defense Museum in Yangon... have you ever been there?"). No one can make a change to one of his poor edits without having their own contributions attacked. When the fact tags he places are addressed (see Tin Tun, Ye Htoon, and Scouting in Burma), he removes them and places the fact tags once again, it is repetitive disruptive activity and should be stopped. 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Okkar has also made personal attacks on other editors accusing them of bias and favoring Burmese opposition pro-democracy groups. This is one on Hintha: ("Here we go, everytime the likes of you get caught redhanded, you scream personal attack, yet you expect to get away with the misdeed by trying to overcloud the issue at hand with personal attack claims. It is truely amazing to see this form of mentality in Wikipedia. Not only people cheat, lie and do all kinds of misdeeds, they have the audicity to claim to be victim. No wonder there are soo many sorry stories about Burmese refugees, this is just one fine example of the propaganda tactics of opposition groups - hit first then pretend to be victim .. amazing, truly amazing!! Okkar 02:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)") From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Myanmar
Here is another comment made by Okkar: ("Finally, the common sense has prevailed and triumphed over destructive mindset of opposition groups and their minions who are using this project as a political propaganda tool. It is a victory over those who seek out to degrade our country by insisting to use the old colonial name of the country as the name of the project and the axe handles who colluded with foreigners with mob mentality to remove anyone who don’t support or share their politically biased views from this project by any means necessary, even if it means they have to cheat or lied. Okkar 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)") From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Myanmar_%28Burma%29#Political_Agendas
In both quotes, Okkar is neither assuming good faith nor is he avoiding personal attacks on other editors. This kind of behavior and language is clearly counter to Wikipedia's standards. I've not witnessed any apology by Okar for this behavior. His pattern seems to be to cease temporarily this kind of behavior then start up again later. Based on this constant bad behavior, I raise the question of whether he should be banned from editing Wikipedia. SimonBillenness 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

12 March 2007

On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Porphyry_of_Gaza: The commments made in support of large-scale reverts seem very inflammatory, and involve personal attacks. Nor do they describe what was done to the article accurately. Can neutral editors take an interest? 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

13 March 2007

At (Wikiquette) #Informal Request for Comment on debate tactics: Editor A objects to Editor B's debate tactics, and claims that Editor B is using private rather than dictionary definitions of words such as "misinterpretation". The dispute has culminated in Editor B editing Editor A's posts. Editor B claims this is justified. Editor A is informally requesting comments on the debate tactics at the page above (or wherever it gets moved to), and seeks advice on whether to file some kind of formal complaint about the claim of justified editing of another's post. (Please note that page host User:Will Beback is not directly involved in the dispute.) 08:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

14 March 2007

User:Dking has been warned about this sort of thing, but the behavior persists and seems to be getting worse. 14:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

16 March 2007

User:Faranbazu has been warned regarding personal attacks such as those of this post, where he calls other editors fascists and accuses them of racism (or more specifically glorification of the Aryan race), but the behavior does not seem to change. 12:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Case was reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, with new evidence added. Shervink 22:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Could someone look at User:Alan2012's recent behavior, especially [51]. 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally: [52] (to which he didn't respond), [53] (to which he didn't respond), [54] (to which he didn't respond), [55] (to which he didn't respond). There's much, much more, but there seems to be a pattern. 15:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • My apologies, but it looks like I've escalated the problem by trying to intervene myself ([56] resulting in him attacking [57]). I'll avoid interacting with him further until this is looked into. --Ronz 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • His behavior is worsening. Since no one is responding here, could someone at least suggest other venues? There have been two AN/I's on him that have also not been responded to. --Ronz 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm going ahead with refactoring his comments. --Ronz 00:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

17 March 2007

Please can someone look at Ludgershall, Wiltshire#White Trash The Movie, particularly the second paragraph. I removed it under "Lack of notability" and it was returned. I would like another opinion. Putney Bridge 14:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

18 March 2007

I have encountered some personal attacks arising from a dispute with User:SU182 in relation to some major revisions that were done to the OS-tan article (see Talk:OS-tan#Revision_to_March_5.2C_2007. He has since also started looking at articles that I have not edited in over a year and nominating them for deletion or merging in bad faith. Any advice as to how to handle the situation would be greatly appreciated. --Darkstar949 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering what to do regarding an unregistered editor who has constructed an identity that includes a user page and a signature that implies they are registered (Jan talk). The fourth principle of WP:EQ is "Please register yourself" which includes the subpoint that says "If you have not registered yourself, do not construct a signature that might make it appear that you have". The user is engaging in controversial edits and when reverted the person's lack of registration has come up on the talk pages, e.g., [this diff]. Any etiquette advice on what to do in this situation? Buddhipriya 21:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:Hexe1998 and the user’s edits to the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma article. The source cited by User:Hexe1998 is not neutral, and, in IMHO, does not qualify as a reliable source. I also do not believe that it complies with neutral point of view and by him commenting on the contributor and not the content and calling people racist is in violation of no personal attacks policy and WP:CIVILITY. 23:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

19 March 2007

I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I became involved in an edit war before I learned about civilility. From that point I talked user Tilman about personal attacks and incivility. He continues to do it. I have been accused on an article talk page [[58]] of lying by omission and among other things. I have asked Tilman to stop the behavior, but he has not stopped. Can someone view those section and provide some feedback to see is if there is actually an incivility issue? Thanks John196920022001 05:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

20 March 2007

  • Help; anyone! For a week now, I've been discussing the pages Total Chaos and Team Chaos with User:GreatGianaSister and User:SuperfrogJumps. I've been putting up with their uncivil comments here (here and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Chaos, and defending myself against accusations of bad faith edits (they highlight some 'vandalism' edits I've done).

But now they've crossed the line into personal attacks. I left a message on their talk pages to try and diffuse the situation, but these have been rebuked.

If anybody can give a third opinion on this, or help diffuse the situation that would be appreciated, thanks. I feel like I'm on my own trying to defend myself. Marasmusine 07:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

21 March 2007

  • Joseph McCarthy, Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Violations of WP:REVERT, WP:CIVIL, WP:TEND, WP:NPA.18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC) I would welcome any commentary on my own behavior as well. 18:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    Well it looks like RedSpruce at least wants to discuss the edits; perhaps reverting them was a little uncivil, but it doesn't make you look like a vandal and I would assume good faith. Hear out his explaination and remember to keep your cool! Marasmusine 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

23 March 2007

Use of profanity here by longterm problem editor/suspected sockpuppet. 02:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Since WP:NOT censored, I don't think the mere presence of a "dirty word" is itself a violation of the rules, though the comments in question might count as a personal attack under WP:NPA. *Dan T.* 02:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It is most certainly a violation of WP:CIVIL.--Gene_poole 08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed here I also tried to smile to him, but I see it's unworthy. He suspects everybody that doesn't agree with his personal opinions, so everybody is avoiding to have discussions with him at Ambient music, New Age music and Space music. He regards himself as the only legitimate owner of those articles. I don't care, honestly.--Doktor Who 19:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The above comment would appear to violate WP:NPA too. --Gene_poole 05:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks *Dan T.*, for taking the time to respond, and please accept my apologies for this late reply, I am very, very busy in my life these days, and I have no spare time to come at this site. I don't want to be thought of as a "problem editor". I take your point and have deleted some comments that I posted when I had no time to carefully check, becouse, due to my job as a pc techie, I wasn't using my usual pc. Doktor Who 01:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Green108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) crapflooding a talk page [59] with agressive rant that seems to indicate a strong bias against the subject and editors associated with the BKWSU. Some choice quotes include, "by 'wikilawyering' I quote what the BKs have been doing here to control the article", "was brahma baba too emotional or not good enough for you appledell ?" [60], "according to your agenda as a bk" [61].

Since the article is under probation I have reported this to the arbitration noticeboard. Thatcher131 has requested the case be reviewed as he is currently not empowered to deal with this particular situation [62]. He has suggested that I follow normal dispute resolution process [63]. Although it was concerning a slightly different issue I am assuming the same applies to this editor also.

Although many useful addtions have been made to the article by this editor (after de-biasing [64]), I would appreciate that some basic assumption of good faith and appreciation of NPOV is established. 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would advice that we discuss this in the talk page of the Brahma Kumarisas most of the issues can be resolved there. I think since Green108 is fairly new at this process it would serve all to mentor him, rather than bite him:don't bite the newcomers. There are gentle ways to bring about folks and I do note that Bksimonb once accused me of "ranting". We have a good working relationship now and I am sure he can also do the same with this fairly new (not too experienced user). I have no issues with this user and will help where I can to offer my two pennies so as to help him along as I noted that he has made some good edits with well researched citations. Please note that all my participation in the arbitration committee case revolved around sources for citation/use and not of issues with editors as I see this as a distraction and not leading to any positive outcomes.PEACE TalkAbout 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi TalkAbout. I appreciate the mediating role you are playing on the talk page. I think this really needs the input of a non-BK such as yourself as Green108 certainly seems to have sensitivities in this area. I guess I was just a bit disappointed with the response I got to trying to establish a good working relationship [65] and I haven't seen any positive changes yet [66], but if you believe a turnaround is possible then and you can help then I'll post you a barnstar :-) I've heard it said, and agree, that arbitration cases here are almost always do to behaviour problems with editors. Even if they say they are content disputes. The BKWSU case also demonstrated that uncivil user behaviour results in the toughest sanctions. Do you really think Green108 is a new user?[67] Regards Bksimonb 20:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do think he is fairly new as per his edit counts. I do note that once before he was bitten by another editor (An orthodox BK) and he went away as he was rather sensitive at that particular time. Please note this link[68], and I don't think I need to touch on why I am advocating on his behalf. I note that wikipedia has tags for individuals that perhaps may need a little more understanding, or gaidance in an effort of wikispirt/cooperation. I often seek out the help of other editors with technical issues, and for guidance on the admittance of information. I think since he is getting his feet wet and has done his home work (research) we should mentor him and give feed back on the talk page of the article. I note that you and I have come a long way, I do have great respect for former centrewasis and current ones too. You cooperation/understanding would be most appriciated. PEACETalkAbout 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

24 March 2007

  • In the course of an edit war on Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Sulla16 has been making what I think to be personal attacks against me on the talk page. I've put in bold some of the parts I think to be attacks. Of course I have to accept my share of blame for the edit war, but I've found Sulla16 to be uncooperative and inflexible. Since the start over a month ago he's been abusive and insulting; I'm tired of it but I can't encourage his behaviour by walking away, as graceful as that would be—he'd just attack someone else later. Would someone please have a look? 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi. Over the last few days my edits over the last few months appear to have been targetted by a fairly new user who seems insistent on dishing out warnings to me based on false assumptions, incorrect information and assumptions of bad faith. Currently it appears to be just the two of us in disagreement, and following a recent edit I made to the person article, she trawledd through my contribution history and now appears to be devoting her attention to repeatedly reverting my recent document merge of nephology and cloud which was done after reaching concensus (i.e. no objections nor activity since 2004). Despite nephology containing one sentence only, this user seems insistent that it warrants its own article despite not having tried to gather anyone else's opinion. --Rebroad 15:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

25 March 2007

26 March 2007

Seeking some 3rd party input regarding conduct of MBHiii, particularly as it applies to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. User has been warned against attacking the credibility of other editors in AfD and DRV debates multiple times, see [69] and [70]. User was further advised against this kind of behavior on his talk page, and has responded that he feels entitled to continually discredit people as he sees fit.

Given that the user has on more than one occasion been warned not to violate WP:NPA this could be escalated further, however I feel that an RFC is not warranted at this point. I am hoping that some input from uninvolved 3rd parties might help the user to understand why attacking the credibility of other authors is inappropriate behavior, and lead him to avoid from doing so in the future. Thanks. 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

29 March 2007

Could someone comment, perhaps intervene, in the argument between Levine2112 (talk · contribs) and Ronz (talk · contribs) here: User_talk:Levine2112#re:User_talk:Warrior_Poet. There are accusations of harassment, biting newbies, assuming bad faith, and use of hostile language. 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please assist in an edit war that has become a admin war. Shell Kinney is allowing a user, jeanclauduc, to vandalize web pages and reverting articles back to innacurate versions. Other users have already commented on this PLEASE HELP

30 March 2007

The articles on Paul of Tarsus and Pauline Christianity have been essentially hijacked by a small group of "orthodox" editors with a severe sectarian doctinal POV (ie. Anglican and Roman Catholic). They will not allow anyone to make factual edits that challenge their POV. These folks need to be suspended from editing these articles for a time to cool off.12:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Archived reports based on format of Wikiquette Alerts prior to April 10, 2007

02 April 2007

The article on British Isles and particularly the discussion page is again having difficulty with accusations of POV pushing, accusations of bad faith, etc. This comes after a long period of calm and started at about the beginning of March. It would be nice to have some outside views. 12:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[71] Notifying a few active members of a project that the project is up for deletion. Is this a violation of WP:CANVASS, or is it covered as a "friendly notice"? Is it fair to presume that an active member of a project would want notices about the project's status? 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article on Bubba_the_love_sponge is going through continual changes to two sections. The bubbathelovesponge.net website is trying to keep itself on the page, despite its removal from one of the bits and it no longer being claimed as the "official" Fan Site by Bubba. The talk page keeps having the discussion about the .net deleted due to a refrence to a bubba recap (on the official bubba site, btls.com) that bubba said he wanted it shutdown. 71.126.108.231 04:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

03 April 2007

I had had recent difficulties with User:Loremaster on the Transhumanism, and Human enhancement pages (and later on my Talk page). He has reverted my edits and stated that he will continue to revert them. He has responded to my requests for discussion with the following:

I don't care what you find rude. I've explained my reverts or rewordings and I will continue protecting the article from your undiscussed, unsubstantive and clumsly contributions. As for comparing your work to mine, you are forcing me to point out that my work is in fact more important than yours since not only have I been the main contributor to this article for years but it is mostly my work that has ensured that the Transhumanism article became good enough to be featured on the main page of Wikipedia. Are we done?

I am certain that his actions violate Wikipedia policy. -- Noclevername 00:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my response and my actions. --Loremaster 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Loremaster has a disturbing announcement on the Transhumanism talk page, in which he proclaims people who aren't "primary contributors" to his article need to clear edits on the talk page or they'll be reverted. This includes useful edits like some by Noclevername: [72]. His comments on his reverts back to his version of the article include such gems as "(rv: please discusses change on the Talk:Transhumanism page since the article is considered complete)". If another editor has something useful to add, the article isn't complete. NO article is EVER "complete".Alvis 05:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* Putting aside the fact that I have explained why most of Noclevername's minor edits were not useful, my point was simply that since the article is "complete" in the sense that it is a well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable article (which was featured on the main page of Wikipedia), new contributors (who not often unaware of all the collaborative work, as well as settled disputes, which was involved in producing the current version of the article) should be mindful of not radically changing the article without discussing it on the talk page to avoid a dispute or, worse, a revert war. I confess that I didn't explain myself properly but I stand by my statements and actions. --Loremaster 16:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And how does automatically reverting edits by new contributors to an article of yours, regardless of what useful material they may contribute, just because the edits don't fit your vision of the entry, AVOID an edit war? Alvis 07:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted edits which were either obvious acts of vandalism or edits which were undiscussed, unsubstantive and clumsly, especially if they went against the consensus surrounding the article. --Loremaster 02:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

08 April 2007

  • Many articles which have something to do with cosmetic surgery, Gynecomastia, Breast, Macrotia, Panniculus, Pannus, etc. are having references added by a party invested (I can provide information that establishes this investment in the site for the user in question) in the listing to a site called plasticsurgery4u.com, which is at least in part a business site owned apparently by the user who is doing the reference adding. I will not name names since this is not the etiquette here. Some editors friendly with this editor are asserting that since the links are sometimes informative they should stay. Other editors are asserting that the links are spam. Having a communal opinion would be a good thing here. I personally am undecided whether this kind of behavior merits an RfC or not. The helpful links (some are just ads, but appear to most likely be bad or old links redirected to a general information page that is more commercial) are indeed helpful, couched in advertising though they are, so I am torn as to wether this site serves as an irreplaceable resource of primary source material self-published by an acknowledge expert (see WP:A), or whether it qualifies as spam (see WP:SPAM). To find more example articles, determine the editor's username in question, search Wikipedia for the link text ("plasticsurgery4u") and then check an article's history to make sure that user is to be credited for the insertion of the link. 21:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to semi-anonymously second this opinion. I found this user to be willing to discuss (See Talk:Umbilicoplasty) but they didn't seem to understand. 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have had difficulties with User:Maurice27. The details of the discussion are at Talk:Valencia (autonomous community). Basically, there is only one official name, in Valencian, for the region, in spite of the fact that Spanish is also an official language. I edited the infobox accordingly, wrote the arguments behind the edition in the talk page. He reverted them. I asked him to participate in the debate instead of reverting. He did not do so, but accused me repeatedly of "xenophobia", and violated 3RR, today April 8, 2007. I did not revert the page back, otherwise I would have violated 3RR as well. However, his unwillingness to cooperate, as I repeatedly asked him to, but his insistence on reverting without explanation or justification, and his insults of xenophobia, are a clear lack of etiquette. --the Dúnadan 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

09 April 2007

User:SlimVirgin has deleted and protected Darvon Cocktail for being "dangerous." A Darvon Cocktail is a mixture of drugs for effective and painless suicide. I believe that this is censorship and she seems reluctant to discuss/explain the deletion, as her response on her userpage was simply "wow." If there is a better place to discuss this, please let me know. 07:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Better to post this in WP:ANI. Are you the article name is right by the way? Because I don't see anything in the deletion log. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Under active discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review which is the forum for review of this type of decision. Newyorkbrad 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

10 April 2007

69.254.29.248 has been harrassing and threatening a few Wikipedia users. After being banned for a 3rr violation, he belittled the user who brought the violation to his attention, as well as the admin who banned him and the project as a whole. After his block was over, he started editing the articles listed on the afformentioned user's talk page, adding semi-protected tags and unreferenced tags to pages which did not qualify to either, and then blaming the problems on the user. After these were removed, 69.254.29.248 threatened to ban the user for removing tags, even though they were considered vandalism. 69.254.29.248 has been harrassing the user for nearly a month now, and continues to assume bad faith, committ personal attacks and be genuinely uncivil. 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:The_Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association and to a lesser extent the members of US Water Rockets (User:4.156.114.228) have repeatedly taken part in personal attacks against two independant editors on Talk:Water_rocket and [[73]] in an apparent attempt to discredit legitimate corrective editing on the associated articles. These attacks have been of a personal nature directed against User:Radiotrib and User:HenningNT and have taken the form of direct and/or inferred accusations of several activities including Slander. Please take action to stop this activity. 15:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Addendum - Reference Talk:Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association The above people have now enlisted another of their people to continue with these personal attacks on me. Will somebody please take action. Thanks - 13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


archived reports follow in new Wikiquette Alerts format

April 8, 2007

Problematic references in cosmetic surgey-related articles

Resolved.
  • Many articles which have something to do with cosmetic surgery, Gynecomastia, Breast, Macrotia, Panniculus, Pannus, etc. are having references added by a party invested (I can provide information that establishes this investment in the site for the user in question) in the listing to a site called plasticsurgery4u.com, which is at least in part a business site owned apparently by the user who is doing the reference adding. I will not name names since this is not the etiquette here. Some editors friendly with this editor are asserting that since the links are sometimes informative they should stay. Other editors are asserting that the links are spam. Having a communal opinion would be a good thing here. I personally am undecided whether this kind of behavior merits an RfC or not. The helpful links (some are just ads, but appear to most likely be bad or old links redirected to a general information page that is more commercial) are indeed helpful, couched in advertising though they are, so I am torn as to wether this site serves as an irreplaceable resource of primary source material self-published by an acknowledge expert (see WP:A), or whether it qualifies as spam (see WP:SPAM). To find more example articles, determine the editor's username in question, search Wikipedia for the link text ("plasticsurgery4u") and then check an article's history to make sure that user is to be credited for the insertion of the link. 21:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to semi-anonymously second this opinion. I found this user to be willing to discuss (See Talk:Umbilicoplasty) but they didn't seem to understand. 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the articles and talk pages; one of the parties has exercised the "right to vanish" from Wikipedia and there seems to be no active disagreements on those talk pages. It seems the links mentioned above are no longer present. --Parzival418 06:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute in Talk:Valencia (autonomous community) with User:Maurice27

Stale.
  • I have had difficulties with User:Maurice27. The details of the discussion are at Talk:Valencia (autonomous community). Basically, there is only one official name, in Valencian, for the region, in spite of the fact that Spanish is also an official language. I edited the infobox accordingly, wrote the arguments behind the edition in the talk page. He reverted them. I asked him to participate in the debate instead of reverting. He did not do so, but accused me repeatedly of "xenophobia", and violated 3RR, today April 8, 2007. I did not revert the page back, otherwise I would have violated 3RR as well. However, his unwillingness to cooperate, as I repeatedly asked him to, but his insistence on reverting without explanation or justification, and his insults of xenophobia, are a clear lack of etiquette. --the Dúnadan 00:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

April 9, 2007

Questionable deletion on Darvon cocktail

Resolved. DRV1 and DRV2 resolved that deletion was valid per article's unsuitability (i.e. an AfD would have rejected it, so DRV consensus was to keep article deleted).

User:SlimVirgin has deleted and protected Darvon Cocktail for being "dangerous." A Darvon Cocktail is a mixture of drugs for effective and painless suicide. I believe that this is censorship and she seems reluctant to discuss/explain the deletion, as her response on her userpage was simply "wow." If there is a better place to discuss this, please let me know. 07:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Better to post this in WP:ANI. Are you the article name is right by the way? Because I don't see anything in the deletion log. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it was Darvon cocktail. But yes, the Deletion review is the active discussion. --MalcolmGin 03:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Under active discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review which is the forum for review of this type of decision. Newyorkbrad 00:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
DRV1 and DRV2 established (by supermajority in the first case, and administrator judgement in the second) that article should stay deleted because the article would have failed AfD for WP:OR reasons, primarily. Some argument asserted that policy/procedure was not properly followed in original deletions, but this was not judged to be sufficient reason to retain/undelete article. Additionally, article was userfied at User:Greener grasses/Darvon cocktail but that effort seems to have been abandoned. Probable explanation: No editor was able to find reliable sources during Deletion Review. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

April 10, 2007

Harrassment and threats by IP user

Stale.

69.254.29.248 has been harrassing and threatening a few Wikipedia users. After being banned for a 3rr violation, he belittled the user who brought the violation to his attention, as well as the admin who banned him and the project as a whole. After his block was over, he started editing the articles listed on the afformentioned user's talk page, adding semi-protected tags and unreferenced tags to pages which did not qualify to either, and then blaming the problems on the user. After these were removed, 69.254.29.248 threatened to ban the user for removing tags, even though they were considered vandalism. 69.254.29.248 has been harrassing the user for nearly a month now, and continues to assume bad faith, committ personal attacks and be genuinely uncivil. 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks in Talk:Water rocket by IP user

Stale.

User_talk:The_Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association and to a lesser extent the members of US Water Rockets (User:4.156.114.228) have repeatedly taken part in personal attacks against two independant editors on Talk:Water_rocket and [[74]] in an apparent attempt to discredit legitimate corrective editing on the associated articles. These attacks have been of a personal nature directed against User:Radiotrib and User:HenningNT and have taken the form of direct and/or inferred accusations of several activities including Slander. Please take action to stop this activity. 15:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - Reference Talk:Water_Rocket_Achievement_World_Record_Association The above people have now enlisted another of their people to continue with these personal attacks on me. Will somebody please take action. Thanks - 13:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

April 12, 2007

Personal attacks in Talk:John Money by User:alteripse

Resolved. the MedCab case is marked as closed: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-12 John Money.
  • Alteripse is making personal attacks on Talk:John Money. I suggested mediation and they responded "If you need to bring someone else in to review and explain this to you, feel free." See the MedCab request for a more complete description. 00:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks in Wikipedia talk:Railway line template by User:Sheetcot

Stale.
  • Sheepcot referring to another editor as a "rogue editor". Reinstated comment after "NPA" removal. 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be the same incident as the latter? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 02:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ALECTRIC451 making threats

Resolved. ALECTRIC451 states on his user page he has left Wikipedia
Appears to be a dispute. Need a third party to mediate (describe the information in my talk page if you want me to). AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Alteripse is making personal attacks on Talk:John Money

I suggested mediation and they responded "If you need to bring someone else in to review and explain this to you, feel free." See the MedCab request for a more complete description. 00:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Sheepcot referring to another editor as a "rogue editor". Reinstated comment after "NPA" removal. 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Appears to be a dispute. Need a third party to mediate (describe the information in my talk page if you want me to). AQu01rius (User • Talk) 23:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

April 14, 2007

Personal comments by User:Quale in a AFD discussion

Resolved.
  • Quale making personal comments in an AFD [75] 03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Addressed. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 04:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

April 16, 2007

Persistent accusations of trolling

Stale.

Failure to heed concensus following closed formal TfD process

Stuck.
I have reviewed the various pages. It seems to me that while there are some comments that are somewhat abrasive, there are not major violations of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA (at least in the edits I was able to find). However, the various editors are strongly commited to their positions and the arguments are fairly heated. There has been some mention of trolling, but that is only a personal attack if it's not true. If it's true, it can be an accurate description of behavior. But it's hard to tell the intention because users may each have a different understanding of the term. So my first suggestion is that each of the editors take a step back and slow down so the emotional intensity can subside. That way it's less likely that someone might write somethng they would later regret.
In particular, I see a concern that there has recently been a formal TfD closed with consensus to keep the disputed template, yet some editors are still arguing for deletion after the TfD was closed. Because the dispute is continuing after the formal action, it seems that further dispute resolution procedures are needed. I recommend reading WP:Dispute, and then choosing an approach depending on the details of the current situation. Keep in mind when choosing the next step that some of the procedures require more than one editor to try and solve the problem first and only some of the procedures are effective for disputes between only two editors. --Parzival418 20:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[I have re-edited my comments above to strike out the material related to the separate issue as noted in the comments below. Regarding the issue above, even with the separate issue removed, it still seems to me the initial recommendation was correct and that either the editors should disengage for a while, or seek some form of dispute resolution procedure as noted in the comment.] --Parzival418 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment The first pair of evidential diffs above refer to a different user then the rest of this section. The confusion was caused in this edit 20:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that. It makes a lot more sense now! I was not the one who made the edit you noted, so I was not aware that the two issues got combined. That apparently happened as part of refactoring this page to make it easier to use. From now on, each user adding a report will make their own headline, so this problem should not be repeated.
For now, I've updated the section headings above to match my understanding of the situation after reading your comment. This leaves your initial report still open, and the separate dispute that follows it still referred to dispute resolution. I am re-editing my above comment to remove the trolling reference that was generated by the mistakenly included diffs you pointed out. If you see anything here that needs additional correction, you are most welcome to comment further. I have not yet looked at the essence of your complaint. I'll try to get to that soon, or perhaps another editor will stop by and help out. Thanks for making us aware of the glitch with the heading. --Parzival418 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

April 17, 2007

Use of insulting and uncivil language by User:Loremaster

Stale.
Since you seem to be only person unable to grasp simple concepts, I don't see why I should be pending backwards to dumb down the article by making it less consise.
...
...Your points are ridiculous which is why I didn't and won't acknowledge them...
...you don't understand simple concepts. You seem to have not read the sources cited in the article that would help you understand these concepts better. I've improved (rather than dumbed down) the article in response to some of your comments. As for the rest, I am not going to waste my time responding to what I consider ridiculous points. If you think this lacks courtesy, I don't give a damn. I am not here to make you feel good. I'm too busy raising the quality of Wikipedia articles to Good Article status, which I have succeeded in doing several times.
This is the second such offense, and he is still guarding the Human Enhancement article and the Transhumanism article from edits like a junkyard dog. Please help him adjust his attitude. 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack and racial comments by User:Daniel Chiswick

Stale.

April 20

Threatening personal attacks

Stuck. This user has been contacted by two editors with suggestions including referral to WP:ANI

I've been on Wikipedia since 2004 and over that time I have been called many things, and don't take it too seriously, it's the nature of Wikipedia. But this case is different because I'm concerned about my safety. It stems from a long running "dispute" on the Huns page about the origins of the Huns. Modern scholarship is pretty clear that the origins of the Huns is "we don't know" (all fully supported and cited in the article, along with other POVs), but in Turkey, it is taught in state-sponsored schools as part of a nationalist agenda that the Huns were Turkish with no other views allowed (you can actually be jailed and tortured for teaching anything else in Turkey). So the Turkish Nationalists get extremely emotional and angry that anyone suggests the Huns were anyone but Turkish. This has been on-going for years - I have recently been called a "son of a bitch antiTURK" (note edit comment) and "Turks fuck me very hard" and another ominous note "how can we get rid of these people". If this was some loser in a basement in Ohio I would not care but these are well funded organized and armed people. These personal attacks have been intermittently coming in for months now. I live in a metro area in the US that has many Turkish immigrants and my personal information is all over the web and on Wikipedia I am not hard to find. I'm not really sure what to do because of intellectual integrity of maintaining the article, but these covert and overt threats concern me. -- Stbalbach 14:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit War Brewing on DeVry University

Resolved. Codeplowed Sockpuppet confirmation resulted in a block; report is listed here on WP:AN/I

User:Codeplowed and some IP users are repeatedly pushing this article away from a NPOV. For whatever reason the affiliated users have refrained from fighting back, so it's mostly been sliding in one direction. I tried archiving the talk page and tagging it POV in the hopes of getting things off to a fresh start but that was all reverted. User:208.0.29.250 just asked me to continue helping, but I don't have experience dealing with issues this large. I feel if it's not put under control soon, the other side will start retaliating. Could a more experienced editor step in, please? Vagary 00:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added comments at the talk page of the article. I don't see a big edit war brewing, though the emotional climate is somewhat heated. The article needs editing based on reliable sources. I recommend you read the comment I entered there and review the Wikiguides I listed. All editors have the right to improve the article. Using references to support your edits will make them stronger. Don't let yourself be distracted by emotional comments on the talk page. Focus on the article content with references, one step at a time. --Parzival418 04:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and created an account and made edits, and User:Codeplowed reverted them all... um... what do I do now? OtterZero 13:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)OtterZero
That's a good choice. I've replied on your talk page and at the article talkpage. It seems to me there has been a lot of improvement already. I don't think you need to post anything further here unless something changes and becomes troublesome again. If you need help with editing questions, please refer to the links I placed on your talk page. (By the way, when you sign with ~~~~, you don't need to add your name, it will appear automatically. --Parzival418 19:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is looking a lot better, but that user is now -- I can't think of any other way to say this -- "flipping out" on the talk page. He keeps removing the talk banner and posting huge screeds. Should we just ignore him? I generally follow the "don't feed the trolls" guideline whenever online, but it's kind of like he's turning the talk page into his own personal blog. OtterZero 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've reviewed the new activity. I've added a vandalilsm wanring to the talk page and reinstated the talk page header. Also, posted vandalilsm and content deletion warnings on User:Codeplowed's talk page along with referrals to helpful Wikiguides. If this behavior continues it may become necessary to refer to WP:AIV. Hopefully that will not be needed. --Parzival418 21:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up. Disruptive activity continued. User:Codeplowed restored archived talk page (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX) content, added a nonsense edit in the middle of another editors' post, and added another long soapbox essay to the talk page. I posted the final level-4 talk page vandalism warning on his user talk page. I've done as much as I can with this. If his vandalism continues, it needs to be reported to WP:AIV. [Oops - forgot to sign this entry earlier today --Parzival418 01:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)]

I just checked User:Codeplowed's contributions -- he's now doling out "vandalism" Warnings to other users without reason, including an inexplicable "last warning" to User:X42bn6 with a disturbing edit comment, "You need to be called on order".OtterZero 23:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that too. Unless you want to go into a more formal procedure, I think the best solution is to ignore him as best you can and focus on the article. As long as he doesn't edit war on the article itself or interfere with your ability to edit there, that's the most important thing. If that happens or if the vandalism becomes too much to ignore, then I think you need to use either WP:AN/I or WP:RFC/U (make sure to read the instructions at WP:RFC first). Check in with X42bn6 as well, he's got some good ideas on this.
Unfortunately, I don't think this page can help any more. We don't have any administrators here so if an editor does not respond to reasonable communications, you need to either ignore it or escalate to dispute resolution procedures. You're welcome to contact me on my talk page if you have further questions, but I'm closing this issue here because I don't see more to be gained from posting further details here. --Parzival418 23:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
He said he "was done" with me and "Peace" in an edit summary to me - not sure what that means, but perhaps he has left? I'm not too bothered about the warnings but I prefer to wait things out and see what will happen. x42bn6 Talk 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"Peace" is certainly a positive result if that's how it turns out. I hope it goes that way. Thanks for the update! --Parzival418 18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Guess not: WP:COIN#DeVry Inc. Vandals and Spammers. I think this is getting out of hand. The very first thing this user did was purge recent edits, then list you on AIV for vandalism. x42bn6 Talk 21:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw that and posted a reply. There have been a couple comments and I think that report will be closed right away. The situation with the problem editor does not seem at all resolved though. --Parzival418 03:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical Summary: This report was also listed at WP:RFC. The talk page for the article received comments from uninvolved editors. Talk page archives were set up. significantly Wikified. However vandalism and edit warring by User:Codeplowed continued on the talk page. Multiple warning notices posted. He responded by posting warnings on the user pages of the editors who warned him. Nothing more we could do here. Report was listed at COI and RFCU. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Codeplowed confirmed, Checkuser case page includes complete summary with links to all reports, including COI/SPA report. Codeplowed Sockpuppet confirmation resulted in a one month block plus indefinite blocks for the sockpuppet accounts; report is listed here --Parzival418 Hello 03:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

April 21

General (and openly admitted) bad faith by CameronB

Resolved.

I was first alerted to CameronB by this post to Talk:Coffee. After making this post he deleted the "fact" tag from the item in question. The tone of his post to the talk page was so hostile and disruptive that I could not think of a way to respond to his comment, although another user did (and a fourth user reverted his edits to coffee). I considered posting something to his Talk page regarding WP:V and WP:Civil, however upon visiting his user page and talk page it became clear that not only would any comment I made be unwelcome (and possibly result in a personal attack) but also that CameronB is operating in bad faith with the rest of Wikipedia, and admits as much. A brief visit to his edit history shows that he has done this on t least one other page, as in this "fact" tag deletion, followed by another uncivil comment to the involved talk page. I have no idea how to approach this user to address his behavior. I am reuctant to follow the traditional dispute resolution process before reporting him to an admin because he has made such a point of making clear to all that he could care less what other users here think, or about Wikipedia etiquette. He does seem to have some occasional interest in actually improving articles when not "deleting content as I see fit[76]," but I don't think he should be allowed to continue to rage about as he currently is. Any suggestions?--Margareta 00:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed this report and links and my first impression is to concur with the description of the problem as posted here. I've informed the writer of the report that it has been noticed. I will review further and post here again when I have more information. Meanwhile, other comments are welcome. --Parzival418 02:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
My analysis is that CameronB has engaged in uncivil behavior. So far it's been petty and consistent, but not frequent or sustained from day to day, and not directed as a personal attack to any one particular individual. According to his user page, he views his approach as humorous rather than malicious. He apparently is a regular contributor to "Uncyclopedia" where that approach is not uncommon, unlike in our environment here. So far, he has not engaged in multiple reverts or edit wars that I can find.
For now, I've advised the reporting user on ways to respond on the article and related talk pages. There seem to be other editors there to create consensus and protect the articles from damage.
I did not add a warning template or other comment on CameronB's user talk page. He makes it very clear he is not interested in receiving communications of any kind. If he continues to cause disruptions, it may be necessary to refer this to the administror notice boards or RFC/U. --Parzival418 05:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

April 23, 2007

IP-only self-promotion and Conflict of Interest

Resolved.

In my editing of articles dealing with music of New Jersey, I have come across two IPs seemingly belonging to the same editor.

When looking at these edit summaries, It appears that these IP addresses are somehow involved with Marty Munsch (I assume it's a work/home thing). He seems to be adding his name to articles where it is non-noteable, and more recently removed notability and reference needed tags from his own page. I have left messages on both IP userpages, and the vandalism continues. I also have not reverted his edits for some time. The reson he has an article on himself is my doing (which I now realize was a bad move). I figured he would concentrate on that article rather than inserting self-promotion into multiple articles. Attemps to contact the user beind the two IP addresses have not been sucessful.

  • Should I request to have the IPs blocked?

He has hit far too many articles to protect them all, IMO. Help, please. TearJohnDown 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too soon to request a block. Although the IP removed the notability and unreferenced tages from the Marty Munsch page, there appears to have been only one warning and no mulitple reversions of the templates so far. There seems to be two separate issues:
  1. Marty Munsch article: not clear if it meets WP:Notability, but either way, the page is completely unreferenced. It would be appropriate to replace the unreferenced tag along with note on the talk page to ask the editor(s) to engage in conversation rather than just reversions. If the tag is reverted again with no explanation or references, then re-place the tag and add a 2nd or 3rd level warning template to the IP user's talk page (Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace). If this happens again, you might want to report it to Administrator notice board for vandalism. About the question of notability, Marty Munsch has certainly been around in the music business for a while - lots of Google hits, though nothing by a significant third-party at first glance. I recommend asking for references rather than contesting notability. If references can be added, notability may be satisfied.
  2. The IP edits to other articles: mostly in the form of adding the name of "Marty Munsch" plus links to his punk rock movie. I recommend reverting the edits if you don't believe they belong - but make sure to discuss your reversion on the talk page. Ask how the edits relate to the article and for references. I didn't see multiple reversions or edit warring in the histories, so the IP might just accept your changes. One reversion is probably best, to avoid trouble. If he reverts again, seek to get consensus from the other editors on those pages. If tensions escalate, review Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, to decide what to do next. --Parzival418 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

April 24, 2007

Incivility on List of Bloomingdales/Parisian locations AFD

Resolved.

In the following AFD nominations, a dispute between how to correctly interpret WP:NOT#DIR and WP:ORG has became uncivil. Comments include smart-aleck remarks such as [79] and [80], as well as others. Please help; the uncivil discussion is on:

Although I'm involved in the dispute, my request on here is non-partisan. Tuxide 02:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the discussions. There is one user who's behavior is somewhat uncivil and rude, mostly sarcastic, but not engaging in direct personal attacks. I did not see an overall pattern of incivility in the discussion other than the one user, whose statements on the two pages are similar. While his comments are annoying, there's a good chance he's hurting his own credibility by his negative attitude, rather than successfully making his point. There are some good suggestions for responding (or not responding) to those kind of comments at WP:Civil#General suggestions. If you feel I missed something important and there is more incivility happening in these discussions that the one user I mentioned, please post additional comments here. --Parzival418 05:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Four minutes after you responded, the same editor said this [81]. Wow, talk about timing. Apart from this wtfage, my main concern on these AFDs are to get someone to counter my argument without being a jerk about it. Tuxide 05:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
My personal impression is the best way to respond to something like that is simply not to respond. Take the high road. Gently bring the discussion back to the content of the debate. Organize your thoughts, make clear statements directed to all the editors. You don't need to convince that one particular user and that will never happen anyway. What you need is consensus, so concentrate on making the best points you can. Don't let one editor's unfriendly provacations distract you. --Parzival418 06:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bose (company)

Resolved.

I am concerned by the discussions on the Bose corporation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bose_%28company%29#Bose_.26_high-end_audio Two editors seem to hold a POV with no citations that they wish to see in the article, and wish something with 7 reputable citations that disagrees with their POV to be removed. I have been accused of making disruptive edits and am therefore making this Wikiquette alert to get outside input into this in order to resolve this. ASH1977LAW 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at this some more later but I think there's more going on than meets the eye. As a former dabbler in audiophile gear myself, I agree with the view that Bose is not a high-end manufacturer, and that the sources ASH1977LAW is pushing are not reliable sources for that specialized subject. A cite from a publication like The Absolute Sound would be a lot more convincing. I will AGF til I look at the article more closely but will disclose that my COI radar is tingling. 75.62.7.22 16:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that Bose produces audiophile gear as such would be reviewed in The Absolute Sound, that that it does produce high-end_audio products (and there are 7 seperate citations for this from places that do review such products). However, my main concern is that I have been accused of of making disruptive edits and wish to get outside input on this. I have today changed the high-end link at the top of the page to one linking to the opinions section of the article as a compromise position and have expanded the opinions about bose section. I have yet heard back from the editors that I am in conflict with as to weither this is an acceptable compromise but hopefully this is resolved. ASH1977LAW 17:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility from A Link to the Past

Resolved.

He has been changing pages into redirect with out any conscience. He has changed Demasked into a redirect to Mask, the two have nothing in common other then the name. He also change FLUDD into a redirect to Super Mario Sunshine witch doesn't have a section on FLUDD. FLUDD is a major character in Super Mario Sunshine. Another user put a coment on his page in response to what he did on Demasked. The only response I've gotten from him are in edit summaries.--Bobby D. DS. 06:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

He insisted that what he is doing is in line with WP:BOLD.--Bobby D. DS. 07:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the situation and don't see this as a civility issue. The editor making the changes has a lot of experience and moves fast with terse edit summaries; his talk page comments are assertive, but not uncivil. It appears to me this is more an issue of learning the bold-revert-discuss cycle and other consensus building wikiguides. I've posted some suggestions on the reporting user's talk page along with some links and a referral to Wikipedia:Editor assistance if more help is needed. This does not appear to require dispute resolution procedures at this time. --Parzival418 Hello 08:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User unwilling to participate in consensus building discussion

Resolved.
Disregard... I thought of something. Sancho (Review me) 07:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

April 28, 2007

Alleged Incivility from Calton

Resolved. no evidence of incivility was noted

Myself and another user have noticed problems with this user's tone. See [82] and [83] and his response to the latter [84]. Is it too much to ask for some uninvolved editors to keep an eye on this user and let him know when he is being uncivil? It seems he believes his is entitled to uncivil to users he disagrees with. IPSOS (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems he believes his is entitled to uncivil [sic] to users he disagrees with. Wrong, but you just keep thinking there, Butch, it's what you're good at.

I certainly believe that stalkers, spammers, edit-warriors, trolls, fanatics, nannies, busy-bodies, and people who actively make attempts to insult my intelligence shouldn't be coddled, encouraged, or enabled, no. I certainly hold an entire page devoted to encouraging unwarranted and intrusive nannyism -- like this one -- ought to be laughed at at every opportunity and its cast of do-gooders looking for chances to exercise their self-assigned moral superiority be treated with the disdain they deserve. You want to be a missionary instead actually, you know, editing and/or writing an encyclopedia, perhaps your local church has some openings for overseas missions.

I certainly think anyone who shows the generalized attack on some users that you, IPSOS, have on your user pages makes you a particularly rich choice for gassing on about civility, not to mention the general immaturity and contempt for other editors the "practical joke" on your page shows. Clean up your act, first, and maybe I'll listen. --Calton | Talk 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the above speaks volumes to Calton's incivility and his "holier-than-thou" attitude towards others. It also shows that Calton has no interest in changing his behaviour and will continue to be incivil towards anyone and everyone until he goes over that boundary between assertive and blantant incivility that he sits on, on a daily basis, and gets blocked or banned for it.
I suggest, regardless of the history that him and I might have, that he get himself back on the assertive side of that boundary and tone himself down alot. You can be assertive and civil at the same time. - SVRTVDude (VT) 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
...his "holier-than-thou" attitude towards others. Nope, simply my dislike of the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that.
In any case, given your complete inability to follow your own advice in general or keep any of your promises in particular...well, let's just say that your advice isn't worth the electrons it took to put them up on the monitor for anyone to read. Personally, I'd suggest to you that you knock off the petty stalking, mmmkay, before you get blocked or banned for it. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"petty stalking"....oh, here we go with that again. Calton, first, I am not incivil with anyone not even you and second, this is about you and your incivility and has nothing to do with me. Anyway, you have and are clearly demonstrating that very incivility for us with your above statements. Calling anyone you come in contact with "dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical" is incivility at it's best (or worst in this case) and it is a surprise it hasn't gotten you in more trouble, but if you keep it up, it will and fast. You can't go head-to-head with an admin (as you have done in the past) and not expect some kind of consequence. You can't snap everyone's head off and give the "holier-than-thou" "don't insult my intelligence" routine or the "I'm being stalked" routine and not expect to have no one listen to you, have everyone think you are an egotist, and it get you in a helluva lot of trouble. You can't make a mistake and when someone politely let's you know of it, go on a paragraph and a half tirade. You can't berate anyone because they have a difference of opinion or revert an edit you have made. You have been blantantly incivil with no less than 100 people here on Wikipedia and you show no signs of stopping.
Personally, I would rather not deal with half the people I come in contact with on a daily basis and would LOVE to tell a ton of people exactly what I think, but I can't. It's that whole common sense and civility thing, that same thing you seem to be having a problem with. As the old saying goes, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar". You may not like it, but in life, you have to deal with it...and if you don't here, you are going to get blocked or banned.
Now, let's address that incivility and try and not make it about me, shall we? - SVRTVDude (VT) 09:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

His response to my "spamminess" was completely uncivil. By dealing with "stalkers, spammers, edit-warriors, trolls, fanatics, nannies, busy-bodies, and people who actively make attempts to insult my intelligence" in such a manner he provokes them doing even more harm to wikipedia. While his 14 archived talk pages have probably done some good to wikipedia he makes many others "like me" want to jump ship and never edit another article again. If wikipedia would like to retain its loyal editors I would suggest dealing with users like calton in a more up front way (maybe a few day block so he can cool his head). Andman8 03:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

..he makes many others "like me" want to jump ship and never edit another article again - If by "like me" you're referring to your permabanned business partner MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs), that won't be a great loss, since your own major contributions seem to center around a) pimping a commercial site for your own benefit; and b) writing about your relatives. And, of course, accusing me of incivility is a bit rich, given your Talk Page response when I answered the questions you asked (See his questions and my response). And then there's the whole issue of posting while drunk. If you want to use Wikipedia to line your own pockets, expect a response, like here.
So, any questions? --Calton | Talk 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Calton, this is why you will never get along with ANYONE here. You have an ego the size of Jupiter and growing quickly. You think you can break any rule that suits you, you think you can berate people as you see fit, you think you can stalk people around Wikipedia and it's OK, you think your behaviour is acceptable, you think your "intelligence" is something to be in awe of (please!), and you troll around Wiki with that "holier-than-thou" attitude and expect people to kiss your ass. Dude, you would have had the crap smacked outta you a long time ago if pulled this kinda behaviour in public. You need to grow up....and don't make us post all our "favorite" diffs about you. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing WP:CIVIL violations. User Calton should be banned from WP. 76.166.123.129 05:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment from non-involved third party. I've read this discussion since it appeared here over a month ago. After reviewing the comments and the diffs, I do not see in Calton's comments a pattern of violating WP:CIVIL. Maybe he has done so at times, but I have not seen it in the discussions I've reviewed. My impression is that Calton's method of communicating may be a bit abrasive at times, but also that his comments seem to be very much on point and his quoting of the Wikiguides seems to be appropriate, and not an example of Wikilawyering.

On the other hand, regarding the comment by Neutralhomer here... (According to his user page, he is the same person as Orangemonster2k1 and SVRTVDude, who posted in this section earlier - if I am mistaken about that, please post a comment to clarify). Neutralhomer's comment contains several instances of uncivil communications. For example: "You have an ego the size of Jupiter and growing quickly." - this is a statement about the user, and not about the user's behavior, making it a personal attack and a violation of WP:CIVIL. Neutralhomer accuses Calton of stalking and trolling but does not provide evidence of those behaviors, and uses uncivil language, as in this statement: "you would have had the crap smacked outta you a long time ago...". Of all places to make such a comment, placing it on a page devoted to improving etiquette between editors seems somewhat ironic and inappropriate.

To be clear, I have had no prior communication with any of the editors involved in this discussion and I am not "taking sides". It is my opinion that everyone needs to calm down and concentrate on editing the articles and not on the personalities of the people involved in the editing. If someone writes something that bugs you, just ignore it and respond to the content of the discussion and not to the possibly abrasive personality of the editor you are debating with.

Beyond offering that possibly over-obvious advice, this page cannot help solve a sustained dispute involving emotionally charged communications like what we have seen here. Perhaps a more formal dispute resolution process will be needed. Personally, I think those procedures are a lot of work and everyone has better things to do with their time. The best solution is for all the parties to relax and to each decide to not take the other's comments personally, and move on with good faith editing. --Parzival418 Hello 04:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no incivility on the part of Calton. This, [85]. this and this from Neutralhomer indicate a pattern of abusing Wikipedia processes such as here and WP:AN to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute. Such disruption violates WP:HAR and WP:DE and will result in a block if it continues. FeloniousMonk 05:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

::You want proof? Gimme about an hour (trust me, I will need it. - NeutralHomer T:C 05:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Ah, to hell with it...it ain't worth my time. Calton, do what you want. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:75.62.8.225:
Hi. I saw that you did clean-up on the Jeanne Marie Spicuzza article. Do you know why the record of your contributions were erased? Just wondering 76.166.123.129 23:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Because the article was deleted as per the discussion here, as you very well know, Jeanne. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Uh oh. I hope Ms. Spicuzza is aware of this. 76.166.123.129 06:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Also see comments on my talk page. 76.166.123.129 06:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Ip incivility and personal attacks on Talk:Men's rights

An anon Ip (User:89.100.237.34/User:89.100.225.58) has made a number of uncivil remarks and personal attacks gainst SatyrTN & Slp1 (calling Slp1 "small-minded [86] and using excessive markup to make a point against SatyrTN) and showed general incivility on Talk:men's Rights after they were asked to provide sources for material they added to the article. They have shown symptoms of WP:OWN and general tigerish behaviour.--Cailil talk 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I replied. Maybe it will help. --Haemo 02:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Incivility from Admin. User: Steel359

Stuck.

Admin. User: Steel359 has been extremely uncivil (see archived history and history log comments for his talk page, relating to posts and content by user 4.236.xx's). Referred to legitimate post as "rubbish" and said "go away" and reverted (and kept protected) original Richard Hell page to an unproductive version he'd previously noted as such. Refused to civilly engage and has been hostile, uncivil/nasty AND performed vindictive and wrong admin. action on RHell page. He's preventing discussion on his talk page by protecting it; please resolve. This appears wholly wrong admin. conduct and action. (Perhaps email him to unprotect his page so you can post your response on it)[Note he has deleted most of discussion - need to view history on 4.236's edits]4.236.15.30 02:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not the correct page to report difficulties with administrators. This page is monitored only be regular editor volunteers. If you want help with an administor issue, you may wish to list your report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges. It may also be a good idea to review the dispute resolution Wikiguide. --Parzival418 Hello 03:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


April 30, 2007

IP refusing to accept a set consensus

For around half a month, 208.27.127.30 has reverted a merger on Mighty the Armadillo. It was set around a month ago to merge all minor characters of that series to where ever they fit. At first I just assumed that it was just the regular fan not getting how the whole thing works, but then he started citing "votes" from a discussion during '05 as a consensus to "keep" the article. Since then, he has only come back every once and a while to revert whenever the page goes back to a redirect instead of even going to the talk page or going to the target article to start a discussion for a new consensus (like it has been recommended to him).

I was hoping he would become bored like the rest of them, but I guess he isn't like them. And before anyone says it, it was thoroughly discussed, so this doesn't require a new one. I assume this would be classified as a content dispute, even though it's just him (though there was one other person who has reverted it, but he's a separate case), so I assume it wouldn't belong on WP:ANI or anything. Nemu 21:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I see on the user's talk page that he/she has been given a direct warning to stop continuously reverting material. Perhaps you could leave at the user talk page a more specific invitation to join discussion at the article's talk page. If that has already been tried, I would suggest a firmer (civil) warning along the lines of the previous warning issued. Sancho (Review me) 16:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


May 1, 2007

Talk:Polish Defense

I am concerned that this discussion about concerns regarding this page will become a problem of commenting on the contributor instead of on the actual content. Also concerned about the same happening on Talk:Greco Defence. FrozenPurpleCube 23:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a sec, the only reason that people were commenting on the contributor is because that contributor was being, if not rude, certainly quite brusque ("Get back to me when you've improved it") Really Mr.M, it's a bit much to complain about NPA when you provoke people like that. EliminatorJR Talk 14:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be especially bruque or rude. My apologies if it's taken that way, but if the worst you can say is "It's rude to say "Get back to me when you've improved it" then I'm afraid I'm not going to take your concern as any more valid than when you complained I removed Kasparov from a list of baby boomers. And given that you are hardly an uninvolved editor, I'm afraid I'm going to ask you to let somebody who isn't personally involved comment. FrozenPurpleCube 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Being completely neutral, I would've taken umbrage at that remark, as it sounds like you're ordering people about. I appreciate it might not have been meant in that way, but I can't blame Sjakkalle for being slightly peeved. EliminatorJR Talk 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but your claims of not being involved are not supportable. You're not neutral, and claiming that you are is hardly going to convince me of anything but that you are even less fair. FrozenPurpleCube 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I give up. I wasn't involved in this, and was merely trying to point out why the disagreement occurred. I don't see any point in continuing, so I'll back out of this one now EliminatorJR Talk 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Your involvement in this specific situation is irrelevant, you have a past involvement in the situation. Surely it's not so hard to fathom why I don't consider you truly neutral? Frankly, I'm baffled that you'd even claim otherwise. FrozenPurpleCube 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Outside view: FrozenPurpleCube is being borderline disruptive in both of those talk pages, and likely trolling at Talk:Sicilian Defence. The comments directed at him in them are valid. The other editors of the articles seem to be handling the situation appropriately and have given FrozenPurpleCube good advice; I hope he follows it. 75.62.7.22 07:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, but I'm disinclined to follow the advice of an anonymous IP address since you could be any number of people who decided to log-out and try to anonymously swing support for your side. Pardon me if I seem suspicious, but sockpuppetry is a common problem. This is especially so since you seem somewhat informed of the situation from the start. FrozenPurpleCube 13:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not involved in any of these articles and don't know any of the people involved. After reading this discussion and the related talk pages, I see that tensions are somewhat elevated but I don't see troublesome violations of WP:CIVIL. My suggestion is that everyone just relax a bit and not take the comments so personally. Certainly, it's better to keep comments perfectly focused only on content and not on editors, but if someone strays from that and makes a comment that might be interpreted as insulting (whether intentional or not) just let it go. It can only affect us if we let it. Often, it's hard to tell how someone means something in a written note. On the other hand, if there are truly uncivil comments such as insults or threats, that would be different and would need to be addressed. When the comments are mostly just annoying,... just let them go and focus on content.
I don't mean to make light of anyone's experience here; I've encountered annoying editors plenty of times, and it's, well... annoying! I believe the best way to improve the articles and to enjoy editing is to de-escalate the emotional temperature and concentrate on facts, references, and clear writing. If the disruption becomes so much that it stops progress on the articles, then dispute resolution procedures may be needed. I don't see that in this situation though, at least not so far.
I'd like to offer links to a few articles. Some of these may seem basic, but for me, I find them valuable to review now and then for insights on how to respond in difficult situations: Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Wikipedia:Truce.
Good luck with the articles! --Parzival418 Hello 23:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Note also FrozenPurpleCube's participation at Aldol condensation and its talk page, as pointed out by another editor who FrozenPurpleCube ticked off (comment now removed [87]). 75.62.7.22 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, an editor who has decided to attack me in a very rude and offensive fashion, such that it was removed for uncivility?? Is there some reason I should be concerned that that reaction reflects on my behavior? FrozenPurpleCube 16:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Readers can check your contributions and form their own opinions. 75.62.7.22 03:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly why it's not necessary for anybody to make their point here, if anything, it's counter to the purpose of this page. FrozenPurpleCube 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


May 3, 2007

Insults from Calton

1 - recent conflict: The background is that a discussion over the deletion of a userpage ended with my acceptance that Alphachimp and Calton had acted properly in the tagging and deletion, thanks to Alphachimp's responses to my arguments.

My issue is with the insults by Calton made during this discussion, on my talk page. My responses are at Calton's talk page.

I don't believe I have been uncivil myself during this, but if I have then I would like to correct that and am prepared to apologise. I have already apologised to Alphachimp, for suggesting his deletion was an example of incivility, and withdrew that statement. The disagreement with Alphachimp was robust but without insults.

2 - Relevant history: After writing the above, I noticed there is already a complaint about tone, #Incivility from Calton, on this page.

Also, the comments at User_talk:Azukimonaka#Talk page comments are an example of "Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice" (WP:CIVIL#Examples). --Chriswaterguy talk 00:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Article: Kevin Potvin

Stuck.

I'm concerned about the repeated revisions of an editor on "Kevin Potvin." He or she has repeatedly removed references to articles that appeared in mainstream newspapers, including the National Post, and additional details that would shed light on an ongoing controversy. This includes Kevin Potvin's own writing. The editor seems to have confused libel with facts-that-are-just-unflattering to Mr. Potvin. Perhaps a more experienced editor could take a look? Thanks! FactsFirst 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is about a living person, special policies apply. Please review this article first:
If you feel you need to follow-through with a report about this, then use one of the forums listed below.

Thanks. --Parzival418 Hello 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

May 4, 2007

Conflict between Andrew c and LoveMonkey

There has been a history of conflict between myself and LoveMonkey, and I have tried to smooth things out in the past, see User talk:LoveMonkey#Personal issues with me. However, things are getting pretty heatead at Talk:Gospel of John. I have asked LoveMonkey to remain calm and civil, but the personal attacks towards me seem only to increase. I would like uninvolved editors to please examine the recent posts by both parties, starting with Talk:Gospel of John#Lead, authorship, and revert (sorry if it is a lot to read). You are also welcome to view our talk pages and some of the previous disputes we have been in. I want to know if I have done anything wrong, and I want to know if it's ok for me to be bothered by another editor calling me "unethical" and so on. Thanks.-Andrew c 19:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c - Good day. "EE" here. I've taken a look at the details regarding this conflict and it is my observation that the dispute in question is not particularly complicated. To the best of my judgement, your edits to the article merely reflected your concern for lead section policy, and I, and most editors would be in full agreement that there cannot be an overflow of content in the introductory section of any article; all the articles need are basic explanatory elements, and more than enough information is already provided. All in all, I've seen no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that your changes and explanations were not done for the right reasons. I must add, however, that LoveMonkey has not been uncivil to an extreme degree. Uncivil, yes. Closed minded, I'm not entirely sure, I think this user is acting only in perceived interests of the article, just not doing so properly at this time. I will try and reason. You've done nothing wrong, and I think this is a dispute that can be easily resolved. Hope this helps.EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 07:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting and giving your thoughts. However, it doesn't seem like things are getting better. Do you have any advice for me? I've tried to clear things up, apologized, asked to move forward, asked the user to assume good faith, and to discuss article content instead of interpersonal disputes, etc, but nothing has changes, and the user still seems quite spiteful towards me. Are there next steps I can take? -Andrew c 16:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I invited the user to give his/her opinion right here on this page, but has declined to do so at this particular time. Maybe the message has not been recieved yet? I don't know. All I can recommend for now is that you sit tight. If you continue to experience more incivility, unnecessary reversions, or any otherwise hostile actions over the next day or so, don't hesitate to report him to the administrator noticeboard. I'll be glad to help you in that regard, but let's just wait and see if it really has to come to that. Give it one more day. EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

May 9,2007

Activism and attacks by User:Green108

Could someone please take a look at Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University. There seems to be some intense activism against the subject [88] and editors [89] there. Now the attacks have extended to other pages. This example shows presumption of bad faith, using affiliation to discredit an editor and baseless accusations [90]. Green108 has re-inserted the attack after it was deleted. Thanks 07:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

May 10, 2007

Misleading signature by User:TTN

Resolved.

The user has a signature that does not resemble his username and, more importantly, exactly matches that of another user, User:Nemu, but has ignored my requests that he change it. Rhindle The Red 14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to instruct this user to change the sig, if he refuses, he should be reported to the administrator noticeboard.EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 23:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Update here, it looks like TTN has agreed to change the signature, though someone should be notified if he/she decides to change it back.EnglishEfternamntalkcontribs 23:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Mikkalai

User:Mikkalai, an admin, is becoming increasingly hostile, condescending, and non-encyclopedic in his/her talk edits. This is primarily evident at recent edits to the RFD for Illegal number, in which s/he repeatedly claims, "read my lips: "Whe-re is the re-fe-ren-ce for the term "il-le-gal num-ber?"'", etc., attacks every post wanting to keep the article in question, and has recently begun using low-level profanity, such as "bullshit". There have been a number of users who have complained about Mikkalai's conduct on that page. samwaltz 19:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any more behavior problems then just that one, because it was in a 2 day period, it could be some real life problems. Some more examples would be nice. --Drestros power 21:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Drestros power

I participated a little in this AfD, and have encountered Mikkalai in the past, and I can testify to his general incivility and rudeness. Just looking at the first ten of his contributions, right now (02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)), shows edit summaries like "rm unreferenced babble" ([91]) and "rm false statement you guys cannot read sources with attention: tsam was the only Jewish *captain*" ([92]). Here, he again uses the term "unreferenced babble" (May 10); here, "bullshit" (May 11). For examples of consistent incivility, he seems to often let his POV against Romanians get in the way of editing the encyclopedia: he was involved in an edit war in early 2006 in Moldovan language over whether or not it was a distinct language from Romanian (see archive of talk page); he opposed the FA nomination for the article Rus' Khaganate (December 2006) quite vocally -- one user said, "It seems to me that the purpose of this reader is to derail this FAC nomination. It's his right to oppose, yet he makes several gross mistatements of fact that must not go unanswered."; in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolohoveni (October 2006), he became quite uncivil when the discussion went against his POV, saying "The article is FALSE, for crying out loud. Did yoo care to read my explanations?", "This is English-language encyclopedia, which is not supposed to describe ignorance of Romanians. The article text is false" (and several other times claimed the "ignorance" of one thing or another), and, my favorite, "Why do I have to have an evidence that it is bullshit? It is the job of bullshit perpetrators to prove that they are correct. If it was not your question, then please ask exactly what you want." I'm sure I could find many more examples, but I think this is a pretty representative bunch. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Mikkalai is indeed being uncivil. I would suggest leaving a message on his talk page and if nesicary reporting him. If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against them or another editor, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action according to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. For more possibilities, see Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges. Administrators can be removed if they misuse their powers. Currently, administrators may be removed either at the request of Jimbo Wales or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers or placement on administrative probation. The technical ability to remove administrator status rests with stewards. There have been alternative procedures suggested for the removal of sysop status, but none of them have achieved consensus. Some administrators will voluntarily stand for reconfirmation under certain circumstances; see Category:Administrators open to recall. An often paraphrased comment about adminship is the following, said by Jimbo Wales in Feb 2003, referring to administrators as sysops:

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

– Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry

ASH1977LAW 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: Mikkalai has also been blocked twice for violating 3RR because of his POV. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 03:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You can try to message him about his recent edits, but it seems like he would not answered because of his talk page..Saying that, but you can always try. --Drestros power 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Drestros power

sigh. I left her/him a message, which has since been deleted without comment. samwaltz 21:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The user is also removing important merge proposals from the page in question, without waiting for the proposal to be resolved, or giving her/his rationale. [93]. samwaltz 04:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
My advice is to take this to Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges ASH1977LAW 11:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
He indeed has had soem problems with keeping control of himself. I'm tired of it. His language, yelling over the internet, sarchasm, and harshness on the newbs is disrespectful and brings the wrong image to wikipedia. This must be stopped. --Stealthrabbit talk 01:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To be strictly correct, I think this issue is about editing and user relations, not about misuse of admin privileges. A non-admin could equally well do the things Mikkalai is accused of, and they would be equally unacceptable from a non-admin. So I think this should go under Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#General_user_conduct. I'm not aware of this user being credibly accused of misuse of admin privileges. Maybe someone could say that his being an admin aggravates the other issues, but I'm not sure that's even really true; and if there's a punishment, I think it would be more appropriately a general editing block - as might be applied to a non-admin. Taking away his admin status wouldn't stop him from being able to do all the things he's accused of here. As the closest thing to an admin-priv abuse I've seen: he did at one point [94] threaten me with "your IP will be blocked." However, I've heard that from plenty of abusive non-admin users too, and until he actually does block someone inappropriately or specifically threaten to do it himself, I think a passive-voice threat ("you will be blocked" as opposed to "I will block you") is just garden-variety incivility. What I'm getting at is that he didn't use his admin privileges to make the threat. I didn't even know he was an admin until several days after I first encountered him, and I was surprised (but not as surprised as I should be) when I found out.

Side issue: what about this business of deleting comments from his talk page, usually without resolution? The talk page even has a note explaining that that's his policy. I don't know all the rules of this place, but I thought that deleting others' comments from your talk page without resolving them was already a big WikiNoNo in and of itself, even without anything else going on. 67.158.73.188 14:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC is now at Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Mikkalai samwaltz 12:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

May 11, 2007

Incivility by User: E. Sn0 =31337=

Resolved.

User: E. Sn0 =31337= has been very uncivil to many different vandals and has been warned at least twice. Here are five of the many examples (with more here and here on his talk page).

  • You've visited my user page, I see no way in Hell's Kitchen you didn't see that perfectly clear message about bigoted troglodytes like you. I'm calling a spade a spade. Look at my contribs; you're not the first throwback to the Inquisition I have judged and found wanting, and you'll certainly not be the last. Now get your bigotry and hate off my Internet!
User talk:67.175.171.102
  • (Undid revision 130162517 by 70.90.76.113 (because he is fat))
Revert to Minicomputer
  • (Undid revision 130161344 by 70.90.76.113 (because he is a big fat loser who vandalizes wikipedia))
Revert to J. Presper Eckert
  • Watch yourself, lest you cross me.
User talk:66.65.177.82
  • Have a nice day, nerfherder.
User talk:Eggserroneous

Honestly, I am not sure how to deal with this situation. Thanks for any help. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 21:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

May 12, 2007

Incivility by User:DreamGuy

User:DreamGuy keeps calling me a blattant spammer and a sock puppet of User:Jsimlo, reverts and deletes everything I try to create. No warning, no explanation, just accusations with no proof. I am already involved in AfD because of him. I think I just got into a longer problem between the User:DreamGuy and User:Jsimlo, when I started to write an article about User:Jsimlo's software. Please, see my talk page and this talk page for direct accusation. Thank you. Give it back 13:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not reverting everything he does (even though he came to my talk page to dare me to), just the parts spamming User:Jsimlo's website, which up until today was all this new account had done. DreamGuy 23:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Until my complain here, you did revert or asked for deletion of everything I contributed with or to. If you should feel otherwise, give one sample I have written before the 13:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC). Sorry buddy, I am sure about my claim. And you still can not deny calling me a blattant spammer and a sock puppet on all occassions, without any proof or any inital warnings. Give it back 04:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything anoyone can do to stop User:DreamGuy accusing me of sock puppet on my own user page, even without evidence? This particalur issue was already written on the AfD page, his talk page, my talk page, some other admin talk pages, yet no one else suggests I am really a sock puppet of someone else. User:DreamGuy is still the only one that accuses me of so. I do not want my user page to be reading a sock puppet warning just because some User:DreamGuy does not like me, because he did not break me. Please help and explain what to do. Thanks. Give it back 14:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This sounds like it goes beyond the scope of Wikiquette alerts. You might want to take your concerns to the Mediation Cabal or file a Request for Comments. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Mediation Cabal or file a Request for Comments is the way to go here.ASH1977LAW 17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy seems to have a pattern of deleting material without justification and being incivil to those who try to talk to him about it. My particular complaint is his deletion of Mixoparthenos and the ensuing discussion at Talk:Mixoparthenos, but his talk page suggests this behaviour is normal for him.--Yannick 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I too have now been wrongly accused of being a sock puppet. I have only ever had this one account.--Yannick 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated insults from User:Anittas and User:Icar

User:Anittas, who has been blocked for a long term before, has repeatedly posted inflammatory comments and made allegations about me, other users, and an ethnic group in general, all of these over the past days. The situation escalated on April 22, when he left a message in Romanian on User:Bogdangiusca's talk page, addressed at that user, but making deeply offensive comments about Wallachians in general, which are in line with other, less disruptive comments, he has made in the past. The text is to be found here. I shall translate the relevant part of the message, and I believe other Romanian users can confirm the rendition; note please: other parts of the message are also offensive, but I will not comment on them myself, since they did not implicate me.

You nose held up high you; I have said and will say it over and over: inhabiatants of Muntenia, Oltenia and the Banat are the uttermost criminals in Romania, if not in the world. Check out that morning star who thinks himself high and mighty for having picked up a few things abroad [I cannot really tell who this comment refers to, but I think it refers to me]. He thinks he has greater objectivity than the rest of us. One thing should be clear to you: you can parade through all the universities in this world; you can have the most beautiful women; and the smartest children; and you can have social relations with the world's biggest cockerels, but in the end, you'll still be a nation of shoemakers. I remember when Bucharesters used to come to our city, and church bells would ring to announce their arrival. And what is it that they did? They came in like children proud to have never seen beetles and of being afraid of cows; and their parents would produce the odd phrase in French and they said over and over, "but we do not have that in Bucharest." "Well, of course, you stupid cow, that may well be because you are in Dorohoi and not in Bucharest!" is what I used to think to myself. Still, I do not get how come you are so arrogant. How much of it can be blamed on the Phanariotes? Why do you think you are so special? Well, it may be that you are exotic, but if I want to see parrots, I'll check them out at the Zoo. And that Morning Star [me?], I am to gather, fraternizes with others like you for him to tell you "hey man"--"yeah, man" etc. Oh, oh you sorryasses have ruined Romania's image everywhere you went: in Spain, in Italy, in France, etc. And I am to gather that you, who call yourselves intellectuals; say you are different, but in what way are you different? Well, I'll leave you for now. Keep healthy and have a good time :).

I felt insulted by this type of comments, but I did not report it outright, since I figured this was not characteristic of Anittas, and figured that he was not going to repeat this type of attack. Therefore, I replied only to ask him, half-joking, if he was aiming to get himself blocked again [95]? Interestingly, his answer was: "Well, that depends: if you start sending off emails [?] or beating a drum, these guys will pension me again. I thought it could stay here, between us. :)" [96]. Over the past days, however, inflammatory comments specifically aimed at me surfaced over and over again (and again made mention of my Wallachian origins in contrast with his): [97], [98]. Recently, there was this comment, made by User:Icar and making various allegations about me (including about me having "a Trotskyist POV" - which is speculatory misrepresentation; "a hatred of Romanians", an "abhorrent practice" etc.); Icar is the subject of a previous complaint here, for precisely the same type of accusations (I expect that to be taken into consideration). To this comment, Anittas has replied with the words: "I find [Dahn] a very destructive member, but I urge you to watch your step. He has connections"[99]. Note: since this is recurrent and I consider parts of it highly disruptive, I would like to ask editors who weigh in to point out what the next step should be (in case they agree with my assessment). Dahn 11:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This goes FAR beyond a simple etiquette concern and should be referred to WP:ANI or through the mediation process. If this user has been blocked before, such personal attacks may merit further disciplinary actions.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

May 13, 2007

Abuse from User:Ehheh

Work in Progress Work in Progress - comments welcome

I've read over the guidelines for external links and have had a site (I didn't make) that I would like to recommend to the External Link section of of the PHP page. It has valid PHP articles, many PHP scripts available, a PHP forum with lots of resources available to members, such as; code snippets, forum support, and the site has been online for over 7 years. I believe this site has just as much rights (if not more) to be on that page as the External Link: Quercus has (which is just a java add on). However, this user keeps removing my link from the page without a reason. This user continues their abuse to constantly unedit any changes I make without a reason. The user's validity, as his user name 'Ehheh', gets me to believe that this person is just a spammer and stalker.

I'm stuck on how to handle this user and if he decides to follow me around more to remove any contributions I make. Or the user unfairly removes any links I decide to add. I can't constantly dispute this problem by just re-adding all my contributions. How would I handle this problem? Thanks everyone.

Dear Anonymous,
Normally we take the discussion of a wikiquette conflict to the place where the discussion is happening. In this case, though, it appears that you haven't yet taken the recommended steps toward opening a dialogue. Let me mention a few things here, then:
There are a number of factors that you might not be aware of. First and foremost, you are editing Wikipedia from an anonymous IP address. While that is allowed and welcomed, a large portion of spam and vandalism comes from anonymous accounts so many users tend to assume the worst.
Second, Ehheh has only made one edit to the PHP page, as far as I can see, this year. The first person who undid your edit indicated that they believed it to be link spam, which is an appropriate action especially in light of your unregistered status. When that occured last month, the appropriate next step was to bring the subject up on the talk page. You can still do that, and I highly recommend that be your next step.
I hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia, and that my note here helps you understand what is going on with Ehheh and the other users. Please feel free to ask me directly if you have any questions--I'm not the most experienced editor but I would be happy to help you find answers to your questions in the documentation and the community.
Gruber76 14:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

May 14, 2007

Racist attacks by User:Hayden5650

For about two weeks this user uses disruptive language at Talk:Romani people. I gave him an initial advice, then I made a presentation of who this user is. However, the verbal violence increased, even boasting as the preserver of the NPOV of this page. Generally speaking, the racist attacks as a whole on this talk page become really stresfull, I think they should be monitored closely by the admin staff, to keep away violent language. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Jrod2

Resolved.

Myself and this user got into a dispute over whether certain references on Loudness War were "spam" or not. I disagreed, and reverted his removal of the source from the article. After he reverted it back, I submitted the matter to the informal Third Opinion page and I am currently waiting for a response. That whole situation is fine, and I admit I may have gotten a little heated in it as well, I even apologized and he apparently accepted my apology. However, since then, he's edited my user talk page and accused me of not acting in good faith and spamming Wikipedia and then marked the contested article Link Farm and Spam and threatened that it could be considered vandalism if I removed them. I'd be happy with just contesting the article, removing that stuff from my user page and ignoring him, but I'm worried he'll report me or something if I do so. Illuminatedwax 07:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

An addendum: he is now making threats about putting people on the Community Sanction Notice Board for removing a personalideas tag and making blind reverts (Talk:Loudness_war#Page_has_been_protected) Illuminatedwax 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Another addendum: This user is repeatedly readding the spam tag when several editors have clearly indicated that the links are not spam. At the very least, can someone please tell me if I can take off the spam warning on my talk page and/or revert this user's constant adding of spam tags and removal of important sources? Illuminatedwax 23:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Fourth addendum: This user is repeatedly reverting my changes on Loudness War and posting vandalism notices on my talk page for no good reason, and going berserk about links to outside sources. Illuminatedwax 08:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC) I should also not that this user is bothering other editors of Loudness War like User:Kjoonlee. Illuminatedwax 08:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
User has no more quarrel and removed the warning tags from my user template. Hopefully they will do or allow the same for other users. Illuminatedwax 04:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

May 15, 2007

Incivility by User:Radiant!

Radiant is currently seeking to turn a discussion over policy at Wikipedia talk:Notability into something personal, by casting accusations about 'pushing agendas' and repeatedly posting on my talk page to goad me into argument. This is not the first time he has done so. --Barberio 13:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Nonsense. Barberio is objecting that I ask him questions on his own talk page. Ironically, this is not the first time he has done so; he has had a habit in the past of forbidding users to contact him on his talk page. WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 13:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The only user I have ever 'forbidden' from contacting me on my talk page was Radiant, when I asked him not to continue posting messages on a specific topic which I considered closed. --Barberio 13:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Radiant, I respect and like your obvious intensity of your drive toward goals, and I think it often gets you further than you would otherwise get. But I also think sometimes it makes you get a bit carried away. You tend to dismiss other folks' requests/stated desires if you feel you have a good reason to do so. Sometimes you're right (and may be in this case) and sometimes you aren't, but you don't really seem to care as long as you have a good reason. You've noted yourself that Wikipedia's not about rules or policies, but about the Wikipedia itself.
      I suggest to you that it may be bad for Wikipedia if you keep alienating editors by not caring about their requests or desires (i.e. that you leave them to their own devices, etc.). Further, if you've bad blood with a particular user, it might be best to leave well enough alone and wait for another like-minded editor to come along and object to the behaviors that bother you so much. This might help you avoid the appearance of acting in conflict of interest (i.e. you already have bad blood so why mess with this user again?). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Special offer: You can win a Barnstar today by editing this section and disagreeing with me! Supplies limited, submit your entries quickly! >Radiant< 13:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't want a barnstar, but I will investigate the issue you reported at WP:ANI of a user who follows you around and posts negative comments about you on all your threads. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 14:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Radiant, you suck, you are totally wrong and I disagree with you entirely. O:-) --Kim Bruning 14:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC) I even threw in a personal attack as a personal free bonus! O:-)
  • Just fyi, I'm kind of... indifferent about barnstars, though it was a bit cheesy to get one from Barberio. I'll probably eventually move it to my user page. I think they're interesting for the variety they come in and the motives often attached, but I don't really need them to be here and go about my business. :) --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow up to this...

Radiant seems to be veering towards somewhat disturbing activity that seems to be heading in the direction of targeted harassment.

  1. Making a perfunctory 'Vote' in a AfD nom I've been involved in for an article that he showed no other interest in. Then making a random unsupported accusation of sock puppetry. [100]
  2. Deleting comment asking him to substantiate both the sock puppetry accusation and his 'per WP:CORP' reference. [101]
  3. Sneaking in an 'under the radar' attempt to make substantial content alterations to WP:N, with a inconspicuous edit summary claiming to only be making a formatting changes. [102] Later appearing to try to goad me into an edit war or personal dispute - [103]
  4. Making a revert which, sadly, I can only believe was based on who made the edit rather than the edit's merit. [104]

Maybe an intervention is needed here? --Barberio 14:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Having reviewed this... yes, I agree. ASH1977LAW 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
What's with Barberio? He seems very well-intentioned, but since I'm active on the COI noticeboard, I got drawn in when I noticed he had nominated two templates for deletion that are sometimes used in COI controversies. He even left a 'canvassing' warning there, as though newbies were likely to find their way to that discussion. Then I observed that, when the TfD debate seemed to be running strongly against his view, he went and severely edited the two templates being discussed. Appearing on his Talk page since this behavior seems to be outside the usual norms (at least in my own experience) I see that he is upset that some people (like Radiant) are posting on his Talk page. While I can't testify that Radiant never loses his temper (I have some vague memory to the contrary) I observe that Radiant's comments on Barberio's Talk page seem to be sensible. EdJohnston 18:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Barberio is lying. (1) I find AFDs via the daily log page, not via the articles, thus it is routine to comment in an AFD for an article I haven't edited. That AFD contains apparent sockpuppetry, e.g. Andrewburt, E n moon and Brashley46, hence my comment. (2) Moving comments is, rather obviously, not deletion. (3) That is in no way a "substantial content alteration". Neither is it goading, and Barberio was involved in edit wars before that comment, e.g. here. And (4) Wrong, I have been objecting to complicating or weakening CSD policy for a long time. I would suggest a healthy dose of WP:KETTLE. >Radiant< 08:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
There were significant content changes that altered the meaning of the guideline beyond simple formatting changes as suggested by the edit summary. Altering "give guidance on" to "determine", and adding in "While secondary sources do not, in and of themselves, convey notability". These seemed aimed at returning to a stricter proscriptive requirement. --Barberio 09:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And that would be a straw man. I would suggest you stop attacking people or seeking sanctions against them, and do some constructive editing instead. >Radiant< 09:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, after more than 8 hours of WP:IAR being under RfC, 4-6 editors agreed on a new version of IAR's formatting/phrasing, requested a project page edit, only to be slapped down by (who knew?) Radiant!, with a very disrespectful link to WP:WRONG. But I expect I'll get called a liar too. It seems to me that there are more gracious ways of turning down editors who feel they are building early consensus, but not in Radiant!'s world, apparently. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:WRONG is not disrespectful, it is a clear and simple explanation of why, if a page is protected over an edit war, asking admins to revert the page to the other version is inappropriate. >Radiant< 11:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That's interesting. Looks like your use of WP:WRONG also upset the editor whose comment you replied to when removing the editprotect tag. It really is time for you to belly up, Radiant! It's clear that you don't like to put a lot of effort into being likeable, but when you start alienating editors, one could ascribe it to an actual intentional pattern of yours. Alienate editors you disagree with - problem solved when they go away! --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Need I point out the irony of you making personal attacks on the Wikiquette Alert noticeboard? I note that Mondegreen is likewise attacking Eagle on his talk page. Note that despite your implication to the contrary, I am not in fact involved in this "disagreement". >Radiant< 11:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh, I'm sorry, I should instead just link to essays and guidelines which are of course totally unimpeachable when making my point. Radiant, don't be a dick. Mondegreen is talking about you on Eagle's talk page and asking him to weigh in on your behavior. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


May 17, 2007

Possible/probable personal attacks from User:Bus stop on those who disagree with him

User:Bus stop repeatedly is accusing other editors who disagree with him regarding the content of List of notable converts to Christianity as antisemitic, blatantly pro-Christian, blatantly cabalistic, and so on, regularly impugning their motives for their actions, and rarely if ever responding to questions or comments which he is pointedly asked to respond to. John Carter 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I replied, but beyond an outside third opinion, I'm not sure if it will help much. This user definitely has an axe to grind and is starting to make unfounded noise regarding antisemitism, though usually not at any particular user except through implication. This user definitely needs to chill out. However, the page has already been protected by an admin, so personally my response would just be to ignore them. Illuminatedwax 18:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Update, since the protection has been removed: basically user Bus stop seems to be intent on insisting that Bob Dylan is Jewish, therefore, since he remains in the list of converts to Christianity, the page is antisemitic. Also there is the possibility this user takes offense at any people of Jewish heritage being listed as a convert. User John Carter is continuing to fan the fire by arguing with Bus stop, and it's getting nasty. I recommend that the matter of Dylan's Jewish heritage be settled in an official matter, since this is the crux of the matter. There's already been an RfC (no consensus); I'm not sure what the next step is. Illuminatedwax 09:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbecoming Conduct from Administrator User:FCYTravis

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I did not know about the three-revert rule or understand the concept of Edit war prior to a recent censure from User:Alison. I now understand both concepts. Had I understood these concepts, I would not have gotten into an edit war. FCYTravis, however--as an administrator--understood both ideas, and yet he chose to engage in an edit war and slander me by labeling my edits “homophobic” rather than take on my arguments in Talk:Homosexuality. When he was cautioned by User:arichnad on his Talk page, he stated, “I took it right up to the three-revert rule and no more.” That is terribly disappointing behavior from an “administrator” and it is a discredit to Wikipedia’s credibility. No comment was made to him on that subject.

I wrote a very similar comment to FCYTravis on his talk page. His response was to simply delete my comment. I expect better behavior from an administrator, and I would like to see FCYTravis censured and his unbecoming conduct go on the record.LCP 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A Second issue: FCYTravis did break the three-revert rule

A second issue has come to my attention. Although I was censured (and rightly so) for breaking the three-revert rule, FCYTravis was not. I took another look and it appears that FCYTravis did break the three-revert rule. The rule states, “An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period.” FCYTravis’ first revert was 16 May at 21:51. That means that prior to 17 May at 21:51 he should not have made more than two more reverts. However on 17 May, he made three more reverts, the last of which was at 17:45.LCP 02:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also see this thread on my talk page - Alison ☺ 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

May 18, 2007

Incivility by User:Genjix

User Genjix called me an idiot Talk:Keepsake_(computer_game). I request a warning for his insult. Furthermore he insists with an edit war on an unsourced statement in the artice Keepsake (computer game) which is not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and no original research. --134.109.240.58 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I reprimanded him and advised on the situation (user simply said "You're an idiot"), but really, I don't think this situation required outside action at all.Illuminatedwax 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I was offended by him and I have absolute no tolerance for such uncivilized behavior. I request therefore a warning on his discussion site. More regarding the article on the discussion site. --134.109.72.212 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

He repeated his offense and said to me "Go to hell". I request an official warning for his behaviour on his discussion site. --134.109.72.218 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:MaxPont

MaxPont has posted a long personal attack [105] to harass editors who've questioned his original research, which he's been using to support his edits. This comes after he's used edit summaries inappropriately [106], [107] and some minor edit warring [108]. --Ronz 00:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Handyandy33

This user has repeatedly made personal attacks on myself (and others) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Waters. He has accused me of being pro-censorship and a "grammar fascist" (see this edit), and has done nothing but attack and attack some more. I posted this on his talk page, and he claims that post as my attack against him. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

May 19, 2007

Ancient India

Work in Progress Work in Progress - comments welcomeBoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 00:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A nasty revert war is in full swing in many articles about ancient India, between user:PHG and user:Devanampriya. Essentially PHG adds information on contacts between east and west, whereas Devanampriya would prefer to keep the articles about India only. The arguing has gotten quite nasty. I've made one attempt at diplomacy, and was shot down immediately. For my brief involvement, and a representative list of some of the edits in contention, see talk:Kushan Empire#Regarding Map. In the interest of full disclosure, I am personally more inclined to side with PHG, as I am very interested in references to India in Greek and Roman sources, and would like to be able to find them in the articles (Devanampriya considers this to be "Orientalist" "fanwank"). But frankly, whatever your opinion, I think this debate could benefit from some uninvested outsiders to cool it down, and help establish a community consensus. That way it won't just be about these two editors (When I tried to chime in, I was virtually accused of being a Meatpuppet, but then I have already admitted my biases). --Iustinus 22:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

May 21, 2007

Continued Hostility by User:Betacommand

Not sure what's going on with this user, who was recently stripped of his admin powers for primarily 'bot related issues, but his talk page has included such recent gems as "Um the foundation has made these rules get the fuck over it," which, while crude, isn't directed at a specific editor... unlike his blatantly inappropriate "matthew shut the fuck up, I wrote the code my self..." Perhaps this is just earthy language run amok, but maybe, just maybe, this user needs to take a time out? Jenolen speak it! 09:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:MalcolmGin

MalcolmGin falsely states that a certain editor calls others "whiny jackasses" [109]. Calling people a jackass is incivil; putting words in other people's mouth is likewise incivil. >Radiant< 11:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To me, the use of WP:WRONG can be summarized as calling the editor it's used to reply to as a whiny jackass. I'm sorry you disagree, but the summary stands. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:WRONG is in fact an important and long-standing corollary of the protection policy, and nowhere mentions either the word "whiny" or the word "jackass". If you misunderstand WP:WRONG that would seem to imply you feel strongly over a relatively minor difference, and I would suggest a nice cup of WP:TEA. >Radiant< 11:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Given that not only have I but another editor strongly objected to your use of WP:WRONG in administrative process, I would think it might be a good idea for you to review the article and figure out whether you really think it's the most supportive use of your time as a custodian in Wikipedia or whether you could find a less derisive resource to link to when seeking a shortcut for just saying what you think is the matter. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If you think WP:WRONG is harmful and/or derisive, I suggest you nominate it for deletion. >Radiant< 11:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You are aware that it's a soft redirect, aren't you? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes. Are you aware that (1) we have a process for deleting redirects, and (2) meta also has a process for deletion? >Radiant< 11:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Just curious. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing when anyone would link to WP:WRONG in seriousness when responding to an editprotect request, least of all an admin. It seems at best unforgivably misreadable, and at worst unforgivably insulting. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Like I said, if you think it is unforgivable, nominate it for deletion. That's all there is to it. Other than that, if you believe my behavior is unforgivable, there is no point in discussing it further, since nothing I can say will make any difference. >Radiant< 12:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, I think you are fully capable of being able to stop yourself from linking to a contested article as part of your of course fully supportive and civil administrative actions when telling editors that the timing of their requests to use your admin powers is not right. Of course you know better than us when is a good time to unprotect pages. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 1) Yoda speak is easily misinterpreted as a lampoon of Chinese-English Pidgin, and though you probably don't know it, I'm half-Chinese. I'd appreciate it if you'd lay off the Yoda/Confuscius speak for the duration of this conversation.
  • 2) You expect your critics to be perfect and to have endless patience. Eventually I'll stop being totally forthright and completely humorless in the face of your derision and start being sarcastic and ironic. I think that more than half a dozen attempts of mine to try to get through to you through patience and fortitude alone count as good faith. Invoking KETTLE at this stage makes me think that you really aren't taking me and my feedback and objections seriously and instead are just looking for ways to torment and make fun of me.
  • As such, I'll be over here in my talk page if you feel you must be hurtful and disrespectful again. Do have a good day. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

May 22, 2007

A grudge held by User: The Prince of Darkness

Stale.

I merged some character articles a while ago, and ever since, he has held some petty grudge against me. It involves calling any sort of merging I do vandalism, commenting on every complaint I get from people (usually just fans after a merger), and things like that. The most recent thing is when I try to cut down cruft on Waluigi (a minor video game character) he just reverts it without a word. Any sort of comment on his talk page is just ignored. If anyone does look there, there are probably a few uncivil comments left by me. I was just dealing with four people just like him at one time, so I was a little annoyed. TTN 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

Stale.

Sarah777 is an Irish editor who has objected to the existence of an article on the "British Isles" because she considers the term offensive in Ireland. She has advocated redirecting the page, either to Britain and Ireland or to British and Irish Isles. Recently she has posted long comments on the talk page whose purpose is to criticise the conduct of the British (whom she often calls "the Brutish") - in most of them she attempts to draw an unfavourable comparison between Britain and Germany under Hitler,[110][111][112]. Additionally she frequently leaves messages and edit summaries calling other editors "vandals" and "trolls" and accusing them of personal attacks[113][114][115][116]. While anything that might constitute a personal attack is always mild, she has been treating the talk page as a soap box for quite a while.--Lo2u (T • C) 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think she is a bit out of control; I left a note on her talk page. However, she's not really hurting the article itself, just being an irritant on the talk page. Illuminatedwax 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, in responding to this alert, this user decided that my response wasn't civil or coherent enough and left a warning template on my page saying so. Illuminatedwax 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a problem I had too. She increased her talk page vandalism count by one when I posted something. And her comments on the talk page are as strident as ever. She's been warned by at least five users, including one admin and responds to all of them with the same accusations of incivility, vandalism, trollery and "imperial myopia". Her response to the above "please keep your opinions about the issue to yourself." is pretty typical. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

May 25, 2007

Uncivil remarks by User:Fabartus

Stale.

On this arbitration talk page [117] User:Fabartus attributes User:MK and his supporters' objections to User:Piotrus's behavior as stemming from "a healthy dose of differences in cognative capability (sic) and training". Novickas 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ronz & User:Levine2112

Resolved.

I've (Ronz) asked Levine2112 to not post links to a dispute I've unable to settle with User:AGK [118] after removing such a link from Talk:Stephen_Barrett [119]

Over a day later, and after making 10 edits to Talk:Stephen_Barrett, Levine2112 restores the link [120] and replies to my request [121].

Since then, we are edit warring over these links on Talk:Stephen_Barrett and User_talk:Crohnie. --Ronz 22:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The link which I restored contains information from our mediator describing why he felt that mediation has proved and will prove to be unsuccessful. I think it would be of great benefit for all parties in the dispute to read our mediator's comments. Ronz is taking the mediator's comments as a personal attack, rather than a neutral party's observation about the state of the discussion environment. I agree with the mediator that the environment is far too hostile for civil discussion. For the past week, I have been trying to get all parties to work together and agree on a compromise; however, the incivility has quashed my efforts. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue concerning the links has been resolved. As for Levine2112's comments above, I'm ignoring them as just an angry outburst. If anyone thinks otherwise, I'm happy to respond. -- Ronz  17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

May 27 2007

Disruptive personal attacks and NPOV - Indian Rebellion of 1857

Stale.

Repeated edit wars and abusive language, personal attacks on editors, on Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857‎. Disruptive editing on Indian Rebellion of 1857‎ connected with a right wing nationalist POV. Comments welcome on User:Jvalant, User:Bobby Awasthi, and on the article in general. srs 00:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

May 28 2007

Edit war at Spylocked

Stale.

The edit war is about the external links in the article. See the talk page. Involved editors: Miked1d, some anonymous editor and me. Comments or advise from the community is welcome. Otto 07:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over Nonogram#Solving_via_computer_programs

Stale.

There has actually be a lot of argument over the whole of this article, but in particular over ths section. See the article's talk page for discussions and so on, and the edit history. I don't wish to influence anyone by giving my perception of events, but I feel there is one editor who using false arguments against other editors' edits. Any comments or advice appreciated. Tim (Xevious) 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

May 29 2007

Please help: Edit war Non-standard cosmologies Administrator User:ScienceApologist

Resolved.

Normally serious acting ScienceApologist (see many good Big Bang discussions) steadily erases here only by RV without answering seriously in related DISCUSSION or giving a rational(!) reason, using Speech-bubbles only instead of serious arguments - last series:

  • 18:30, 29 May 2007 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (39,274 bytes) (rv continued POV-pushing.)
  • 15:41, 29 May 2007 84.158.252.114 (Talk) (43,044 bytes) (We have asked now >demon [122] for MEDIATION and for a fair DISCUSSION (why is there no answer, since beginning?) and without bare Mickey Mouse speech bubbles by ScienceApologist.)
  • 13:36, 29 May 2007 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (39,274 bytes) (rv -- Wikipedia is not a place to soapbox.)
  • 13:04, 29 May 2007 84.158.237.19 (Talk) (43,044 bytes) (Dear ScienceApologist, please accept our old previous offer in DISCUSSION, before permanently, blindly - additionally without comment! - erasing serious physics you don't like? please act seriously!)
  • 15:06, 28 May 2007 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (39,274 bytes) (rv continued POV pushing.)

POV named serious WIKI-Links as:

Since weeks stable, then erased... Pardon, is this a fair style of a WIKI-Administrator to unloved but historical physics? Nothing in related DISCUSSION (Now repeated same phraseology)!

PLEASE REFER ONLY TO IP 84.158.210.97 or clubs-speaker wfckehler@aol.com,

NOT to following club's distributed cluster IP: 84.158.252.101 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Although you would prefer lengthier answers, User:ScienceApologist does have latitude under WP:FRINGE to expect stronger than usual evidence to justify uncommon theories when discussing a hard-science topic. Note that he is not an administrator. It will not be easy for regular editors to have a dialog with you since you seem to have a different IP address almost every time you log in. Do you have some objection to creating an account? At present, it will be nearly impossible for anyone to leave you a message on your User_talk, and the effect may be that people may not give full credence to your arguments. EdJohnston 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit War with User:Baseball Bugs

Resolved.

User Baseball Bugs has been engaging in what I would deem a revert war with me. Despite my attempts to communicate and suggest appropriate ways of dealing with a difference of opinion, he/she continues to revert edits of mine regardless of their validity. I have expunged information that does not belong from various articles. This started with a discussion on the Black Sox Scandal and has expanded elsewhere. I would appreciate some help in resolving the matter. //Tecmobowl 03:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The above user refuses to actually discuss anything, it's his way or the highway, and continues to POV-push on articles such as Ty Cobb, and to post spam in the Shoeless Joe Jackson article, and to undo my edits in Babe Ruth while giving no specific explanation as of the moment, at least, as to what he thinks the problem is. Baseball Bugs 03:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Case in point, I explained my reverts in the summary and have done so when necessary on the appropriate article's talk page. I requested that further commentary be made on those pages so that anyone who might be interested in the discussion can chime in. Instead, reverts are made and my talk page has been littered with comments. My edits are explained, and I see no reason to use the same explanation over and over again when they have been explained once. I will remain quiet on this until some others can offer up a suggestion. All I ask is that the information that belongs in articles is appropriately referenced and that information that does not belong is expunged. // Tecmobowl 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I asked him what I consider fair questions about his continued reversion of these articles, which he labeled "harassment" and deleted from his talk page. I have already asked an admin for help. The admin advised the user to talk to me. The user said he would no longer talk to me. He continues to POV-push on the articles in question. I don't know what to do. Baseball Bugs 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Case in point, he continues to delete the official MLB.COM career stats for Ty Cobb, with no reason given, which is obvious POV-pushing; and nearly tricked me into a 3-revert violation (which he also escaped doing, by minutes). Baseball Bugs 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
He refused to explain why he keeps deleting the official stats, and told me I should fix the article. First, I already did that, several days ago, and he deleted my changes in the process of rewriting it. Second, he continues to refuse to answer my questions and deletes them as "harassment", and presumes to tell me where I may post questions to him. Baseball Bugs 04:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
And I posed the same issue on his talk page, and of course he deleted it again. I have also informed the admin about this situation, as we seem to be at an impasse here. Baseball Bugs 04:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have concluded that the only solution is avoid including any page on my watch list that is also on Tec's watch list. I think he is a bully, and the way to avoid bullies and stay on an even keel, in the absence of any authority figure, is to stay away from where they are known to frequent. Baseball Bugs 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My assessment was correct. The complaining user here got himself into edit wars with several other users also, and is currently on 48-hour suspension for two separate 3-revert violations. Baseball Bugs 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

May 30, 2007

User:Matthew ignoring WP:EPISODE

I have been cutting episode articles due to WP:EPISODE. They fail the required criteria of being more than a plot summary by having sourced real world information (also failing WP:FICT and WP:WAF). Then he mass reverted them and used his own twist on the guideline to essentially ignore me. He just states that "All episodes have sourced information. You just have to find it." and "Google it" as his defense even though the guideline states "verifiable information." He claims that I am the one with no argument and only seems to be humoring me with his responses. I believe he has been blocked for running an unauthorized bot, so he hasn't replied lately. Though, I assume his replies will be exactly the same after, so some help would be appreciated. TTN 10:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree regarding Matthew, he appears to actively dislike secondary references. Addhoc 13:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

May 31, 2007

user:Valrith

Valrith is using Wikipedia guidelines to frustrate other users. On the surface that may not sound that may not sound like a bad thing, but the user in question often misinterprets those guidelines (i.e. by calling small mistakes "vandalism" or making every sentence in an article with "citation needed"), abuses tags and reverts, and engages in trivial disputes. If you look at the user's talk page, you will see that his/her entire page is filled with warnings, blocks, and disputes. The user has been asked to tone it down numerous time from administrators and other bureaucrats. I don't know what should be done to remedy this situation, but this user does not appear to be making valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Chicken Wing 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

User:81.157.73.83 / User:IP-81-157-73-83

On Talk:Mandrake Press, this user seems more interested in making accusations against other users than in discussing the article. GlassFET 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jüri Uluots

Edit war by User:Digwuren, whose contributions are biased and POV. He has already been blocked for it. Digwuren does not react on motivation for corrections on talk page. Otto 07:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.


June 1, 2007

possible COI at Chemspider

Resolved. this article was referred to Afd for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChemSpider. The result was keep.

June 4, 2007

Growing edit war on "Unsportsmanlike conduct"

Resolved.

Unsportsmanlike conduct is a stub page; recently, at least one editor (Obdej1 (talk)) has been adding non-encyclopedia information about a local sports radio show with the same name. I have reverted several times with WP:NOT#SOAP and provided warnings on the user's talk page, but the same content is now being re-added, either by others or by the same person without being logged in.

It seems to me that the content fails on a number of counts: it's blatantly ad-like, cites no sources, violates stylistic guidelines (it's just dumped after the "stub" marker with no headings), makes no attempt to display notability, and borders on nonsense ("Stacie "the sports sack" has HUGE...eyes. Nobody cares about anything else.").

At the same time, I'm trying to avoid an edit war and 3RR violations, and it seems silly to have to protect a stub page.

Opinions? Tlesher 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tlesher, it looks like you're doing everything by the book. If you stick to that, including escalating the warnings you've placed on Obdej1's talk page as appropiate, etc. the end result of such behavior will be a block for Obdej1 and no repercussions for you. In truth, it appears that Obdej1 was set up exclusively to create this spam and I would suspect that the person who did so has already forgotten the login password to that account. If the issue does not recur soon, with your consent, we should mark this issue as closed. (Oh, and don't think that the irony of the article's title is lost on anyone here.) Gruber76 17:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Tlesher 17:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

June 5, 2007

Give peace a chance in Indianapolis, Indiana

Resolved.

Once a user has declared: "I will just delete naptown from the list nicknames every time it is listed....." in an RFC and declines invitations to engage in discussion, etc, how do you proceed? Gruber76 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me there is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing happening on that page, and that "naptown" satisfies WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY and should be included in the article. I have entered detailed comments at Talk:Indianapolis, Indiana#Request for Comment: "Naptown". --Parzival418 Hello 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
RfC at the above link seems to have come to consensus. --Parzival418 Hello 10:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

June 7, 2007

User:だってばよ

Resolved.

I made a perfectly civil request to this user asking them to please change their User ID because it contains non-Latin (I never said non-English nor non-American) characters. And since that time, I have received nothing but personal abuse and attacks on America. I have asked the user to please quit posting on my Talk page, as I have no desire for further communication, but they persist. [123], [124]. They have been admonished by others about No Personal Attacks, yet they continue. And yet they continue with attacks on others, as well: [125] Corvus cornix 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I don't normally post here, but after looking at those comments, I seriously suggest you post at WP:ANI and request administrator intervention. --Iamunknown 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a procedure for this. You can file a complaint at WP:RFCN that this user's name is inappropriate. There will be an opportunity for discussion, as in an AfD. EdJohnston 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, he's certainly got a temper, but it seems more like he's reacting to what he perceives as people trying to push him around than than going out and making trouble out of nothing. I'm not saying his incivil comments are justified, clearly they are not. But I think it may be too soon for a report at ANI, since mostly it's his username causing difficulty in that it can't be rendered by some users' browsers. Maybe best to focus on solving that problem first and then see how he develops after he's been here a while. If the lashing out continues, that can be brought up again later.
I suggest filing a report here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. That RFC page can request a block, but I would not recommend that, rather I recommend requesting that he be compelled to use a username that fits within accepted policy. If that can be accomplished, so people can read and spell his name, then we can find out if he will be able to fit into the community without making trouble. --Parzival418 Hello 04:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I did make a request for comment on user names and it was removed by a user who claimed that such names are acceptable. Corvus cornix 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Actually, I listed it at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. I'll try the RfC route, then. Corvus cornix 20:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Rfc came, went (was speedy closed). The user is not particularly active, so I guess just see what happens. --Iamunknown 03:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

June 11, 2007

User:Kwork

Resolved. the involved editors apparently have disengaged from their dispute

Sethie believes user Kwork is grossly misunderstanding wiki policies and crossing the line numerous times with civility- and it is starting to affect the Alice Bailey page.


WP:CIVILITY/WP:NPA

[[126]] [[127]] [[128]] (neebish meaning "A weak-willed, timid, or ineffectual person" [[129]] (at least this time he gave me the link for the definition!)


His response when Sethie asked him to cool his tone down: [[130]]


extreme lack of WP:AGF [[131]] [[132]]


Now he and Sethie are argueing about whether it is valid to keep Sethie's concerns and request for civility visible on his talk page! Help appreciated. Sethie 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Sethie's summary above that Kwork has repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and even WP:NPA. Some of his comments are offensive and include completely inappropriate insulting statements about Sethie and other editors. Kwork also shows an ongoing pattern of Tendentious editing.
It is my opinion that if Sethie or any other editor were to post an RFC/U or request some other form of administrative intervention, it's possible that a short term block might result, but it would be a lot of work and might not help in the long run.
I suggest that a new method be used in responding to Kwork's contentious and offensive comments. Clearly, he is not interested in a real conversation - he's pretty much stated that directly in his writings that he will not change his viewpoint or approach no matter what anyone says to him. So, don't take the bait and let him entangle you in wasteful and unpleasant exchanges.
I recommend that communication with Kwork on his talk page, even warning templates, be completely avoided. It only adds more fuel for the fire, and he's not receptive to the content anyway. Likewise, I recommend that if Kwork posts on Sethie's talk page, or any other user's, that the user only reply if the comment is civil and respectful. If Kwork's comment on a user's talk page does not meet those conditions, then I recommend striking out the text but not deleting it, and responding with a simple statement that the user is not willing to communicate with anyone who does not treat him in a respectful and civil manner. I would not respond to the content of the communication unless/until it is stated in a respectful manner. That way, the fun of posting an insult is de-fused and it gets boring.
On article talk pages, I would take a similar approach, but I would not strike out the offensive comment. Instead, I would reply by stating that the comment is offensive or insulting and that it violates WP:NPA or whatever the appropriate guildeline is. I would respectfully request that Kwork re-edit his comment to strike-out or delete the offensive material. That's it, I would not add anything else about that behavior. If there is a content to the post that needs a response, I would direct that to the editors in general but not personally to Kwork.
Then there is the question of how to protect the page from damage by tendentious POV editing. There are two editors other than Kwork working on that page currently, so Kwork will not be able to continually insert material that violates NPOV because he would be limited by the 3RR rule. However, a protracted battle like that is highly undesirable, so what can be done to improve the situation? My suggestion is to post an WP:RFC - not about Kwork's behavior, but for the article itself. Invite more editors to come and view the conflict and build a consensus about what is the best balance for the article in regards to the anti-semitism issue. If you do post an RFC, be clear in the formatting of the RFC section on the talk page to focus on the content issue and not Kwork's incivil behavior, and keep the description simple so it can be quickly understood. I would also then post invitations on talk pages of related topics, linking to the RFC and inviting editors to bring their expertise. Some places you could post the invitations would be - articles about antisemitism, theosophy, occultism, metaphysics, wikiprojects about religion, spirituality, etc.. It seems to me if you could get two or three more editors to bring their voices, that would make a big difference. Once there is consensus, there would be no one individual for Kwork to focus on in his comments, especially if his insults no longer generate any interesting responses. --Parzival418 Hello 06:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sethie

Resolved.

Kindly refer [133] , [134] and [135] user is using harsh and threading language, insted of participating in discussion, and expressing his concerns over edits. If there is any problem in edits, that can be discussed in polite and civil manner. There is no need for using statements like "enough is enough" and "one last time". Kindly advice --Shashwat pandey 10:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read the links you posted and I do not see any violations by Sethie of WP:CIVIL. The phrases you quoted, "enough is enough" and "one last time", are not of themselves uncivil, they are comments about Sethie's view of your methods of editing and/or discussing, and his frustrations that you have not fully reviewed and understood the Wikiguides. In his note to you on your talk page at One last time, Sethie makes some strong statements, but they appear to me to be well-grounded in Wikipedia policy. I believe his suggestions may be valuable for you.
I recommend that you minimize your direct communications with Sethie and when you do encounter him, don't take his comments personally. If something bothers you, let the emotions fade away before you respond. When you respond, focus on the content of the article only, not the interpersonal elements of the conversation. When you make a statement about why you feel something should or should not be written in the article, explore the Wikipedia guides such as WP:ATT, WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and many others that are readily available. Spend some time reading through them and following the links. Use what you find in your discussions, to support your position. You may find that the discussions become more smooth and comfortable. Here are some more guides that may be of helpful:
Often when people post references to the guides, readers skip over the links and just figure "Oh yeah, that one, I've read that, I know what it means, it's just shorthand for an idea - I don't need to read the link." But I've found that even after reading them many times, I still learn something new when I review the guides. A lot of people have put a lot of thought into finding ways this system can run smoothly with so many editors involved. It's pretty amazing. So please, consider reading the guides I linked here, you may find some pearls of value for you. --Parzival418 Hello 22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)



Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.


Alleged Incivility from Scorpion0422

Resolved.

I've noticed a disturbing pattern with this user and animation articles. This user feels that it is their duty to delete anything that doesn't meet his or her "standards." I tried to edit the synopsis of the Lisa's Wedding article and it was immediately reverted, with the user in question claiming it was an "unneeded detail." [136] Now granted, my response to him/her wasn't civil, but I apologized for it [137] and asked the user why it was reverted. The user then responded that my edit was "unnecessary" although the user conceded that it did clarify the context of the paragraph somewhat. I then told the user that it was not up to one person to decide editing standards on Wikipedia, and that perhaps their contributions (while good) might be better served at a site where their work is not mercilessly edited. Even after my apology, this user still had the gall to tell me to start my own website where "I could add as much crap as I like." This user needs to take their anger elsewhere.--Folksong 03:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: I had struck out the word crap, so that shouldn't count. As well, this seems to be more of a content dispute than anything as the user talks more about that one line than my alleged incivility. -- Scorpion0422 03:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's see how well that defence holds up about striking out the word "crap". It's not so much about a content dispute, but the fact that you escalate disputes with many users that you disagree with. This doesn't seem to be an isolated incident, but a pattern over time. Why don't we point out some of your greatest hits such as the classic "you're a retard", "not a real Simpsons fan" and the recent you don't understand how wrestling works!--Folksong 03:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I have already been reprimanded for two of those three comments and the third is taken completely out of context. I was explaining to the user in question that a user was opposing something in an FLC and they had admitted that they didn't know much about the WWE. At least use the correct quotes. And lets not forget that you have been FAR more uncivil in this dispute than I have, even if you did apologize. -- Scorpion0422 03:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Now, I'm not your enemy here, in fact I'm your friend. But there's a trend going on here, and I'll leave the final decision up to the good people who manage this section.--Folksong 03:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are both willing to talk. In the scheme of things that's doesn't seem big but you've each been editing Wikipedia for a while so you know that's actually huge. I don't see any discussion of the edits on the talk page and it sounds like you're both in agreement that a civil and open discussion would be the right way to move forward. Is that something you could both explicitly agree to? Gruber76 04:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I started a discussion with this user on their talk page as referred to earlier. Apparently, he did a drive-by on my talk page taking some culpability for the situation, but still implying that this entire situation is my creation. If this individual feels so strongly about the article, it's theirs, but this guy/girl insists on having everything their way and looking at Scorp's talk page, seems to be making new enemies each day.--Folksong 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Also there must be a discussion somewhere that covers what level of detail is good for episodes of the Simpsons or other similar series - perhaps asking at a wikiproject or other regular editors of similar pages, sbandrews (t) 19:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Plots of TV episodes should be brief, since a detailed plot would be a copyright violation. --Maitch 10:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Alleged Incivility from User:Assault11

Stuck. for further discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Assault11

I find this user's attitude disturbing at Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China. He reverts articles to the way he wants to without consensus.

Assault11's first [edit] clearly shows his biased attitude towards the article and its related articles.

Currently, the article is under dispute whether to include a sentence about Goguryeo's tributary status with China. The editors are trying to work towards a consensus and have taken several measures including an RfC and a request for a third opinion. User:Arcayne has commented, yet he feels that he has been treated rudely by Assault.

Assault has been making the work toward consensus extremely difficult. He will not respond to any questions as to what he wants and will ignore everything. He simply wants his own way. Assault11 is hardly listening to anybody, including admins. He also deletes warning tags from his talk page.

I am requesting that an editor or administrator talk to him. Good friend100 23:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I merely reverted the article back to the status quo. You, on the other hand, never gained consensus to add in your points - which have been proved to be factually incorrect (see talk page).
Secondly, what does the List of tributaries of Imperial China got to do with the Koguryo dispute? Nothing. I have apologized for my behavior regarding my first edit (see Tariqabjotu's talk page). And there was never a RfC conducted for List of tributaries of Imperial China. Regarding Arcayne, I reserve the right to cease further discussions and to protect my own user/talk page if I felt that I was being subject to personal ad hominem attacks [138].
Do not act all innocent Good friend100, it is you who constantly ignored pleas to change your POV. Just a brief look at the Koguryo, List of tributaries of Imperial China and your talk page reveals a large number of editors who've disagreed with your false reasonings. Even Korean editors like Wangkon936 (see Koguryo talk) requested that you familiarize with the Chinese tributary system before making outlandish claims. Assault11 00:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
In fact, there is a request on RfC [139]. Be more attentive before claiming all sorts of things. Anyways, I'm not here to bring the argument to this page. I am requesting that Assault be checked on his civility.
You seem to have an issue when somebody posts warnings or demands on your talk page. Its not vandalism, as you put it. I am not acting innocent. I DID change the biased sentence on the article, yet you don't even care. Again, you are making the consensus process extremely difficult because of your stubborness and your biased approach to the subject.
Perhaps you forgot to read the instructions for filing a formal RfC [140].
I am allowed to remove warnings as I deem inappropriate - particularly the ones from you, where one warning was 2 days old. Biased according to you - and you only. You even had your dates wrong regarding the ending of tributary relations. Of those involved in the discussion, none of the parties supports your view. Assault11 00:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:XLR8TION at Sammy Davis, Jr. article

Stale.

I've had a lot of issues with User:XLR8TION and at this point trying to properly reason with him would be out of the question. The issue in question deals with the ancestry of Sammy Davis, Jr.'s mother. Although Davis publicly stated during his lifetime that she was Puerto Rican, biographers now agree that she was in fact Cuban and that Davis lied about this to protect his career due to the unpopular sentiments at the time towards communist Cuba. This fact is stated in several books including The Life of Sammy Davis, Jr. by Gary Fishgall[141] and In Black and White: The Life of Sammy Davis, Jr. By Wil Haygoods [142]. The latter which is an award-winning book[143] that will even form the basis for the screenplay of Davis' biopic to be produced by Denzel Washington.[144] The problem is any time I try and edit the article he swoops right in and reverts it labeling me disgruntled. The fact is she wasn't Puerto Rican, she was Cuban (more proof:[145]and a TIME magazine article for good measure, [146]). WP:VERIFY states that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, I think I have met that threshold with the links I have provided. What I would like is to edit the article stating his Cuban ancestry as fact with a mention as why he choose to say he was Puerto Rican due to the political sensitivities of the time, and without being reverted. So hopefully a neutral party can come in and take a look at this with a fresh eye. Thank you. 74.225.36.136 20:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

One approach. which would adhere to WP:NPOV would be to say, "While Davis claimed _____, other researchers/sources claim ____."
The :) "fact of the matter" is he said ____ and others said _____. Just state those facts and let the readers decide. If the sources are as strong as you are presnting them to be, without saying "THIS IS THE TRUTH!" it should be pretty obvious what is the truth! :)
You can't mention "why he chose that." What you can say, if it is contained in the sources you've mentioned, is other people's theories as to why he did it. If Sethie has the time and inclination, he'll pop over and take a look. Sethie 06:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunds ASK (2nd nomination)

Resolved.

I'm just wondering if my comments here were uncivil or attacks in any ways. I'd appreciate a comment to my talk page, or here, rather than involvement in the discussion there. It's close enough to getting off track as it is. I can see how my comments might have been taken as irritating, or possibly condescending, but I don't think I made any actual attack. FrozenPurpleCube 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think you made an attack - when user nabla said 'attack me' s/he realy should have said 'attack my argument' which is what you did. His/her point being that s/he showed you the weakness of his/her argument and you then attacked that weakness - a below the belt attack? :) I don't consider you have been uncivil on the page, regards sbandrews (t) 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur with sbandrews; no problem with civility or personal attacks in your comments at that discussion at this time. --Parzival418 Hello 10:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Alleged incivility from User:216.201.33.24 at Talk:Feminists for Life

Resolved.

Most recent exchange:

216.201.33.24: "... I DO NOT want to hear anymore whining from anyone about the fact that their webiste is a source."

Me: "Please do not refer to what others are saying as "whining". It is uncivil and inappropriate."

216.201.33.24: "Joie it is perfectly appropriate and civil, now do you have something to contribute that is useful to the article or are you going to continue complaining about the fact that other editors on here are out of patience with your antics? I assure you I am running out of patience with you, if you want me to be civil then cut the victim act and contribute and I will be nicer to you."

Bear in mind while no one has chastised me or expressed any impatience with me, several users have rebuked 216.201.33.24:

In response to a 3O that I requested, Anomie said:

"216.255.40.133, you really should check WP:CIVIL. Also, comments such as "Therefoe I must conclude that you can not handle the truth" do come close to violating WP:NPA."

MaryKDerr commented; for some reason, MaryKDerr thought that I might have thought that she and the anon user were the same person:

"I am *not* the user who is personally attacking you here, ad hominem attacks just make my heart sink..."

The 3O that I requested referred to 216.201.33.24 as having a "major pro-POV" and noted my efforts to maintain NPOV. Several users agree that the article needs work. 216.201.33.24 has openly acknowledged that they wrote one of the paragraphs that another user found to be POV (search page for phrase "I wrote".) This user is resistant to proposed changes, and has recently become rude and threatening.

216.201.33.24 has begun to demand that I make my concerns clear; accusing me of "trolling" because I refuse to engage with them (amid their insults). I believe their view is inaccurate, as I was the person who began the discussion, with the hopes of doing exactly what they were talking about - discussing content. I became less willing to discuss content after their insults and threats came in greater number and strength. I was hoping they would calm down so we could get back to the content, but it has only gotten worse. Joie de Vivre 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User 216.201.33.24 is clearly in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. That IP has never edited the article or any other page than the talk page you mentioned. I recommend ignoring all comments from that editor and just replying with a statement that the incivil personal attacks are not acceptable and that no dialog about the article is possible until the communications become polite and respectful. Then leave it at that. If the editor starts making changes to the article (which he/she has not done yet, then you would have to respond to those changes, by accepting, reverting or discussing for consensus (see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle).
But even in that situation, until the offending IP editor is willing to enter comments that are civil and do not contain insults, avoid direct two-way conversation. Just state your disapproval of the incivil behaviors and then address your comments to the other editors on the article. To attain consensus you don't have to convince a dissenting editor to change their mind, you just need a general agreement among the editors in the discussion, and support for your edits with solid references. Bottom line, if somone acts anti-social like that the best thing to do is to disengage. Don't take it personally or let them get you down, just brush it off and stay positive. --Parzival418 Hello 05:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:MichaelMaison ignoring WP:NPOV and other Wiki guidelines

Resolved.

Unfortunately, a user named Marty Goldberg has made a career out of modifying any revisions to the Wikipedia page "William Cheung". He cites POV and non-references, however he revises my contributions with just that. In particular, he was very resistent to the historically documented fact that Cheung was an instructor of Bruce Lee, despite the plethora of available evidence. Further, he appears to delight in a firm insistance that GM Cheung and Emin Bozetepe were involved in a "fight", and this individual has a thusfar unmitigating need to express his POV and interpretations as to the conclusiveness of this sorry, fleeting, and embarrasing incident. I have cited numerous sources to support my contention that the need to display: "My fighter beat up your fighter" is unsubstantiated by any evidence, uncorroborated by witnesses, and pure, unadulterated beans. Nevertheless, Marty Goldberg has edited, deleted, and re-corrupted this page no less than 25 times today 6/11/07. I will bring in others who will lend their rational thought to this, however this individual is detremental, slanderous, and is propagating untruths, as I have aforementioned.

As the protocol appears to be involving a third party, I suspect Mr. Goldberg might enlist those with a similar mindset such as his and merely perpetuate this juvenile war of words. As I could also dispatch individuals to disabuse this person of his penchant for slander and historical revisionism, I would rather seek administrative relief before I involve other parties. I would like a resolution to this please.

Most Sincerely,

Michael Kenneth Maison (KM)


Very specifically, this user has been told multiple times by multiple editors over the past month that his attempted contributions to William Cheung and Leung Ting and Emin Boztepe violate NPOV, lack actual references (he has actually provided none except to copy advertisements from Cheung's website word for word as entry material), and do not follow an encyclopedic format. This is not a place for political minded editing and bickering in leau of actual encyclopedic material contributions. Every effort has been made by the major contributors of that article and the Wikipedia Martial Arts Project to explain the situation to him. I (today), as well as another editor (last week) have even tried to rewrite his material in a NPOV manner so it could be included (see William Cheung talk page), and this was still not good enough. He has simply responded with accusations, derogatory comments (see the page history), and continued re-addition of the same material. Now he's threatening to "dispatch individuals" in person and to use in edit war here? --Marty Goldberg 04:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


This user is quite simply purporting falsehoods, categorically false statements. My citations are numerous, from many sources, and very few from Websites of William Cheung. That is the first deceptive comment. He provides a version of a version of video, that laymen can agree is edited, reveals very little, and has been deemed inconclusive by most rational individuals. Yet, this "video" is presented as a "challenge fight", with the fundamental objective as declaring a "victor", in a most sophmoric attempt at "one upsmanship." This is substantially been disregarded, although this user continues to tout it's "superiority" in false, misleading manner. This is not in the spirit of journalism, martial arts, or plain human decorum. There have been two individuals who have refuted these comments; most people don't care; yet he states that a multitude of Wikipedia intelligencia "have attempted to explain the situation to me." His emotional pandering refers to one other individual besides him. POV, poor sources, or other principles axiomatic to responsible journalism cannot be selectively enforced nor violated, a common-sense principle that Mr. Goldberg evidently does not endorse. My derogatory comments are nothing more than having referenced material vanish with some arbitrary and close-minded categorical editing of my posts. It's selective rule-enforcement,and it's plain wrong.

Finally, the gentleman appears paranoid. As the protocol for conflict dictates, individuals should obtain a 3rd party mediator. I happen to know many people familiar with this issue, some of who have direct knowledge. It is those individuals whose input I sought to "dispatch", never anyone "in person" as the continued emotional pandering of this "martial artist" would like you to believe. It's almost like he believes he has a "literary license" to accuse those who disagree with HIS points of view, to emotionally pander in order to get his way, and most objectionably, to continue to promulgate falsehoods in the spirit of journalistic integrity. Who in the name of goodness does he think he is?

P.S. I think we should keep the "whine" in Sonoma Valley.


M K Maison

Once again, this editor's inability to behave rationally (WP:Civility) is demonstrated here with more derogatory and personal attacks. It is also easily seen in the history of the edit pages, my talk page (in which another editor removed a derogatory comment of his), and the previous pages listed. Multiple editors have talked to him, which is also easily verified by those page's history pages, talk pages, and his own talk page. Any attempt to enforce NPOV has been met with accusations and claims of "literary license", biasness and, and further derogatory statements about what people are supposedly thinking or feeling. Likewise, he can't seem to grasp the idea of a controversy and approaching it from a position of neutrality, instead seeking to edit in one position's comments over the other when a balance is to be maintained per NPOV. --Marty Goldberg 05:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment from third party. Even in the above report, User:MichaelMaison shows lack of good faith, lack of civility, and a makes several personal attack comments. Related article and user talk pages show this is an ongoing pattern. This diff shows a purely uncivil attack comment posted by User:MichaelMaison on the talk page of Marty Goldberg. The comment was appropriately removed by a third party, User:A Link to the Past. That diff shows an even higher temperature of emnity and more direct personal attack than the comments MichaelMaison wrote on this page where he expected the community to read them.

So, what to do? I suggest simply ignoring his complicated arguments and uncivil comments, and focusing completely on the content of the articles. Since the articles are about martial arts, a good analogy would be the art of Aikido. Change the direction of the discussion away from personal confrontation, into the process of consensus. There appear to be other interested editors; they will be needed to create consensus and prevent ongoing insertions of POV material by reverting when needed and allowing the tendentious editor to grapple with WP:3RR. When he posts an uncivil comment, simply reply by stating that it is uncivil and ask him to remove or strike out any personal attacks. Then ignore it, don't take it personally, don't reply in detail or try to convince him that he is wrong. If he edits the article inappropriately, revert it, and provide supporting references if you can find them. If he reverts again, follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, but don't address him personally in your discussion. Most importantly, invite other editors (from related article talk pages if necessary) to contribute so that you don't get into a one-on-one reversion war. If there are multiple editors involved, the consensus can be clear. MichaelMaison says that he has others who will support his edits, but on the pages you linked I did not see anyone agree with him. That means if multiple editors have consensus and he is opposing the consensus, he will not be able to insert unreferenced POV information into the articles. He also says he has "numerous" citations from third party sources, but he has not added them to the article so we don't know if they exist. It would be best if you could continue to find additional reliable sources to support your edits. As they are now, those articles have very few references, and especially since they are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the issue of third party sources is even more crucial. (I recommend reading that policy page in detail).

Further, I suggest suspending all communication between the two of you on your talk pages. Don't post anything on his talk page. If he posts on yours, if his comment is civil and in regards to the article, just thank him and tell him you'll reply on the article talk page, then do so if you wish. If his post on your page is not civil, you can remove it, or another option is to use <s> ... </s> to strike out his words, then reply simply by stating that his comments are uncivil and you will not reply unless you are addressed respectfully. This method has the advantage of keeping visible the uncivil comments and your calm response.

Avoid direct confrontation and ignore the attacks, other than to point out they are violations of policy and community and that you will not converse without mutual respect. That way, it's no fun to attack you. And your edits to the articles, when they are referenced and have consensus from other editors, also cannot be attacked. --Parzival418 Hello 07:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Pre-emptive disambiguation of Dungeons & Dragons articles

Resolved. Pak21 10:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Dm2ortiz has recently moved a large number of Dungeons & Dragons articles from being at "<name>" to "<name> (module)", even though almost most these titles are never likely to need disambiguation (eg Mystery of the Snow Pearls). I thought this was unnecessary, and brought the subject up at WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (as the original moves were tagged as "WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons"). Four editors there (including myself) agreed that the disambiguation was not necessary, so I reverted the moves (as well as other articles created by Dm2ortiz). However, Dm2ortiz has now moved many of these articles back again, with an edit summary referencing exactly the same discussion. I am unsure what to do next, and would appreciate any advice. --Pak21 07:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you have a pretty clear consensus at the Wikiproject to remove the word module from the page names, since it's not needed at this time. There's also discussion that if disambiguation were needed later, there might be different methods that would better suit the aims of the project. So it seems to me that editors from the project are justified to revert the changes again. In the edit summary state that this is being done by consensus and link to a section on the project talk page for further discussion. It would be best if the same editor does not do the reverting each time so it's clear that it's not an edit war between two individuals, in other words, you could mention in the project discussion you believe there is a consensus to revert again, but that you don't want an edit war, so you are not going to do it right now but that you support the next reversion if someone else wants to do it. If he continues to revert contrary to the consensus, that could be considered Wikipedia:Disruptive editing or he might violate WP:3RR. The point is I guess, if he is a loner going against consensus, then he is not entitled to impose his will on the community of editors working on the project. If there is not consensus yet though, for example if there were a few editors also agreeing with his perspective, then further discussion would be needed before reverting the page moves. That's not an official statement, just my personal understanding of how the policies apply to the situation. --Parzival418 Hello 08:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Dm2ortiz brought the subject up again at WP:D&D where other editors have come down strongly on the side of no pre-emptive disambiguation. I'll wait Dm2ortiz's suggested week and then move the articles back unless there is any significant support for his position. Cheers --Pak21 10:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Haukurth and Icelandic language

Stale.

User:S.Örvarr.S and myself have come to the conclusion that User:Haukurth is persistently—and purposely—being pedantic to frustrate other users. For example, on the Icelandic language talk page he has made several derogatory comments, and indeed was involved in an edit war over a single simple greeting. To quote but a few examples:

  • I have never in my life heard anyone say "Góða daginn". — using this as justification that the greeting "góða daginn" does not exist.
  • Calling S.Örvarr.S a kjánaprik (“silly stick”).

And in a separate debate:

  • Well, your Icelandic is certainly a lot better but your English is rather worse. For example you have pre-aspiration in the word 'apple'. I personally don't see any point in reading the English cognates at all.

Obviously to see this in context, you need to see the whole debate. I don’t know how to go about addressed the user without causing further dispute or personal attacks. Advice would be appreciated. Max Naylor 11:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This all looks quite mild to me. I would advise you to focus on editing, and ignore comments you feel are beside the point. IronDuke 01:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Introducing POV and making aggressive & harassing edits and reversions

Resolved.

I've been having an edit war with User_talk:Gustav_von_Humpelschmumpel on Talk:Jeronimo Bassano and Lanier family tree. He has been introducing POV by attempting to undermine one authority on the family's Jewish origins, David Lasocki, as a review of his edits will show. I keep trying to impose balance in that section, but he keeps editing and reverting, basically taking over his "turf" and imposing his POV. He made certain to provide the university affiliation of his preferred commentator, but edited out the title and university affiliation of Lasocki, the other point of view. Then, he chased me over to Lanier family tree and made a completely unjustified reversion of a verifiable fact which was supported by a genealogical link. I hope this can come to a good conclusion with some outside advice and input, because frankly I am not going to continue editing on Wikipedia if he continues this aggressive and impolite behavior.--139.80.18.108 03:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This user came to the page basically immediately accusing me of bias- he has now resorted to completely inventing accusations (User_talk:Blnguyen#Request_for_Sanctions_Against_a_User). I believe both ips are the same person and are User:Andrewudstraw who seemed to cause some issues in 2006 [147] ("Sure you do. One neoconservative watches the back of another. I too read Talk:Neoconservativism and see how you operate" to User:MONGO). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Also the reversion to Lanier family tree was completely justified as it was just unsourced family trivia. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Gustav von Humpelschmumpel can make all the personal attacks he wants (calling another person an "ass" when reverting on the Talk:Jeronimo Bassano page shows his attitude); it will still not change the POV problems with the edits he made. I invite others to simply look at the page, what he has done to it through his edits, and come to their own conclusions. Further, the Lanier family tree reversion he made was unjustified because the genealogical link provided in the original entry was proof that a descendant of this family married another Italian Piva in 1994. Perhaps this is not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia, but many articles do have a trivia section.--139.80.18.108 22:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I never called anyone an "ass". Thankyou Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a calmer approach is needed. Personally, I would prefer my marriage not to be featured in Wikipedia, even in a section on my family tree. This introduces some privacy issues; maybe even identity theft problems could happen. It's bad enough that my information is in the free genealogy website on the web. Is it appropriate for me to object? I don't have an opinion on the whole disagreement over the Jewish issue, although it would be good to have lots of sources because I believe others in my family--my brother is fanatical about our genealogy--will find this topic interesting. Can we get some short quotes from each of these sources into the article? Jeronimo Bassano isn't very long, as articles go. --Andy 22:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on that is clearly you editing under an ip- stop being a WP:DICK. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Far be it from me to actually agree with your edits (did you read what I wrote?). Calling me a dick doesn't help your case very much.--Andy 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you are just trying to get out of the fact that you blatantly made a false accusation that I called you an "ass" under an ip and I spotted it was actually you. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


I've looked through these articles and I do not see any improper behavior by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, other than a small indiscretion just above in the way he quoted the essay WP:DICK. His edits seem to be according to policy. There is no sign in the talk page history that he deleted other user's comments or called anyone an "ass." If that text exists, please show a link to the history or diff to show it. I was not able to find anything like that. On the other hand, the IP editor has made some antagonistic comments, especially of concern since the accusations seem to be fabricated. There also is some indication that it's possible the IP may be a sockpuppet as Gustav von Humpelschmumpel mentioned. If the negative behavior continues, it might be helpful to file a report at WP:SSP; however, that takes work and time so unless the problem increases, it's probably best to ignore it.
I did not go into the details of the editing conflict, because that's not the purpose of this page. If you would like help with an editing dispute about content, try Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Editor assistance. --Parzival418 Hello 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


User:Suidafrikaan marking almost all edits as minor

Resolved.

I have alerted the user to Help:Minor edit, but was greeted with a personal attack and would rather not be involved with him directly. He continious to mark almost all edits as minor when they clearly are not: Special:Contributions/Suidafrikaan. Deon Steyn 07:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a user preference setting that causes all edits to be marked as minor by default. Maybe he has that checked unintentionally. --Parzival418 Hello 08:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I see it now yes, that doesn't seem very smart? Either way, his edits aren't marked correctly, but I don't want to set him off, because he has accused me of persecuting him :-) --Deon Steyn 09:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well there are some uses for that, such as when doing many edits in a row that are all spelling corrections or something, that some people like to do. For substanital edits, it's preferred not to mark them minor, but if he's making trouble for you I suggest just ignoring it. If he is uncivil in debates about content edits, that would be different and you might have to find a better solution. For this though, take the easy way out. --Parzival418 Hello 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


User:64.60.195.98 editing and removing other's comments from Talk:Dragon Skin body armor

Stale.

I have repeatedly reverted these edits, requesting that the individual stop, as the points removed are not personal attacks or otherwise inappropriate. I don't know what to do next, however it is frustrating that this individual thinks that a proper way to avoid discussion they do not like is to simply censor it. I have not reverted their last removal. Darker Dreams 13:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Infringement of WP:NPOV on article Theories on the origin of Croats

Resolved.

I am not a regular wikipedian, nor an expert on this particular topic, so apologies if I am not going about this the right way. I believe the section on the Iranian theory on the origin of the Croats on the above mentioned page has too strong a point of view. The references used are either obscure and indecipherable (this has nothing to do with them being in Croatian of course), or in the case of footnote 3, are strongly nationalistic and of dubious neutrality. The section does not talk to the latter section on genetic evidence which more or less refutes it. My understanding of the history of the peoples of the Balkans is that such a strong 'Iranian theory' has been largely put to bed by academics, and I think this article would benefit from some reference to this. Perhaps someone reading this will be more knowledgeable about the topic and would be able to clean up this article? Saamah 17:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to post your request. It's good to protect the NPOV as youmentioned. You can edit the article yourself, or you can post your comments on the talk page of the article. There, you will find editors discussing the article and you can work with them to improve it. To learn about how to edit Wikipedia articles, please visit the main help page table of contents. --Parzival418 Hello 19:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


User:Yankees10

Resolved.

This is about the article G-Unit Feuds, I have tried to improve the layout of this article to enable easier understanding for people who are coming to wikipedia to learn something new. The User Yankees10 has continually been reverting my edits. In my opinion he is being protective of the article beause he claims to have made it himself. There has been other minor disputes between me and this user over the same article about merging with G-Unit, but again he continually removes my tags. I chose to let that one go because I did not want to have to take it further. I would appreciate some help on this situation

Thanks

--The-G-Unit-Boss 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC) 17:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the first tag revert on G-Unit Feuds, your merge tag should not have been removed, however I do feel that had a discussion taken place it is likely that your merge proposal would have been opposed - my reasoning is that both articles are already of a reasonable length, and since it is a popular subject they are both bound to get longer, better to have sparate articles. As an alternative for you what about placing a condensed version of G-Unit Feuds into the G-Unit article? That said, you do have every right to put a merge tag on the page, and the 3RR rule is there to make sure it isn't removed before a discussion can take place sbandrews (t) 18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
on the subject of the current debate on section structure I see what you are aiming to do by puttung all the feuds into a section feud, however this has the disadvantage that editors can no longer edit the separate sections individually, so I would side with yankee10 on this issue. sbandrews (t) 18:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, With my version of the article there are still little links-'edit' to edit each section, i.e each feud with a different person, the current article that yankees10 continues to revert to is not clearly structured and is not easy to understand for inexperienced users. Also with feuds it is often difficult to distinguish between feuds that are still continuing and those that have been settled, I have had this conversation with yankees10 but he seems to think that he can tell when a feud is over and prefers to have 'Past Feuds' and 'Feuds'.

Thanks

--The-G-Unit-Boss 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, you are right! Can't think why I thought that... There are two issues here, first putting everthing under the heading feud - second distinguishing past and current feuds. I would suggest trying to reach consensus on one issue at a time, show you willingness to compromise by reverting to yankees10 version and opening a discussion on the talk page about what criterion are being used to determine whether a feud is over or not, and then move forward from there... sbandrews (t) 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am absolutely sure that trying to disscuss this matter with yankees10 will not resolve anything, he is being completely ignorant to the fact that I am only trying to improve the article. When I changed it to my version he reverted and wrote : wow you dont know when to give up, there is no way of persuading him.

Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 17:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In that you may be right, but there is more to the talk page than discussing with your current fellow editor - what you write there will, unlike content you put on the article page, remain for people to read for a long time. So it is a great place to write down what you think should be done to the article - even if your ideas don't get taken up immediately future editors with the same viewpoint can take them up and point to them as evidence of consensus. You started well using the talk page for the merge issue, be bold, use it again, this is just what it is for... sbandrews (t) 07:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Ok, Ill try that, its just that not a lot of people visit the talk page, is there any notice that is available to put on the article which alerts people of disscussion on the talk page?

Thanks

--The-G-Unit-Boss 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, maybe this tag will do - {{disputed}} - or perhaps - {{ReversionWar|talk page section name}}. sbandrews (t) 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing dispute at Talk:Atheism

Resolved.

ThAtSo's lack of civility has poisoned the discussion at Talk:Atheism intended to improve the article.

On June 9, the day Atheism was the featured article of the day, I pointed out that a citation in the article (dealing with the relationship between religiousity and intelligence) was not a reliable source. Specifically, it was an article from an obscure, non-peer-reviewed magazine by an unknown author. No editor had actually seen the article, but it was mentioned in Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion, a diatribe against religion. I explained that instead of using this highly dubious source, we should look for objective sources in peer-reviewed literature. I even went on to Google and Google Scholar to find sources we could use.

Thatso reacted acerbically, with the following comments:

  • "This correlation doesn't directly tell us the cause. In other words, it doesn't tell us whether religion encourages people to be stupid and ignorant, or religion just makes better marketing headroads among the stupid and ignorant. No matter how you slice it, though, when you put the facts in such blunt terms, feelings are going to be hurt. That's too bad, but a fact's a fact, and we can't hide them just to spare feelings. That's why, in the end, this section isn't going anywhere" (June 10)
  • "Thank you ever so much for your statement of faith. Unfortunately, your unsupported assertion carries no weight in the face of the evidence, so I must reject your conclusion. The truth is objective and cannot be changed by your whims, no matter how strongly you wish otherwise. Finally, it's not up to me to prove the link; there are dozens of studies that prove it for me. Any doubt you express now is itself consistent with that link. After all, any 'belief system' that encourages you to reject proven facts isn't going to help you learn." (June 12)
  • "This is getting tedious. I'm not making this stuff up, just referencing the meta-study that you are very much aware of and wish to delete all mention of. It's not my fault that there's a correlation, and it's not my responsibility to somehow personally prove what those studies already prove. This isn't about me, it's about you wanting to hide facts that you consider unpleasant, which just isn't going to happen." (June 13)
  • "Please, if you were interested in an objective perspective rooted in the evidence, you'd be an atheist and we wouldn't be having this discussion." (June 18)

Thatso's angry responses and attitude violated WP:NPA (no personal attacks), WP:AGF (assume good faith), WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) and Wikipedia:Civility. I explained this to him on his user talk page. But instead of changing his behavior, ThAtSo tried to turn the tables on me with a frivolous complaint.

User:Devraj5000 whose user page says he wants to "promote atheism in the Wikipedia" went on a rant on the talk page about how atheism is good and religion is bad, so there should be no criticism of atheism in the article. He did this after I had explained WP:NPOV on his user talk page. So I pointed out on Talk:Atheism that he was violating NPOV and should refrain from involvement on the page if he could not take a step back from his personal views. ThAtSo stepped in in Devraj5000's defense by attacking me:

  • "I may be new to Wikipedia, but I know it's not kosher to try to scare off contributors with personal attacks. Cut it out or I will report you."

I would appreciate if some people can help explain to ThAtSo why his conduct is so potentially detrimental to the project before he forces me to seek arbitration. -- Mwalcoff 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

These comments are both provoked and cherry-picked, intentionally taken out of context so as to mislead. Their context is the discussion page of the article on atheism, where Mwalcoff is bullying atheists by encouraging them not to edit the article. His motivation is that he is a theist who would like to insert a large number of uncited apogetic arguments to bias the article towards his POV, and he needs to remove the people who oppose his changes. I encourage you to go the page and read the whole thing for yourself so you can see what's really going on here. But first, let me show you some of the things he likes to say:
  • "If you are too zealous of an atheist to edit this article from an objective perspective, you should not be involved in this article."
  • " If you are unable to take a step back from your personal views, you should refrain from editing this article."
I may be new to Wikipedia, but I know all about bullies in real life and that means I won't back down. ThAtSo 08:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Comment. I've changed the heading of this alert to "Editing dispute at Talk:Atheism" rather than " User:ThAtSo" because it's not reaqlly about his behavior, it's about a disagreement in the content and methods of editing at that article. After reading the long complaint above and then looking at the talk page, I do not see User:ThAtSo writing incivil comments or personal attaks. I do see that both of you are somewhat heated about the topic, and I do suggest that you both take a deep breath and relax a bit before writing your comments. Focus on the content and not on each other.

Regarding the formatting of the report, I should point out that it was not posted according to the instructions for posting alerts, near the top of this page, where it is requested that editors posting alerts not engage in long discussions and descriptions and instead make a concise statement of the problem and provide links to specific examples. I should also point out that it is not appropriate to bring up arbitration at this stage of your discussion, since arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, not the place to start. If you get stuck in the early easy processes, mediation could be an option, but I doubt that will be needed.

I suggest that you invite other editors to offer their comments on the content of the article. That way it can move away being a dispute between just a few people to a wider discussion that can attain consensus. To do that, you could file a Request for Comment at WP:RFC about the article. (To be clear, I am not suggesting an WP:RFC/U which would be for comment about a user - that would not be appropriate in this situation.) You could also invite editors from various Wikiprojects that relate to the topic of the article, such as religion, philosophy, sociology and psychology. Good luck. --Parzival418 Hello 20:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you completely on ThAtSo's behavior. From the beginning of this dispute, ThAtSo's comments have dripped with incivility, personal animosity and refusal to assume good faith on my part. He has even brought that attitude here to this page, in which he accuses me, completely falsely and without evidence, of a sinister motivation. If you go back and read how this dispute unfolded chronologically, including my comments on ThAtSo and Devraj5000's user talk pages, you'll see how I did everything possible to maintain politeness and assume good faith. But my overtures were met with more incivility on ThAtSo's part.
Note that before coming here, I posted an RFC about the editing dispute. There are two separate issues here: the editing dispute, and ThAtSo's behavior. I can deal with the editing dispute, but ThAtSo's continuing harrassment needs to be stopped.
I apologize for not reading the instructions more carefully. -- Mwalcoff 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the apology about the instructions. I didn't mean to make a big deal about that.
Regarding your comments about User:ThAtSo, I have re-visited Talk:Atheism and read all of his comments plus some of the others. I do see that there is an overall hi level of stress there, between many of the editors on the article, but I just don't see any pattern of harrassment by that one user. I also reviewed your talk page and that of the other two editors you mentioned and I don't see the problem you described. I see that he has stated some strong opinions, but you have done so as well. Some of his comments that you've described as personal attacks, to me just look like disagreements. Maybe some other editors should visit the page and bring their comments - this is just my personal viewpoint.
One of the important things to consider is that there is that there are multiple editors on both sides of the dispute and ThAtSo is not any kind of "ringleader". There are some comments by various editors there that one might consider uncivil, and in one case, someone else pointed it out and there was an apology. It's certainly far from consensus, and that's frustrating. But I don't understand why you see the problem as generated by the one user you reported.
I recommend that you change your focus and instead of trying to convince a certain person to change their mind, work to find consensus among the editors working on the page. If someone says something uncivil, point it out and ask for it to be withdrawn. If you and the other editors consistently steer the debate away from heated arguments or personal comments and towards referenced facts and reliable sources, it will work out fine. If a user really does have a problem and won't behave according to the community policies, over time that will become more clear and the user will get himself in trouble. So far though, at least to me view, that's not happening in this situation. --Parzival418 Hello 01:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pazival. I'm not out to change ThAtSo's mind. I just wish he would stop being sarcastic, insulting and accusatory. I'll try to ignore him. -- Mwalcoff 02:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan, I appreciate your willingness to give it a chance. --Parzival418 Hello 05:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: List of mind mapping software (initial report was titled: User:Timeshifter)

Stuck. Disagreement about article content and methods of communicating is ongoing. No one particular editor is causing the problems. Recommend avoiding all personal comments and focusing on content only. RFC active at the article, hopefully more editors will visit and consensus can be found. Interested editors, please visit this link to enter your comments: Talk:List of mind mapping software#Request for Comment: List of mind mapping software --Parzival418 Hello 07:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

Race and genetics

Resolved.

Edit war with User:XGustaX for removing cited material Muntuwandi 05:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice. User:XGustaX deleted the above report from this page as of 22:47, 19 June 2007 with the edit summary "(debate is over)". The alert text has been restored because content entered on this page is for community involvement and should not be removed except in unusual circumstances, with justification. When an alert is resolved, it can be noted here for the record, but not deleted. I have not reviewed the specifics of this alert, but it should be noted that removal of the alert by User:XGustaX was inappropriate in that it was his conduct being questioned by the editor who posted the alert.
Editors are invited to review and comment on the alert as reported. --Parzival418 Hello 08:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


I am sorry I was not aware it was against the rules. The issue does seem to be over we have reached and agreement and we have finished disussing how to add the information and revise the other information. XGustaX 13:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's not a big deal. It's just that this page is a record for the community of these discussions. After a while if the alert is inactive it will be removed from this page and archived by date, linked in the archive box near the top of the page. It appears the conflict is resolved. If it flares up again, you've welcome to add to this alert posting. --Parzival418 Hello 07:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Toupee

Resolved.

During a heated debate over content in the Toupee article, IP 24.15.208.65 declared that I was arrogant and then, when I tried to urge him against calling names, he simply reaffirmed the statement. After the second time I suggested that we discuss content not contributors, he was rude. I even kindly said that I would, "rather putz around arguing with you about a list of toupee wearers than see you not contributing, so don't make personal attacks, okay?" All of this is documented on Talk:Toupee#two concerns. VanTucky 05:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a read through wp:npa and the most fitting piece of advice I found for you was 'Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all.'. Though it's rather too late to use in this instance, looking back through the comments on the talk page it's easy to see how the conflict grew out of a few badly chosen phrases and words on both sides. My solution for you? One of you needs to either apologise (the brave way) or back off (less brave :D) and forget about the harsh words, kind regards sbandrews (t) 08:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the advice. I've since agreed that I was just complicit in provoking the attack by responding and by threatening a block for violation of npa. VanTucky 05:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy and user:bobsmith319

Resolved.

This guy has continually been a one-man crusade to censor the nude image of a pregnant woman, and despite consensus being against him, today I noticed he once again removed the image, for no reason, with no edit summary and not even an attempt to discuss on the talk page. I went to his talk page and warned him if he tries it again I'll have to do something, I figure a RfC, but I've no idea if even that would convince him to stop being disruptive. he's been warned multiple times, but I'm going here first because it's been a while since he last tried it, and I'd rather prevent this from becoming messy like last time. Kuronue 02:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see his many arguments on the talk page for removing the image, but Bobsmith319 has only removed the image from the article once recently and once six months ago. So he's not revert-warring or causing trouble with the article. I see that he makes strong statements on the talk page and often veers into borderline incivility, but as long as he does not actually remove the image from the article, those are just words and you can ignore them, especially since there is consensus at the article to retain the image. If he removes it, revert the change. If he removes it again, post a notice on the talk page to the other editors (not directly to this user - don't argue about it) and ask to confirm consensus so someone else can revert it and you don't get into a reversion war. Review the article on WP:Consensus for some good tips. Every comment does not need a response. You can't change someone's mind if they are not open to change - comments on the talk page are just talk. As long as he's not disturbing the article, I suggest you ignore his provocations. Most important, don't post on his user talk page, that can inflame the problem. If he posts on yours, if he is civil, reply if you wish. If his comment is uncivl, strike it out and let him know you will only reply to polite comments. --Parzival418 Hello 07:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Soxrock's disruptive editing pattern

Despite pleas from several editors, User:Soxrock persists using a highly disruptive method of editing articles that, while technically not against any specific policy, is disruptive and detrimental to the database as a whole. Specifically, the editor in question has been making rather minor changes to articles (typically dealing with sports statistics) as a series of several dozen tiny edits instead of one or two large edits. Several editors, including myself, have urged Soxrock to stop this primarily through the use of the "Show preview" button. We have explained that his editing style has major negative impacts on the project's servers: the server load and bandwidth required to update the pages for every single edit he submits, the clogging up of edit summaries and the wasted extra storage space required for the thousands of intermediate pages he leaves in his wake. None of this has dissuaded him from this pattern.

For specific examples of this behavior, please see the following diffs:

  1. [157] — List of managers for the Cincinnati Reds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), 218 consecutive edits over the course of 27 1/2 hours.
  2. [158] — 2007 Tampa Bay Storm season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), 47 consecutive edits over the course of 14 hours.
  3. [159] — 1961 American Football League Draft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), 250 edits (plus 5 edits from another editor who was trying to demonstrate how to accomplish the same amount of work with only a handful of edits) over the course of two days.

These are only the most egregious examples from the past week.

When confronted about this disruptive behavior, Soxrock has been alternatingly duplicitous — by saying he will change his ways (see here and here)— and indignant (as with here).

For some reason, this only seems to be problem that has surfaced in the last two months. Per my comments here, I think that Soxrock has a bad case of editcountitis. (See here for Soxrock's edit count and edit summary usage.) What we need to impress upon him is that in the long run, he is doing more harm than good as far as the project goes.

Thanks, Caknuck 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

His main purpose for doing this, as Soxrock himself has admitted, is to avoid edit conflicts. But in reality, he makes these series' of edits on articles in which he is the only editor, if not one of the very few editors, who edits that article, reducing the risk of any edit conflict arising dramatically. --Ksy92003(talk) 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe his main purpose of doing this is to drive up his edit count. I questioned his editing techniques before, here: User_talk:Soxrock#Small_Edits_on_ATH_Stats. Just looking at his contributions, I see that the situation hasn't gotten any better. The last 37 edits (all on June 25th) of this article 1999-2000_NHL_season are his, including an astounding 29 edits in 17 minutes. Bjewiki 12:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kellygorge

Resolved. Not certain if he gave up or was satisfied by the last edit I made to the article in question, but the problem is resolved for now. Caerwine 05:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps making badly formatted and unreferenced edits to Technician Fourth Grade and related articles. I've asked him to at least make decently formatted edits and that I'd be willing to put some effort into verifying his edits, but instead he keeps making badly formatted edits without response. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to concentrate on formatting his/her entries (as he/she is a new editor) and place fact tags next to contentious material - then if a reference isn't provided after a few days, by either you or another editor, you could remove the material, this might help calm the situation down a little. Try and put plenty of reasoning into your edit comments, keep them calm, polite and instructive, often a good way to reach uncommunicative editors - use the edit comments to invite discussion on the talk page - good luck, sbandrews (t) 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Talk:Rigdonite

Resolved.

I personally believe that JCG has a hard time assuming good faith, (usually explicitly assuming bad faith) and doesn't appear to understand wikiprocedure (see Talk:Rigdonite). Right now I feel as if I'm fighting an uphill battle against him. McKay 14:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a read through - it is starting to get a bit heated :) but you are both making some good points. What do you think about his/her suggestion of a merger with Sidney Rigdon as a way of moving forward? sbandrews (t) 15:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
call me crazy, but I'm having a hard time seeing his points as being sensical. I don't think either of us think a merger is necessary. Both of us think that the topic is probably notable, but I put the tag up, because the notability guideline hasn't been met, and he insisists that it has been met, without ever stating how. That's the crux of the issue. I quote guidelines, he just says I'm wrong. I'd appreciate any input on that page or on The Church of Jesus Christ. McKay 16:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was out of line in my comments. The chill pill comment was made to redirect you to my actual statement about capitalizing the C in all Restoration groups, which was my major comment that you had not commented on. Thanks guys! Jcg5029 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in your statement about my not commenting on the uncial 'C'. I did not have any substantive comment on that part of your statement. McKay 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you accept my sincere apology? Jcg5029 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I accept an apology, but it appears as if several other problems remain:
  1. You don't appear to understand wikiprocedures
  2. nor do you explain your reasoning within wikipolicy.
  3. Removal of cleanup tags without consensus happens repeatedly, McKay 20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


OK, I edited both your comments a bit to keep us on track, my apologies for being away for a while - basicly I repeat that I do think you are both making some good points here, its the kind of discussion that happens very often on wikipedia, the important thing is as both of you point out to keep on assuming good faith - and from an outsiders point of view may I assure you both that I see heaps of good faith on both sides.
I have also renamed the discussion here - as realy this is a discussion about what is happening in the rigdonite article, this is not an editor review nor have I any intention of becoming involved in one - nor imo is one needed sbandrews (t) 06:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As a way of bringing in more editors to get a broader range of views on the subject proposing a merge to either Sidney Rigdon or Latter Day Saint movement could prove very constructive - my vote would be for the latter - and would in no way diminish the value of the work in the article, indeed the added context would probably improve it greatly. sbandrews (t) 07:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
good, if either of you want/need help setting up the merge templates do please ask, kind regards, sbandrews (t) 04:43, 28 June 2007 (1UTC)

Richmond, California

Stale.

Iliketobeanonymous is being very unvicil to me on the Richmond, California article, talk page, edit summaries called me an idiot, and has made lots of intimidating belittle snips at meCholga is a SUPERSTAR¡Talk2Cholga!Sexy Contribs 04:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

but you seem to be giving as good as you get :) - I read through some of the discussion on the talk page, and one thing that strikes me is that a few times you say there can be no compromise (when it comes to the facts) - well from my experience on wiki when it comes to an edit dispute there always has to be compromise, so this is my advice to you, start learning how to get *part* of what you want by compromising a little - its like bartering at a market eh? Can be fun, luego amigo :) sbandrews (t) 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ceiling fan

Stale.

This article has been largely written by one person. I feel it needs a lot of work to conform to WP:NPOV and WP:Cite. user:Piercetheorganist who has largely written the article by himself, continually fights any edit made to the page, frequently not with civility. I am concerned by his behavior (he has been banned once for incivility). I mainly would like another experience editor to review what is going on and to bring more editors into the process to try to build a consensus. Idioma 04:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

could you narrow it down a bit - which edits in particular do you find questionable? sbandrews (t) 08:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

Various editors keep reverting my {{globalize}} tag for the article without having achieved consensus or addressed the issues raised by me on the talk page. My concern has been an inadvertent violation of WP:NPOV by the introduction of a Systematic bias into the article by the exclusion of notable mainstream non-western academics as non-RS due their affiliation with Muslim institutions of learning. I do not wish to get into an embroiled in an extended edit-war over the expression of a concern with the article!!--Tigeroo 21:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Apostrophe re: multiple articles involving persistent violations of WP:CIV

  • Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Please see special contrbutions for user Apostrophe as to edit summaries such as "completely incomprehensible...get over it...it takes a special kind of idiot....dumbest use...READ...incoherence much?" etc. This goes on for months and this editor has been banned for such discourteous behavior without any demonstrative change exhibited after being censured. Below this post are those of fellow editors who also expressed that this should be posted elsewhere other than WP:AVI where it was initially posted. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
doesn't look like a obvious case of vandalism, more like an edit war. Might want to try Wikipedia:Resolving disputes instead. Nat Tang ta | co | em 07:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree -- this is probably worth looking into, but is also probably more suited to a discussion board, such as WP:AN/I. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You might list them at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Corvus cornix 07:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:Madchester

Resolved.

I have been the victim of harassment by User:Madchester over the last few days. Any edits I make are immediately reverted, and attempt to make contact with User:Madchester is regarded as vandalism, and he continually reverts my talk page when I have asked him not to. I will attempt to inform Madchester of this page.

Any assistance with this user would be most appreciated, thankyou. Thatswhatsup 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy is that users should not delete (warning) messages on their own talk page, though I understand that can sometimes be frustrating, that's just the way it is - hope that helps sbandrews (t) 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I read Whatsup's message as saying that Madchester was reverting Whatsup's Talk page, not his own. That qualifies as open harassment, if true. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
the reverts were done to replace warnings on Whatsup's talk page - Madchester is an admin and had left them there (I think) sbandrews (t) 20:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thatswhatsup was constantly remove other editors' comments and warnings without their permission. Barring blatant vandalism, that is unacceptable per WP's talk page guidelines. --Madchester 20:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, now that I look over Whatsup's contribution history and history on both his and Madchester's talk page, I agree. It appears that Whatsup has engaged in active vandalism and has been properly warned, and is in fact harassing Madchester in retaliation for administrator warnings. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thatswhatsup: As explained above, Madchester is a Wikipedia administrator, and near as I can tell he was well within his right to warn you about your behavior. Your responses to him, including your tone and the blanking of your Talk page, were visibly inappropriate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
KieferSkunk: I was not harrasing Madchester, I tried to communicate with him on his talk page and my edits would continually be removed and a warning of vandalism. It was after that I used foul language, which I agree is inappropriate, but as is reverting my edits without cause. I was not vandalising any articles, I was contributing, yet my articles would be reverted without cause or justification, and any uploaded images deleted regardless of license. I do not want Madchesters comments on my talk page, and have removed his comments, as this user is causing me much frustration and is distracting me from making useful edits to the wiki. Furthermore removing my comments from his talk page that is unacceptable per WP's talk page guidelines Thatswhatsup 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid your contribution history, the history on your User Talk page and Madchester's User Talk page do not bear you out. Madchester does not appear to have removed your comments from his talk page - all he did was add the {{unsigned}} template to your comments to indicate who had left them. He moved portions of his talk page to a set of archives. Meanwhile, your tone toward him appears to have been very aggressive, posturing and/or threatening from the start. I am basing my assessment on reading the Diffs for your edits and edits surrounding yours, from all three sources.
Early in your contribution history, you appeared to be adding or changing established images in several articles to the same unrelated image file. Those changes were reverted, and it appears that Madchester gave you a warning to stop doing that, among other things. At this point, I do not believe Madchester has done anything wrong. If you can post links to specific examples in whcih you feel you have been wronged by Madchester, we can go from there. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 14:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not know how to check my contributions or to retrieve history, but any attempt to edit any page at all seems to get reverted automatically. Surely in his talk history it shows that I made comments which were removed with a vandalism warning as my only response. I apologize for my atagonistic communication, but continual reverts without reason or communication is frustrating. At this point I do not want his name on my talk page as I am still quite angry. Thatswhatsup 17:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
KieferSkunk: If you want proof just look at my talk page, I am now being accused of using an alternate IP, my talk page is continually reverted against my will, and I am accused of vandalism(it is my own page....), I am getting mighty sick of this, and would like some sort of restraining order, why not have a different editor make reverts if they feel it is warranted? Also, I expected to be banned temporarily any second now, as I have archived my talk page, and Madchester won't like that. Thatswhatsup 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Two things: First, it's not a good idea to bait admins into taking disciplinary action. Second, to check your contributions, click on "my contributions" at the top-right corner of any WP page. While on your User or User Talk page, you can also click on "User contributions". To see the edit history of any page, navigate to that page and then click the "history" tab at the top. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, continually blanking your page despite a recent block is not going to improve your reputation on Wikipedia. Don't take the warnings personally, they're only suppose to help you improve your contributions to the site. I don't want to extend a block on your account for both the repeated talk page refactoring and evading a block by using an alternate IP.

And I had to archive my last month of comments, b/c one of the bots had placed some 50+ image tagging warnings on my talk page. It just made it impossible for other editors to communicate with me properly. --Madchester 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not used an alternate IP at all, if I have it was automatic, and not something intentially done, I decided to wait until I could complain about you, since you removed any ability to talk to you and failed to communicate with me when I could. I want your name of my talk page, feel free to let some other editor summarise your "warnings". Thatswhatsup 17:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't look to me like you understand, Thatswhatsup... if you want to resolve a conflict, violating WP policy (blanking your Talk page) and telling Madchester to get "the hell" off of your Talk page isn't the way to do it. Those warnings he left on your page are official policy warnings, given by a WP administrator, and unless I missed something along the way, those warnings were left for a reason. Not to harass you, but to let you know that your behavior appeared to be out of line.
I do not see any evidence that you have actively tried to resolve your conflict with Madchester at all - all you have done was to tell him (in a very confrontational way) to not leave any messages on your Talk page, and then complained about him here.
To Madchester: It's difficult to prove IP-address issues regarding IP-based blocks, though I believe there's enough circumstancial evidence to support your claim. I'm sure you're aware that most ISPs assign dynamic IPs to their customers, and in many work environments (behind firewalls, etc), the IP can change dramatically even between page loads. Also, as I understand it, a user can still access his/her own Talk page even when blocked from the rest of WP, specifically so they can protest the block. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
KieferSkunk, If you look at madchesters talk page history, I had asked why he would not stop blanking my talk page, you would think he could give a warning with a bit more explanation. Regardless, I am not the only one who has violated WP policy. Please explain what evidence you are referring to that supports that I tried to get around the block? I am thinking of starting ove with a new username, one that is not on MadChesters watchlist. Tis a sad world when someone is blocked and cannot even edit their own talkpage to protest. Thatswhatsup 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence that you tried to get around the block, I will ask madchester to clarify sbandrews (t) 13:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Madchester has confirmed that he was mistaken on the issue of block evasion - so I have struck through the relevant part of his edit on this page sbandrews (t) 17:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
An apology would be nice, and I request to be taken of Madchesters watchlist(he is notified of any edit I make), as I feel that is not unlike being spied upon. Perhaps he in the future he can provide an explanation with his warnings. Thatswhatsup 13:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of any such watchlist - not one that notifies of any edit you make - though of course all of our edits on wikipedia are open for all to view. I think it is unlikely that you will get any apology, since you were exceedingly rude to him! Try to remember that admins are just normal people who work voluntarily in this project to help, in the end, people like you. I did point out to him that more explanations with his warnings would be a good idea, I'm sure he has taken that onboard, sbandrews (t) 17:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


User:MaxPont re: Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Refusal_to_accept_Mediation

Resolved.

MaxPont has been questioning the three editors that disagreed with a mediation attempt [160] by commenting on their talk pages [161] [162] [163]. After each editor responded, and MaxPont was warned not to take the issue further (User_talk:MaxPont#Mediation_was_declined), MaxPont has taken it to the article's talk page. --Ronz 15:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A complicated situation - with regards to your recent discussion on Maxpont's talk page, I agree that his questioning of the three editors had an element of harassment to it, however all three seemed to respond well, calmly explaining their reasons (even apologetically) , after which Maxpont left them alone - all good. Do you realy feel you have the right to *warn* other users away from discussing issues - that too has an element of harassment to it, don't you think? sbandrews (t) 16:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Considering that MaxPont escalated the issue to the article discussion page, yes I think it was appropriate to warn him previously. One reason that I didn't mention for giving the warning was the discussions on the mediation talk page, which was deleted. The answers that the editors gave again for MaxPont had already been given on the talk page. For that matter, they had been previously given on the article talk page before the mediation was even suggested as a part of the prior RfCs, prior mediation, and prior three months of non-stop discussion on the issue which led to this mediation. --Ronz 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It reminds me a bit of the never ending arguments on the talk:global warming page - several of the editors on the stephen barrett page, no doubt yourself included, are suggesting just letting the issue drop for a while - and that seems like a very good idea, but can we really demand that all others do likewise? Who is to decide that consensus has been reached to stop discussion? sbandrews (t) 17:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Still it's no excuse to violate WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS just to make a WP:POINT. --Ronz 18:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Ronz archived the talk page section.(diff) (diff) After MaxPont had reverted both edits, I removed the section once again from the Barrett talk page (no consensus required to remove stuff like this. how does violating WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS help build an encyclopedia?). MaxPont is invited to make their points without (restoring) policy violations that poison the atmosphere. Avb ÷ talk 21:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Zheng He

Resolved.

I have been trying to avoid edit war over whether Chinese voyager Zheng He reached the Americas in the 15th century. User:Sllee19 (talk) has engaged in multiple reverts and I have been critical of his contributions. User:HenriLobineau (talk) has accused me of an "unhelpful (almost closed-minded) attitude," "deliberate misrepresentation" of the views of another, and deletionism. Talk:Zheng He is long, but the Americas debate begins at Talk:Zheng He#Original research. See also User talk:Sllee19 and User talk:HenriLobineau. Please bring us your counsel. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

One visitor came to the page, and I have created a sandbox for the discussion. Posted the following at Talk:Zheng He#Sandbox created:

As the discussion over purported evidence of a Chinese presence in the Americas before 1492 has become lengthy and is drawing on highly detailed evidence, I have acted on the suggestion by HenriLobineau and created a sandbox for the discussion. Everyone is invited to continue this discussion at User:Alarob/Zheng He. My hope is that we can arrive at a consensus and perhaps improve one or more sections of this article. Please visit the page (which contains only a descriptive header) and let me know if you would like to see some additional ground rules or a better description of the page's purpose. Also let me know how the debate should be structured. Perhaps there should be a section on the brass medallion, one on the Big Dipper flag, and so on. I look forward to an instructive and friendly exchange of views.

-- Rob C (Alarob) 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It now appears that the two users who complained about me are unwilling to hold a discussion. Thanks to User:Weston.pace for stopping by. Anyone else? Please? -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be going about things in the right way - most importantly you are keeping your cool! Some of the editors involved have very short edit histories, often they will disappear when the talk page calms down, so a good technique is to space out your edits, making the whole situation less interesting to those not here to write quality encyclopaedic entries. As is often the case the issue is what is a good source, have we provided a balanced picture of current academic thinking... I have added the page to my watchlist, sbandrews (t) 12:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Veganism

Resolved.

Hello. I am trying to edit the page on Veganism ( at least) so that it contains counterarguments. Currently, the article is completely imbalanced. All of the editors for that section are members of the Wikipedia Animal Rights project, and as far as I can tell they are all confirmed animal rights proponents.

They continuously remove my attempts to add conflicting content, or even links to it, on the ground that it is insufficiently academic. But my counterarguments, although they are simple, are ones I had to derive on my own BECAUSE no academic or internet source contained balanced information about this subject. The effects on my personal life have been devastating, and I consider this a very serious issue, like having Wikipedia's page on drugs not mention anything negative.

I attempted to turn this matter over for formal dispute mediation, but the proposal was rejected, I think because I had not yet exhausted all other options. I consider that these options are likely to be fruitless, but I am prepared to try them all at this time so that I can get assistance from the Mediation committee in the future. I will not repeat the discussion here, but instead link to the mediation request page, which contains links and discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Veganism

Repeat2341 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

From looking over the veganism and vegetarian pages I would say that part of the problem is that you are not yet following the correct procedure for making such edits - i.e. ones that are likely to be disputed. The first and most important thing to know is that when someone reverts one of your edits, take it to the talk page! The talk pages are where most disputes are discussed first, and you don't seem to be taking full advantage of this. A good idea is to search the talk page and its archives to see if similar ideas have been discussed before, perhaps to find editors who have expressed similar views, sbandrews (t) 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

GATXER unable to resist violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

Resolved.
Good afternoon. After taking the time to review the actions of this user, I have come to the conclusion that some intervention may be needed. User has clearly violated civility rules and referring to sourced content as "POV vandalism" is unacceptable. I hope this can be adequately resolved, but since this user already has a case pending in the 3RR Noticeboard, I don't know how likely this is. I'm going to try to reason with him/her nonetheless. Hope we can get this user's side of the story and come to some type of resolution. I'll notify him/her now.The Kensington Blonde T C 22:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on this subject was reached days ago.Editor Nescio then requested a Mediator. The Mediator then agreed with the rest of us and told Nescio he was wrong and we are right. Editor Nescio still refuses to listen to the Consensus.I may have violated civility rules, frankly I'm not sure of that, but its out of frustration that Editor Nescio refuse to accept the Consensus.

As for vandalism, I have been told if someone continues to change a page after Mediation and page Consensus, that is considered Vandalism. Is that not true?

Frankly I believe Editor Nescio just wants to change the page to fit his POV. He's in mediation in many pages. I admit he's knows how Wiki works more than me but doesn't that mean he also should know what Consensus means? GATXER 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you please direct me to these instances, so I can take a look? Are you referring to this case? If so, yes, you are somewhat correct in that it was decided something along the lines of "we now know" was inappropriate. But it was also decided that using sourced content to describe the critics' views was within the rules. Could you explain why you then continued to remove sourced content and refer to it as "POV vandalism" after the ruling response on the mediation had been made?The Kensington Blonde T C 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page, Consensus that we should list the reasons and then put the Criticism in the Criticism section and not a running Commentary. "We now know" was POV just as ::(This is not a valid casus belli under the laws of war and with the prohibition of a war of aggression in mind.)[1] is. That is the POV part left. No court in the world has ruled that.

POV vandalism now only is for the This is not a valid casus belli.

Consensus of the talk page has been clear that the running Commentary is POV and should be removed.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_Resolution#Thoughts_on_Running_Parenthetical_Commentary_in_Outline_of_Factors_used_to_Justify_Authorization_of_Force

Also from the Mediator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_Resolution#Suggestion_by_Addhoc

The Running Commentary makes the page hard to read and understand. That's not just me saying so, Its everyone but editor N.

I've made some mistakes. I admit that I'm new to this. I let Editor N get under my skin.For that I'm sorry....for Doing what the Consensus agrees with,I'm not sorry.

In the year or so I've been on here, I have never seen a page Consensus that was everybody on one side but one.GATXER 04:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What I would suggest at this point would be to re-arrange the sourced paragraphs to state that "critics assert" or "critics state" or something along those lines. Whatever consensus stated, the deletion of these sources in their entirety without good reason (i.e. the sources are blatantly inaccurate) is unwarrented, and was not suggested by any mediating body. If you can manage to handle the remainder of this conflict in a civil manner, we just might find a resolution that would be favourable to both sides. However, if you continue to edit in the manner you have done so, you could damage your reputation, or worse, be blocked. And I, for one, would not like to see this happen.The Kensington Blonde T C 04:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has been very clear on this issue, Even before I joined in. We think the reasons for the war should be stated and then criticism should be in the criticism section right below. The Running Commentary just makes the reasons had to separate out. Some of the stuff like "(This is not a valid casus belli under the laws of war and with the prohibition of a war of aggression in mind" isn't backed up by any court in the world at this time.

It should be pointed out that its not criticism we mind, which is good because the entire page is filled with POV stuff. For example every single References is anti-war or Bush. Its just that we think that Editor N is trying to confuse the reasons to make it harder for people to understand. The "Casus" is clearly POV.those are the edits I have been making. I have NEVER touched anything in the criticism section I believe.

I would point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force and to the fact there is no running commentary. GATXER 05:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • To be clear, this request was not another attempt at mediation. Although I appreciate the effort, all that is required is that this editor stops his abusive and belligerent way of contributing. No more, no less. By his own words he is under the impression that "frustration" is a carte blanche to violate WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please inform him that such is unacceptable even when things get heated. Further, you will find the mediator has done what this user refused to do and that is to move the information this editor unwaveringly was deleting against "consensus." The inclusion of the disputed information by the mediator shows that the claimed "consensus" against doing so is a misrepresentation of the facts. Also, continuing the debate while the mediator has already settled the case[164] implies a lack of sufficient knowledge of events on the part of Mr G, or may be part of the behaviour I ask him to stop. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


Well, since this particular noticeboard pertains to civility rules and the violation thereof, I would have to agree with Nescio, at least in this particular portion of the ongoing dispute. GATXER, the fact of the matter is that you have been shown to resort to uncivil tactics, something that is not accepted on Wikipedia. We don't want to see users frustrated here, but there really is no justification for personal attacks. Such tactics serve only as disruption. I may have gone a bit too far here in telling you not to delete the sourced content in question. You doing so is clearly a violation, but since this pertains to etiquette, it's just not my place to take part in the matter, so here is my take:

GATXER: I'm going to give you advice which I hope will be the final word in this portion of the active dispute. Personal attacks are not acceptable. I would strongly suggest that you read both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA thoroughly and repeatedly if necessary. Whatever it will take to get you to return as a civil editor. I would suggest you limit user interaction until both the articles mentioned are read. If this type of behaviour continues, you will be reported to the Administrator Noticebord, where you may be blocked. Because you seem to be remorseful for these attacks, I am under the impression this will not be necessary. Demonstrate your willingness to cooperate with the project as a whole be reading these articles, and abiding by them. Doing this will help your cause, in one way or another. That is all, and I hope the mediation provides the both of you a favourable resolution.TThe Kensington Blonde C 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 I consider this matter closed. I was uncivil to him. However I find it funny coming from a man who called George Bush " Fuhr, err, Great Leader." before I called him a Moonbat, who then complains about name calling. I really wonder why editor N needs so many Mediators on Bush pages.. IMHO editor N uses a mediator to bully people to get what he wants. Should it really be necessary to have a mediator decide if "we now know" was POV?. Anyway its over. For those confused by this whole nightmare.....The Mediator fixed the page doing what the Consensus wanted.He did what we all wanted and Editor N was 100% against. I want to thank.Addhoc publicly for it. I have read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and will try to do better.GATXER 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I consider the matter closed, although the way this user persists in his ad hominems, and misrepresentation of the facts, does not seem to match the "remorseful" attitude described above. Nevertheless, I will accept his apologies and hope that in the future he continues to adhere to the above cited policies, even when confronted with "emotional" and "controversial" topics. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:JAF1970 in Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition

Stale.

I have been involved in an active dispute with User:JAF1970 over the nature of edits I made to the Pac-Man Championship Edition article for a couple of days now. JAF1970 wrote the majority of the article's original content, and I came along some time after that and performed some cleanup, which involved removing sections that I thought were either overly detailed or unnecessary. This has led to a heated dispute over, among other things, who is right about what kind of content should exist in the article and who should make the edits. In my opinion, JAF has essentially declared himself the owner and protector of the article at this point, and my attempts to reason with him have resulted in further escalation of the dispute. More details below.

I performed about 6 or 7 edits in a relatively short period of time, attempting to thoroughly explain the purpose of my edits in the edit summaries, and most of what I did involved condensing existing content, rewording it for clarity, reorganizing it to group similar thoughts together, and removing content that I interpreted as "game-guide" or "strategy-guide" material, such as scoring details and minutae. In the process, I was attempting to the best of my abilities to interpret and enforce WP:NOT#GUIDE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information.

JAF very quickly reverted all of my edits and claimed that I was vandalizing the article. Even after being informed by another user of the guidelines I appeared to be following, JAF continued to press the matter, insisting that I should have started discussion in the Talk page before I made my edits. (If I'd known that my edits would step on his toes so badly, I would have.) I attempted to defend the nature of my edits, and we both got very upset at each other. I took some time to cool off, officially apologized for my behavior, and attempted to resolve the issue in User talk:JAF1970 (noting that he had clashed with other users in the past). He basically told me this was all my fault and refused to acknowledge that he might have behaved uncivilly toward me.

Later in the PMCE Talk, I surfaced a general concern that I had about scoring details and minutae in many Pac-Man articles, and JAF replied with a direct threat that if I removed any more content from the article, he would quickly undo it. He has declared that the article is just fine the way it is, and it does not need any more edits. At this point, I don't see that there's anything more I can do to reason with him without some outside help. I have tried multiple times to say that we should work together to improve the article, but in my opinion, he is not open to discussing the matter at all.

Thanks for any assistance you can provide. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please look into this? JAF is continuing to attack me over my attempts to get consensus on article-related topics and has taken to making personal attacks in what should otherwise be an on-topic discussion about the article. I realize that some of the comments I've made on that Talk page also fit the personal-attack category - I later apologized for those comments and attempted to resolve the issue on his Talk page. That failed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Taking a look at the start of the dispute (tell me if i got the wrong place)[165] I can't help but feel (on first reading) that you waded in too fast, with edit comments that were rather too abrupt. My recommendation for you is to take a wikibreak from the page for a while and help out answering wikiquette alerts for a week or two - from personal experience it has reduced my wiki-stress levels no end and made me a much better and less confrontational wiki-editor, kind regards sbandrews (t) 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see how that edit summary might sound a bit confrontational - I just meant that if someone were to find a real source that said that this game was also known as Pac-Man 2, they were welcome to revert and cite. I'll be more clear on that in the future. But actually, the dispute began as a result of several edits beginning with this one - JAF accused me of vandalizing the article because I removed several sections (attempting to follow consensus in the CVGProj guidelines) and didn't first ask for permission to do so. I hadn't been aware that I needed permission to make those edits, but I did tell him I was more than happy to discuss the issues in question. However, when I attempted to open up discussion on those issues, he insisted that I was just plain wrong, that I was trying to make the article an incomprehensible mess, and that I should leave his version of the article alone. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sbandrews: Please take a look at User:KieferSkunk/ArbCom Snapshot - this page is an archive of my request for arbitration (which currently looks like it's going to be declined). I escalated to this level when it appeared that JAF was unwilling to mediate, but I now agree I probably moved too quickly on that. Still, I hope that the diff links I provided on that page will help explain my case a little better, so you don't have to wade through kilobytes of text. JAF is welcome to present his own evidence against me if he so wishes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Wiki-disputes often have a very similar structure - a few unfortunate edit comments, a bit of bad timing, and then it's gloves off time :) Actually in that respect this dispute isn't that bad, I've seen much worse by far. But once toes have been stepped on pulling things back to reasonable editing can be difficult - which is why I suggested - and still suggest - that if you are committed to editing this page then taking a wiki-break from the page for a while is a good way forward. Now, if it is rather that you feel offended by some of the things that JAF has said to you then I'm afraid I have no useful advice for you - my feeling is that - however unwittingly - you started off on the wrong foot and never recovered. The best thing for you to do would be to put all the agro behind you and get back to editing this encyclopedia. If you are going to continue editing the Pac Man CE page then limit your edits to one a day to begin with - perhaps giving notification beforehand (or simultaneously) on the talk page. Keep your edits short and simple to start with and make changes to one item at once. That advice applies to the talk page too, limit your edits to give you and your fellow editor time to think, kind regards sbandrews (t) 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the response, and I'll take your advice. What do you suggest I do, though, if this situation should repeat? I will ask for discussion on consensus and guidelines issues in the future. If JAF or another user attempts to block this process, what should I do? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(← outdent) Hi - I've reviewed the information above and visited some of the links. I concur with sbandrews, and I think you're on the right track following his advice. One other point to consider is that there is a difference between problems with the behavior of a user and with the content of the articles. As long as you don't let the personal stuff bother you and minimize your responses on those elements, you can focus on the article. But in a situation where you feel an editor or two are stopping you from editing the article, you need to be extra careful to read and understand the most important Wikipedia policies, mostly WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, and use those policies in deciding how to make your edits - for example, including WP:FOOTNOTES and other ways of mentioning your WP:Reliable sources.

The next part of that formula is WP:CONSENSUS. To make that work, you need to have more editors come to the articles you're working on, so you are not carrying the banner on your own. That's what the editor meant in the arbitration page when he wrote "Did you file an RFC yet?" He was referring to a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. That's a way you can attract more editors to come to the page and help create consensus about the best way to present the information. You can file an RFC formally at WP:RFC (read the instructions carefully, and look at some examples first). You can also do those informally by posting requests on the related Wikiporject pages and talk pages of related articles.

The main thing with an RFC is that before you post the invitation, make sure you format the problem statement and desired outcomes clearly, so new editors visiting the talk page don't get confused by all the arguing. Keep the RFC section on the talk page completely separate from the other disussions, and keep it neatly organized so it's easy to read and get oriented. Invite the other editors in your dispute to write their statement of how they want to present their side in the RFC, so it stays neutral and you don't only present your view by itself. I recommend visiting Wikipedia:Editor assistance and asking one of the listed editors their to show you how to do it and help you keep it fair and effective.

In the long run, with a long-running dispute, it's not likely that you'll convince the other guy(s) to change their minds. The only way to solve it is to have more editors come to the page and make a consensus. Of course, it might not go the way you want it to, but at least then, even if you don't get what you want - you won't feel it was imposed on you by one person, you'll be going along with a real consensus, and that's a much better result. Or the consensus might agree with you, we don't know yet. Hope that's helpful. --Parzival418 Hello 22:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up... Just wanted to add one note for clarity. Disengaging from the argumnet as sbandrews mentioned above is still the first step. Keep in mind, there's no urgency. Even if the article gets changed, your work is not lost because it stays in the history where you can find it again later... You can safely take your time and edit other stuff while everyone calms down and while you learn about RFCs and maybe check out the Editor Assistance page. --Parzival418 Hello 23:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, at this point I'm prepared to say that the issue has become stale. JAF is no longer directly arguing with me, and appears to have done the wiki equivalent of throwing his hands up in the air and saying "Fine, you do whatever you want!" to the rest of the CVGProj editors who've been arguing about scoring details and the like. He still refuses to acknowledge that he's done anything wrong and has said he's never going to apologize for his behavior. But if it's possible to archive the messy portions of the affected Talk pages so that the atmosphere isn't as poisoned as it currently is there, I'd appreciate it.
Affected Talks: Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition (Do not mass delete, Blue ghost needs fix, This looks fine, Scoring Details, Don't like people editing your remarks huh?, Response from potential mediator, Here an example, And he changes the page the way he likes it, Other strategy guides, KieferSkunk's methods), and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines (Misinterpretation, An example of Policy, Two examples, Proof that this is a bad idea) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sectarian abuse by User:Smash Divisions

I warned User:Smash Divisions of impending WP:3RR violation here and the response was in clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

I also suspect this new user of being a sockpuppet. --Mal 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I'm not so sure that one isolated incident of incivility warrents an opened case on WP:WQA, but because incivlity is not something that should be tolerated here, I'm going to give the user a warning. Hopefully, he/she will take heed of it and return to editing in a civil manner.
As for the sockpuppet situation, you will have to provide more information than the user's contribs alone, and state who you believe this user is a sock of. Claims like these should not be made lightly, but if you are fully convinced, you might want to request Checkuser information, since this is not the proper place to assess this claim. Here goes...The Kensington Blonde Talk 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response KB. I should point out that all I have done is stated I suspect the users of being meatpuppets. I have no idea who it might be, and I'd rather not get into a situation whereby I make unfounded allegations against any editors based merely on a hunch I have. If anyone who is capable of it would like to follow up my suspicion, then that is fine.. its something I think should be done. The reason I reported it here are: I don't believe it is necessarily an isolated incident, considering my suspicion of meatpuppetry; I'm not sure it will be the last such incident; and finally because I wanted somewhere 'official' to record a grievance. I had assumed this was the lowest level of the dispute resolution process. My apologies if there is somewhere more appropriate I should have reported this.
I'll have a look at the WP:Checkuser (hopefully that will turn blue) page/policy and provide some information there. Thanks for the advice. --Mal 00:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment by user:Morton_devonshire

Resolved.

For the second time user:Morton_devonshire has accused me of being a sock puppet, which is quite a serious allegation in my opinion. both times he has done so because i have made edits on 9/11 conspiracy pages, where our views appear to differ considerably. the first time, i ignored it, this time i think i don't think i should. i see from his talk page that he has been leaving similar messages on other people's talkpages too. i have been here for more than a year and have made 1800 edits. I don't like this harrassment and I am interested to hear what other editors think. Cheers! Mujinga 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He left a note on my talk page too accusing me of being "striver" though I don't know who the heck he is. Abureem 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I recommend you ignore his accusations and don't let it get you down. As long as they are only on your user talk page and he is not accusing you on article talk pages, you can just erase his comments and add a note that you did so, or you can strike them out and state that if he has evidence he should show it. Since it's your own talk page, other than with formal warnings, you can edit as you wish. For guidelines see WP:TALK.
If he makes that accusation on an article talk page or about you but on the talk page of another user, where it can affect the outcome of discussions or how other editors perceive you, then you would need to make a stronger response. Be polite in your comments; ask him to stop making unfounded accusations. If at that point his public accusations continue, that would be a new situation, so post another alert here if that happens.
Meanwhile, as long as he's only doing it on your talk page, just figure it's his problem, not yours - delete or strike out the messages, add a polite response if you wish, and don't worry about it. Make sure to read and follow WP:CIVIL in all communcations, even if he gets you feeling upset. --Parzival418 Hello 20:06, 5 July 2007

(UTC)

thanks for taking an interest, i appreciate your comments Mujinga 22:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusation that I am a troll by User:Iceage77

Stale.

The place of the dispute

On Talk:Bernard Manning (see Talk:Bernard Manning#Alkrington is in Greater Manchester.)

The object of the dispute

Whether Alkrington should be described as being in Greater Manchester or Middleton.

Who is involved

User:Ddstretch (initiator) and User:Iceage77

The Wikiquette issues

  • I am a late-comer to this dispute, but it seemed reasonable to do what no-one else so far on there had done: that is, go to official government sources that would be able to shed light on the official local-government areas in this part of the UK. My first contribution to the debate was made earlier today (8 July, 2007).
  • In response, User:Iceage77 implied that my contribution was irrelevant, when it clearly was relevant.
  • He stated that he had used an article in a daily newspaper to verify his position (which was not irrefutably backed by my own verification, whereas the opposing position seemed to be.)
  • I explained my reasons for stating that my contribution clearly was relevant, and also adding that using official government-sponsored sites seemed to have greater power of verification than a daily newspaper report given the nature of what was being claimed.
  • After one more exchange, the user has responded with WP:TROLL to my latest message.
  • I view this implied accusation to be serious enough to need some investigation, and I would like this matter to be looked at.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, taking a google search on "Alkrington, Middleton" revealed multiple uses of the two together, of the likes of [166] etc. So perhaps though the boundary has changed the locals still think "Alkrington, Middleton". All I mean by this is you should expect some sensitivity from local people when strictly applying government sanctioned boundaries. IMO some kind of compromise between the two is a much better solution, "Manning's house in Alkrington (Middleton), Greater Manchester was..." instead of "Manning's house in Alkrington, Middleton, Greater Manchester was...", sbandrews (t) 15:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh - I totally accept what you say, and was merely pointing out what the official sources said. In fact, the compromise which you mention (or something like it) had already been put in place. I thought it useful to place the debate in the context of what the official sources said. I do not consider this to be trolling. In fact, the issue could be said to be about whether any perceived insensitivity (which may or may not have been there) justifies the label of "troll" being directed at me. I don't consider it does. Iceage77 was also editing in apparent contravention with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), as can be seen by messages on his talk page (User talk:Iceage77).  DDStretch  (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
No I certainly don't consider you were trolling either, and I think that's also clear to anybody reading the page, so really the best thing to do would be not to respond do it. Quite often responding can make matters worse not better, though I understand that such comments are unpleasant. As for the perceived insensitivity - well from experience the smallest thing can set people off. No its not right, no its not civil, but I think you will become a better editor if you learn to take that kind of flack without striking back (at least straight away :D), hope this helps. As for the naming conventions issue perhaps you could take that as a general question to the naming conventions (places) talk page, I'm sure you'll find someone to advise you there, regards sbandrews (t) 17:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've also been involved in some of the reverts as part of this - though I've qualified by changes by using the talk page of course. Without meaning to extend this issue beyond what's required here for a sensible outcome, looking at Iceage77's contributions, his/her motivations appear to be to hide contemporary British geography from Wikipedia (it's been an ongoing problem from a minority of users who are affliated with "alternative" groups such as CountyWatch), and in this capacity I find it hard to assume good faith from Iceage77. There is a small chance of some single purpose sleeper accounts which may or may not be involved here too which I'm looking into...
In terms of the content issue, this really shouldn't be happening here, as ultimately, Alkrington is officially/verifiably in Greater Manchester; it's not a disputed territory in anyway at all. It WAS in Middleton until 1974, and does perhaps retains strong cultural links with this settlement, but per a whole host of reasons and policies, I beleive we should state Greater Manchester.
User:ddstretch holds alot of respect amongst the editting community, and think raising this issue in this way as a means for feedback, is a credit to his drive to retain that respect and proffessionalism - I'd have to support him all the way on this. Jza84 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) User:ddstretch is clearly not trolling. In general I concur with sbandrews' comment above that it's usually best to ignore inflammatory comments, or reply to them with an extra measure of politeness to avoid escalating. The WP:TROLL comment from User:Iceage77 is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I have posted a response on the talk page in support of User:ddstretch. --Parzival418 Hello 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for the comments. I have not responded to any messages from Iceage77 since the troll accusation was made, thinking it best not to inflame the matter further beyond asking for independent views (here). Although Iceage77 has edited articles subsequent to the accusation and my posting to this noticeboard, nothing more has been received from him on the page where he made the accusation or on related pages. By default, I think the matter is closed, except that some indication of him accepting that what he had done was not right would have been advantageous, otherwise he may not feel inhibited in using this tactic again. I guess however that realistically nothing more can be done.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and marked the case as "stale" since it appears that no further progress is being made. DDstretch: If this situation arises again, please feel free to call on us again in the future, or to go to informal or formal mediation next. Good luck! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Quantitative theory of money : exclusion of the transactions on capital goods

The debate is such. should the article make it clear that transactions on capital goods are suppressed by the exclusive reliance on GDP as a proxy of all transactions ?

This debate has led to two main related edit "wars" :

1 The first is about wether lack of available data is the main reason for using Q instead of T.

2 The second is wether the failure of the equation of exchange is only due to inability to assess the proper money agregate or wether it is also caused by the inability to assess the proper transaction agregate (because of the rise in financial transactions).

I ve received accusations of being a troll, lack of english mastery, I have answered with accusations of stupidity and political bias ... I ve left for a while. When I came back the last comment on my talk page did not exactly please me. Even though it may look a rather technical subject I would at least appreciate advices on how to go from there.

OK may be I m not doing it right. Here it seems to be about complaining about others and getting guidance. Well I then feel I have been part of a dispute with user slamdiego. I m not exactly proud of how I behaved but I find the user seems to have a huge track record of getting into conflicts. I do not know how I could attract other editors to the content of the article. The critics part that I ve written could be improved. And I need external opinions on the content of the article. In itself, this would make things less personal.


Panache 14:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (fourth nomination)

Resolved.

User:Nathaniel B. Heraniaos has made repeated personal attacks on other users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (fourth nomination), a nomination he made simply because he did not like the page's subject. He's trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, in hopes that Conservapedia will disappear from the net since he doesn't like its contents. Even after I've warned him, he insists that he's not disrupting Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a clear violation of WP:CIVIL to me. This should probably be referred to the Admin Noticeboard. I'm not familiar enough with this process to help further, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(←)The AfD has already been closed as a "Speedy Keep". So the article will not be deleted. The disruptive user has already pretty much reported himself by his over the top comments at the debate, in other words his comments are visible in the archived debate. For now, don't worry about it. There is no reason to do anything else unless he bothers you or others in the future, in a new situation. If that happens, let us know and we'll help you figure out what to do. --Parzival418 Hello 02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - but only vadalism

Although this might not affect many users - Harrypottersux has 5 contributions. But, he also vandalised 5 times. He has vandalised German Swiss International School 4 times in the course of a month, and then vandalised my userpage after I reverted his vandalism. I do not believe he is contributing to Wikipedia in a positive manner, as per wikipedia policy.

-Arthuralee 11:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you report this to WP:AIV. Usually, reporting there requires that the vandalizing user has already received four warnings. But since he has already vandalized your userpage, I doubt you'd get anything but trouble from him if you try to place the warnings yourself. Make sure to be clear about this when you file the report, ie, as to why you are reporting him before placing warnings. The reports on that page need to be very concise. Also, you might mention a concern about his username when you file the report, it seems uncivil at first look. Another option would be to report the username here: WP:UFA. --Parzival418 Hello 11:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor (PaulBurns) refusing to act civilly

Last year I tagged an article for copyvio on the basis that the page was copied from a webpage. I left a standard warning with User:PaulBurns, a new editor, shortly after tagging it and received no response. The article was duly deleted as per normal procedures, and the editor made some further edits some months later. Now after a year, he has finally realized what happened to the article and has claimed that he did write both the article and the copyvio source (which corresponds between the copyright name and the user name). So it would appear that I made a mistake in copyvio'ing it. I've admitted as much.

The problem is that the editor is refusing to act with any degree of civility regarding the matter and is beginning to make personal threats. Even though I've tried to direct him to appropriate wiki policy and explain what happened and why, this does nothing. It's really a shame, since I think that with some perspective and more Wikipedia experience, he'd probably be an excellent contributor. I was wondering if a neutral third-party would be able to set him back on the right path, because it's clear that I am not. (Most discussion has been on each of our user talk pages.) Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 00:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

left a msg on User talk:PaulBurns. DES (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour by User:KSmrq

Resolved.

In Talk:Integral, KSmrq is repeatedly engaging in uncivil comments, personal attacks and lying to portray my edits in an unfavourble light. This is not really a big issue for me, but just for the record I'm notifying the community, in case the editor has prior history of disruptive behaviour or may behave in such a manner in the future. Loom91 16:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I took a look through the Talk page, and I do see some cases where this editor seems to be responding to others in a confrontational manner. Since the discussion is over such complex material (most of which I can't pretend to understand without doing a lot more research into it myself), I'm not in a position to assess whether KSmrq's statements of value judgement are justified or not. To my eye, though, it appears that he's contributed a significant portion of the technical content to the article, and thus is a bit protective of that content. He does seem to be a bit quick to judge others on their "usefulness", making statements about their grasp of the subject and the English language, etc. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I've replied to the "Request for comment" discussion on the article's Talk page, giving procedural advice and specifically advising KSmrq to abide by WP:CIVIL (specifically WP:SKILL). I've advised both editors to step back from editing the article - both involved editors are dangerously close to (if not already in violation of) WP:3RR. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked to stop participating in civility discussions on Talk:Integral. I'll be happy to continue helping out here, but otherwise will no longer contribute there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank KieferSkunk for his work towards resolving the dispute. His presence helped to calm the situation and resulted in improvement. There are still some issues to be resolved, and discussion continues elsewhere. Please do not add further comments here. If the situation becomes more stressful again, add a new subsection below the archived portion of this alert; please make comments specific and short and include links or diffs. Please do not debate the details here, we will address any new events that are reported here on the page where the situation is happening. Thank you. --Parzival418 Hello 22:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I marked this issue as Resolved - civility issues seem to have calmed down, but the dispute itself continues, centered pretty much entirely around procedures and content. I've advised all parties as best as I can on the procedures and on working toward consensus. There is nothing more I personally can do, but at least I believe the hostility has passed for the time being. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
My thanks (again) to KieferSkunk for being willing to step in, regardless of outcome.
I thought it might be of interest to note for the record where things stand today. As this thread shows, the mathematics community continues to share my concern about Loom91's misbehavior, which has flared up again. If not for the procedural hassles, I believe we would proceed directly to having him banned from editing integral.
I do apologize here (as I did at Talk:Integral) for being perturbed enough to use an expletive, however accurate (again, as detailed at Talk:Integral). In my experience, calling someone clueless, say, does not magically give them a clue, and is counterproductive.
A good night's sleep after a long day editing helped restore some of my equanimity (not the intervention; sorry, KieferSkunk), but Loom91's ongoing disruption has driven away at least two valued contributors, which troubles me deeply. The mathematics community includes many admins and two ArbCom members, so I remain guardedly optimistic that we can deal with him ourselves.
Regardless, there is probably little more that readers of this forum can do. Perhaps a further caution to Loom91 about his own civility (as mentioned repeatedly here and at WT:WPM) would be justified, along the lines of "people in glass houses…"; but would it be productive, or merely provoke defenses? Formally, of course, Wikipedia has dispute resolution procedures; but they are not intended as a way of life. In the long run, I believe that Loom91 would do well to learn a better way to participate, and I'm not sure how that's going to happen.
Sorry to trouble the readers here, and thanks again for your interest. --KSmrqT 10:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, KSmrq. I left a comment for Loom as to the fact that it seems he is unlikely to sway consensus at this time without going through other forms of peer review. Hopefully that will help things. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:MonstretM in Talk:Food irradiation

Stuck.

Several of MonstretM's contributions on the talk page of food irradiation are exessively ad hominem, directed personal attacks, against those of a differing opinion. In that sense I feel some of the users content is in violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:SKILL. Victims include User:Arved Deecke, User:GermanPina, User:DieterE and myself. User:DieterE and myself have both raised concerns how User:MonstretM argues personalities over facts and how he has been oafish in doing so. I would appreciate help that allows us to return to a civil discourse centered around WP:Wikiquette and focused on reaching agreement. RayosMcQueen 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the page is already protected due to the edit warring, I don't think we can do much here. You already have a respected administrator helping you on the talk page. If you have concerns about civility issues, you could bring it up there and receive some help. If you do, make sure to provide very specific links to the comments you find are problems, and make your statements concise so you can get the attention you want.
If it turns out that there are continuing civility problems, and you don't find help elsewhere, you are welcome to re-open this report, but if you do, please provide diffs for specific comments that you feel are problems. There's way too much on the pages you listed for us to sort through and try to find what's happening without specific examples.
Aside from all that, it may be best to just try and ignore the "oafish" behavior and with extra politeness, continue returning the discussion to the topic. It's hard not to react to provacative comments, but if you can let them just slide by, you may find that you get better results. Also, by making your responses extra-civil, even beyond what would normally be needed, later if you do need to point out examples of the bad behavior, it will be obvious who is the source of the problem. --Parzival418 Hello 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:Czimborbryan in Yantic River and lots of other CT articles

Stuck.

An anonymous editor came in and started adding links to a number of Connecticut-recreation-related articles. When I looked at the links and saw that they seemed to be for the purpose of getting Google ad revenue, I started reverting them and warning the anon about linkspam. After 4 warnings, he was blocked. A while later, Czimborbryan came in and started re-adding the links. Elipongo, after welcoming him, engaged him, and explained why he seemed to be acting against policy. He defended himself in several private emails, which Elipongo responded to on his talk page. He claims that even though he controls the site he's linking to, he's not violating WP:NOR. He proceeded to eventually post a long defense of his actions on the talk page of every article he had added the link to, and he also posted to the WP:Village pump (policy)#Define External Links Spam, where several users attempted to explain why what he was doing might have issues. Haemo also jumped in after a request by Elipongo, to no avail.

At some point, I went through all the articles where he had added his link under References and changed them to External links, as the content he was posting did not seem to actually be backed up by the links. He started complaining that I was violating copyright law, with such phrases as "Please revert all of the External Links edits that you had made to my articles using Connecticut Explorer's Guide as References. These links are references citing copyrighted material and you do not have my permission to remove these sources as references." and "Even though the GNU gives permission to edit the content mercilessly, it does not give permission to remove cited sources under References. This is a copyright matter and protected by law. Otherwise, it would be assumed that the information posted is original to the author." (which I found highly amusing, considering that he was citing his own page, and that I was not removing links, but just changing how they were labeled). I pretty much give up on trying to explain things to him -- can somebody else take a swing at it?--SarekOfVulcan 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read your discussions. You've been very patient and explained the policies clearly, multiple times. User:Czimborbryan has not shown any interest in learning about how Wikipedia works or even responded in any significant way to anything you've told him. I don't think there's anything further you can do, and I don't think he will be interested in hearing from anyone else either.
I recommend you edit the articles as you have been, remove or correct the links as needed, and pretty much ignore his comments unless he starts to make sense. As long as he doesn't engage in edit warring or incivil comments, just let it go, or reply by letting him know that you're willing to discuss, but only if he's willing to learn. If he seems to become receptive, then you could give him some guidline links to read, but if he is not interested in what you have to offer, then don't waste your time.
If his legal threats continue - even though they're sort of confused - I suggest reporting that at WP:AN, because there's no way for you to know how seriously he takes what he is saying. It might be best to let someone with experience on that kind of thing make the decision about it. --Parzival418 Hello 10:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Parzival. Over the past day, he proposed one link on a talk page. After I reviewed it and saw that it appeared to show the entire subject of the article, and nothing else, I added it myself: I figured that doing things the right way should be encouraged. --SarekOfVulcan 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Exploding Boy reports alleged incivility and harassment by User:Yug


New user (NobutoraTakeda) is uncivil

Resolved.

new user User:NobutoraTakeda need some guidance on being civil, etc. Based on his talk page, several people have been having problems with him. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 14:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this user is extremely aggressive with regards to various AfD discussions, to the point of badgering people both on the discussion and on their talk pages. I'm not sure what course of action would be best with this user but he certainly doesn't seem interested in the well-intentioned advise offered by multiple users on his talk page. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If the user isn't responding to advice and warnings from other editors, it may be time to take the matter to the admin noticeboard. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this user has been blocked - apparently was deemed a sockpuppet. Probably no more that needs to be done or said on this matter. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Uncivil Personal Attack on Talk Page (Shashwat pandey)

Stale.

User Shashwat pandey has posted an inappropriate attack banner on his talk page (when he found out we were filing an Rfc for him). This banner violates WP:CIVIL and WP:ICA. I've read the Civility sections and it seems I have the right to remove this since it is my name and my link? Advice would be appreciated. Renee Renee 21:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

(I edited your post above with Wikilinks) Hi Renee. I'd hold off on removing the banner, and let the RfC take place before any decisions are made. I'd say that removing the banner from his Talk page is only likely to inflame the situation further - if any admins get involved in the RfC (likely), they'll decide what the appropriate course of action will be. Feel free to refer to this WQA for reference if need be. :) I hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks KeiferSkunk -- appreciate the advice and will follow. Just for my own knowledge, is something like this considered inappropriate or not? Renee Renee 21:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe so - it certainly isn't in the spirit of dispute resolution. I would hesitate to call it open harassment, but I've left a friendly suggestion that he remove his banner and participate openly in the RfC and dispute resolution process. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still learning how to use Wiki, it's policies, etc. Appreciate your kindness. Renee --Renee 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute situation with User:Tenebrae in John_Buscema - should I agree to mediation?

Resolved. mediation in progress

My problem is that the disputant is willing to go to mediation but presents the request in a way that leaves me wary -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Buscema
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema (see last entry)

There's seems to be such an accusational, prosecutional, and uncivil tone that I hesitate to agree to mediation when such an attitude is displayed.

There are also two situations involving the user, which would seem to indicate a regular occurance of controversial behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tenebrae2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Request_for_comment/Asgardian (see June 16 entry)

Any ideas on how to proceed would be much appreciated.

--Skyelarke 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to think of a reason to turn down mediation. If mediation works, it will give a way forward. If it doesn't work, you and the other editors should be no worse off than before. It seems there is a long-running dispute, and the RfC didn't work. So try something else. EdJohnston 01:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: I agreed to mediation, it was accepted and a mediator has taken on the case. --Skyelarke 23:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Incivility from Austinavenger

I'm not sure if it belongs here or somewhere else. User has brand new account, seems to be created only for Ellen McNamara afd. Has stated deletion [172] "would seem like a hate crime to many", and in the afd [173] deletion "smacks of a certain prejudice like homophobia". There's no mention anywhere in the article of subject being gay, which makes it odder.

This was followed up with a somewhat harrassing post on Charlene.fic user talk page[174]Horrorshowj 08:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, you are over-reacting a bit. The new user is not being incivil; all the contributions are unexceptional and free of personal attack. The post on the talk page was not harrassing, though it would have been better asked in the delete discussion. Relax, work on the assumption that they are trying to help; it looks like a good assumption in this case. Cheers -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Religious bigotry from User:Ultrabias

Resolved.

User:Dina and I have expressed concern that the edit summaries of the above-named editor are insulting towards Muslims and often unrelated to the edit they summarize. A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. When I approached him with my concerns here, he responded in part by calling Muhammed "The King of All Cons". When I advised him of my intention to bring the problem to this page if the problems continued, he responded "Begin it. Because I have continued to make edit summaries as I see most fit, sternly disregarding your expressed viewpoint and any political correctness campaign that you are pushing in regard to it." See also his user page, which appears to me to be deliberately inflammatory and racist.

This is especially frustrating because this editor does some useful work in making many articles adhere to MOSISLAM, but in my view his expressed anti-Muslim bigotry invites discrediting of even this useful work. Sarcasticidealist 14:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think maintaining neutrality in edit comments is excellent advice. It is in line with standard guidelines, and more importantly it avoids undermining what should be a basic principle: there is no disrespect involved when an encyclopedia omits or removes the terms such as "sawas", etc. I have left a cordial statement of my opinion at the user's talk page. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it appears he's been exposed as a sock and is now just wreaking as much havoc as he can before the status is confirmed. I'm not going to waste any more thought on him, so I'm marking this resolved. Sarcasticidealist 04:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible ownership violation by User:ColdFusion650

Resolved.

The above-mentioned user seems to have a very proprietary feeling toward the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article. I attempted to make some grammatical corrections, additions and clarifications to the plot summary portion of the article, and he reverted my changes in their entirety immediately, with no valid explanation. He's been doing the same for other users on that article.

I absolutely do NOT want to get in a p***ing war with him or anybody on this matter, especially since I'm just a wikipedia dabbler, but I'm hoping the volunteers who monitor these kinds of infractions will take a look at the recent history of that page and come to a more educated decision regarding that member's behavior.

I'd like to make some beneficial changes to that article and I feel like I've been repeatedly thwarted by someone who seems to have a very ownership-oriented view of it.

I gather you are User:Middlenamefrank. Please sign your posts in the future. User:ColdFusion650 did provide an edit summary for his reversion of your changes, and his concern seems to be surrounding your use of the T-101, which apparently may not be the correct model (I'm quoting him, here - I've never seen the movie and know nothing about it). As your edit incorporated extensive use of the T-101, which he felt was inappropriate to the article, he reverted it.
At this point, if you felt that your use of T-101 was appropriate, against his objections, I would have suggested that you make a note of that on the article's talk page in an effort to find consensus on this question. Instead, you reverted his reversion, he reverted your reversion to his reversion, and so forth. I'm in no position to say whose version is preferable, but there's no question that he explained why he was reverting your material.
If you have an interest in continuing to edit this article, I strongly recommend that you start a discussion on the talk page about whether the use of the T-101 model is appropriate. It's much more productive than revert-warring. Sarcasticidealist 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have now read the relevant portions of your talk pages. Here are my thoughts:
1. I think his explanation of why he reverted your change is reasonable, given that your edit of fewer than a hundred words introduced the use of the T-101 model four times. If inclusion of T-101 in the article was inappropriate, then I think reverting your edit was reasonable.
2. I find it discouraging that after he explained his reasons for reverting your edit, you did not either change your revision to eliminate the T-101 or attempt to debate his assertion that T-101 was inappropriate. Instead, you just reintroduced your change. This is the stuff of which revert wars are made.
3. Your response, accusing him of thinking he owned the article, was in my estimation a violation of WP:AGF.
4. When he said that he was "protective" of pages he created, I think he was well-within the attitudes allowed by WP:OWN. I am protective of pages I create, too, which manifests itself by the fact that they're on my watch list and that I review every change that is made to them.
5. However, when he suggested that he objected to people editing articles "without permission", he was seriously out of line...if he was serious. The paragraph that included this statement concluded with "(small joke)", which might mean the bit about permission was also a joke. Unfortunately, that wasn't clear, and the onus is on him to make it clear.
6. Your "get a life" retort was a violation of WP:CIVIL.
Overall, I think that you may have allowed what was effectively a minor content dispute to be ballooned out of proportion by failing to assume that User:ColdFusion650 was acting in good faith. Your post to the article's talk page is a good start to resolving the dispute you're having. Unfortunately, I note that it hasn't received any responses. A good start might be posting on User:ColdFusion650's start page - civilly, of course - inviting him to provide his explanation for why he doesn't like the change. Hopefully, that turns into a useful, consensus-building discussion. Sarcasticidealist 20:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Very well put. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
First off, you're right, I did take it personally and blow up a bit when I saw my original edit reverted out of hand. I shouldn't have done that, nor should I have been (a bit) uncivil in my response. However, I still don't believe my reference to 'T-101' justified reverting the entire change...why couldn't he have simply change those references? I believe the overall change was beneficial to the article and should have been retained.
Additionally, you may notice that I later re-submitted my edits using the phrase "Model 101" (which is already used elsewhere in the article, and which Schwarzenegger himself uses in the movie) instead of "T-101". He has a valid point and I'm complying with his request on that point. He once again reverted the changes I made, and his only comment was "same as before".
Furthermore, I fully understand the tendency to want to claim ownership of an article you've been a major contributor to. Look at the history on the Soldering article, you'll see a huge number of edits that I made to it...I really do feel that I'm in large part responsible for the high quality of that article, and I do feel quite a bit of ownership of it. However, when someone makes a change to that article, I never simply revert it out of hand. If I disagree with the change, I explain myself on the talk page, maybe strike up a little dialog with the person, and come to an agreement about how we should incorporate EVERYBODY's ideas.
I'm not trying to say I'm blameless in this incident. I got mad and blew off some steam, and I feel bad about it. I admit my behavior was less than perfect. But I do think he's got to loosen the leash on that article. Again, look at the recent history on that article and you'll find that I'm not the only person who's been summarily reverted by him.
And sorry for forgetting to sign my entry. :-) Middlenamefrank 23:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I certainly did fail to notice the distinction between Model 101 and T-101 (these subtleties escape a guy whose taste in movies runs more towards the screwball comedy). If User:ColdFusion650 did notice the distinction, then he should have at least addressed that in the edit summary, you're right. From a WP:AGF perspective, I'm tempted to believe that he just took a glance at your edit and concluded that it was the same one as before. I don't think the onus was necessarily on you to do this, but for that sort of thing it couldn't hurt to mention it in your edit summary ("same as previous edit, but with Model 101 instead of T-101"). But that's the kind of thing that's easy to say in hindsight, like that User:ColdFusion650 should have been clearer that he was only kidding about requiring permission to edit.
On the article itself, I have a hard time saying whether User:ColdFusion650's various reversions were justified or the sign of an editor violating WP:OWN because I don't understand the article's subject very well. I also think the talk page has been a little underused, which has the effect of robbing a disinterested observer such as myself of context that could help me make that determination. As I said before, I think your decision to start discussing these issues on the talk page was a good one; hopefully you can hash out your differences on the Model/T-101 issue, the stylistic issue, and whatever other issues may come up. And if you find yourselves hamstrung by content disputes, as opposed to Wikiquette disputes, you can always give WP:RFC a try.
In any event, thanks for responding maturely to constructive criticism. Sarcasticidealist 00:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
(Is that six colons?)Thanks, I believe it's all about being mature. I'm not going to continue pursuing any more changes on that article because I just don't really care all that much. If it stays a "B" grade article, with lots of grammatical errors and typos, it's really no skin off my nose. More substantive articles, like "my" Soldering article, are far more important to me. I'd go into more detail about why I didn't use the talk page, etc. but it's already consumed WAY too much of my life. But I do think someone needs to rein him in just a tad...again, look over the rest of the recent history of that article and check out his overall behavior, not just toward me. Middlenamefrank 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
(Seven!) Well, what's done is done; not a lot of point in worrying about justifications for past actions as long as everybody's ready to move forward in good faith. I just think that, for future reference, talk pages in articles exist largely for incidents like these. I'm going to mark this as resolved. Sarcasticidealist 00:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, with regards to your question about why he couldn't just correct your use of T-101 instead of reverting your entire edit, the answer is of course that he could have. But there has to be a spectrum on this: if you'd provided four paragraphs of good new content and used T-101 once in there, reverting the whole thing on the basis of the one mention of T-101 would have been out of line. On the other hand, there's no obligation on editors to refrain from reverting a (hypothetical) edit that's 90% bad in order to salvage the good 10%. As I said, your edit was a minor one that User:ColdFusion650 found to be overall objectionable, so he reverted. If the conversation on the talk page gets anywhere, you should hopefully be able to quickly figure out which parts of your edit were non-contentious and work them in immediately, even as you continue seeking consensus on the rest. Sarcasticidealist 00:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A declaration of intent to attack Immanuel Velikovsky page

Stuck. Reported at WP:AN/3RR - result: User:Icebear1946 blocked for 24 hours

New user Icebear1946 (talk · contribs) has declared an intent to maintain a WP:POV attack on the Immanuel Velikovsky page. The declaration is in the talk page: this section: "I and others will continue reinserting the thermal balance article until hell freezes over if need be". Reasons why the cited article was removed are given at the linked section of the talk page. Two different editors so far have made removals. The page is one that attracts trolls. There has been an attempt to explain Wikipedia conventions, to no avail. The rule WP:3RR was described; it is not yet violated. I am ceasing attempts to discuss further myself, as they don't help. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 12:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear me, Alert one of the math or physics admins to watch the page, trolling is one of the most difficult problems to deal with 'round here and it helps to have an admin with you from the beginning.--Cronholm144 14:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
So far, User:Icebear1946 seems to be a single-purpose account. I recommend avoiding extended discussions, refer the editor to WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS, and watch for 3RR. Stay extra polite so it doesn't become a charged situation. As long as the editors of the article have consensus, the reversions should not be a problem.I noticed there is already one 3RR warning on the user's talk page. If it continues, another warning would be appropriate before reporting to WP:AN/3RR , but perhaps also post a welcome message with the basic WP policies.
I noticed is that someone made the comment that they believe this new editor is the same person who wrote one of the references. Unless a user reveals their identity themselves, no other user should reveal it, except in specific unusual situations. I believe there is a policy about this, but I can't find it right now. In any case, it's best to avoid this. Instead of using an editor's identity as a basis for reverting a reference, refer to the policies to determine whether a reference is reliable or not. --Parzival418 Hello 02:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Parzival418. I was the one who placed the warning. I agree I spent too much time trying to discuss how to edit wikipedia constructively; I should have placed that on the user's talk page and confined myself to the article on the article talk page. I'll try that next time I find myself in this kind of position. I accept the reproof about privacy. Again, next time I will word myself more carefully. Thanks very much for the suggestions! -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 03:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as the identity issue, you're right, it seems he has revealed it himself previously. And now in his new edit he has specifically revealed his own identity by re-editing the PDF on his website to add the author's name and then re-posting it again to the article page, and stating it is his essay. He also now claims that it is properly attributed - still not a reliable source though. Further, in his comments on the talk page, he has violated WP:CIVIL several times, accusing good faith editors of vandalism, and make a variety of other insulting comments.
He's pretty clearly violated the WP:3RR rule today with these 5 reverts:  : [175], [176], [177], [178], [179]. So if you want to take action, it would be appropriate to report him at WP:AN/3RR. It might be a good idea also to mention there that User:Icebear1946 so far is a single purpose account, has not edited any other articles, and has a conflict of interest in the posting of that unsupported reference. I am not making the 3RR report myself because this is not my dispute. But in light of the uncivil conduct of this user, I recommend that you consider making the report so he knows he can't continue to behave that way.
If you do, make sure to show the diff for the 3RR warning you placed on his talk page, include the examples of the reversions, and add their time stamps so it's convenient for the administrators to read your report. Look at some other reports on the noticeboard so you can see how they are done, and follow the instructions step-by-step. It's not complicated but needs to be done according to proper form.
Also, the reference is clearly not WP:V, and does not have consensus to be included, so it does not belong there. In my opinion, there would be nothing wrong with another editor removing it again, as long as it is someone who has not already removed it more than once today. That's just my opinion though, the decision about removing it or not is up to each individual editor according to their reading of the policy. --Parzival418 Hello 05:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(←)Now that you've filed the report at WP:AN/3RR, we'll consider this alert to be closed. Depending on the results of the 3RR report, if User:Icebear1946 causes trouble again and this alert has not yet been archived, please feel free to add further notes. If this has been archived, then open a new alert if needed. --Parzival418 Hello 04:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of barnstar without discussion

Resolved.

I don't want to turn this into a big deal but I would appreciate a steer on the Wikiquette. User:Matt57 removed a barnstar from my talk page, saying that the editor who placed it there was probably a sockpuppet of a banned user (User:His Exellency). I don't have any evidence for that. As far as I can see the editor who placed the barnstar is not blocked, although his editing was confined to one short burst. I've reverted the removal and left a not-too-rude comment on Matt57's talk page. Is this the appropriate level of response? Itsmejudith 15:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your response was fine. :) Whether a sockpuppet was involved or not, altering another user's talk page by removing content without consulting the user first is generally a bad idea, and I think you handled it very well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Such is more than a bad idea, most consider un-warrented modification of other's comments to be a form of vandalism. I'm going to warn this user as well. Hopefully this time will be the first and last.The Kensington Blonde Talk 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The other guys have said everything - you've handled everything well ~ Anthøny (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
KensingtonBlonde: I don't think going to a full-blown warning with Matt57 was appropriate here either. Matt57 apparently meant that edit in good faith - it was obviously not intended to be vandalism. A simple note requesting that he not do that would have sufficed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Whats the big deal here? Judith you're getting all hyped up for nothing. It was an obvious sock puppet who placed the barnstar (username similiar in format to recent socks of banned user His excellency) and I had mentioned that if you wanted to put it back in, you can and you did. The matter is closed. Really, some people, raising an issue for nothing. Sock puppet edits are usually reverted and I did it here too. Focus on more important issues please. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned to KensingtonBlonde, I don't think his warning against you was really appropriate - a simple note requesting that you not do that again would have sufficed. As for Judith's original WQA, she was asking us if her response to your edit was appropriate, which several of us believe it was. She remained civil and polite in the matter, she did not attack you, and she went the extra step to get an outside opinion on her own behavior. I think that's rather commendable of her, personally. In any case, I don't think anyone's getting "hyped up" over it, though obviously the discussion has taken a different turn further below. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet discussion on KensingtonBlonde

KensingtonBlonde is also likely a sock puppet of Kirbytime. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes you say that KensingtonBlonde is a sock puppet? I don't see any correlation between the two. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats because you havent seen Kirbytime in action before. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I don't know the whole history here. Enlighten me. All I see on your end right now is "He's KirbyTime! Take my word for it!" I want to know HOW you know - from my point of view, you could point to anyone, even myself, and accuse them of being a sockpuppet. I don't buy that, so I'd like to know what specific info you have that would convince me to believe you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Lets wait for the Checkuser result and then I'll tell you all about it. Like I said, the biggest thing is that this new user registered and went right on the Meta to complain against the CheckUser. Who else would do that except a sock puppet? Right? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not registered on Meta (as you can see there if you take a look at the discussion). If I registered an account there specifically to complain about the CheckUser policy, would you automatically assume that I was a sockpuppet as well? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
K.blonde has an account here too. Please investigate the stuff yourself a little bit too. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You're missing my point: Not all users whose first edits are to question policies are automatically sockpuppets of other banned users. This person could just as easily have been lurking or editing anonymously up until that time, and may have registered an account so that there was some credibility behind the question. (Policy makers would be much less likely to pay attention to such a questioning of policy were it coming from an IP address.) There are other ways to tell that a person is sockpuppeting, but so far I see no evidence that KensingtonBlonde has done anything that matches the behavior of previous KirbyTime sockpuppets. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(Note: I am not automatically saying you're wrong, nor am I flatly defending KensingtonBlonde. I am simply calling into question your apparent "take my word for it" stance on this issue.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I wont comment further until the Checkuser results are out. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) FYI: I've disengaged from this particular discussion. I don't have the full history here, and it's apparent that several other users believe the Checkuser is justified. I am not in a position to continue this discussion, so it's best that I stay out of it at this point. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for comments, especially KieferSkunk and Anthony for responding to my query in the spirit in which it was meant. At least the exchange has further confirmed for me the value of civility in WP! Itsmejudith 20:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias and censorship by editor Heresthecasey

I've been trying to add to the article about Fallujah, specifically the use of white phosphorous munitions as anti-personnel weapons by U.S. troops during their attack on the city. Heresthecasey keeps deleting my documented additions (The Independent, The BBC) and accuses me of vandalism. I'd like someone to check out the history of the dispute and see what's going on - it looks like political censorship to me.124.99.205.23 15:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You both seem to be in violation of the three revert rule, which can mean a 24 hour block for you both, just to help calm the matter down a bit. But more importantly, the first thing you need to do is take your question to the article talk page. Assume from the start that Heresthecasey is working in good faith to make the article better, as are you. Be civil, and try to find out what the problem is by talking about it. No matter what you think deep down; engage in the discussion page with the presumption that Heresthecasey is trying to help and see if you can help him help you better. You'll either end up pleasantly surprised to discover that actually is the case; or you'll end up having a basis for asking other editors to sort it out... in which case you need to have shown yourself willing to work actively for consensus already. Good luck with it! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added my appeal to the discussion page under "The White Phosphorous Debate". Thanks!124.99.205.23 16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Activity by W. Kehler from 84.158.*.* in physics pages

Stale. report continued at WP:AN

Mr Kehler is from a German astronomy club. He is currently editing Anti-gravity, and resisting any request to discuss his changes on the talk page. There is a possible revert war brewing. The problems are exacerbated by his poor English and by his use of unreliable sources of dubious relevance for support of extremely unconventional views of physics.

One major difficultly for keeping track of what is happening is that Mr Kehler uses anonymous IP addresses, and uses a dynamic cluster, so there is a different address every session. All edits are from 84.158.*.* Help requested. You can see my comments in the talk page at Talk:Anti-gravity#Proposed changes by wfck (84.158.*.*). —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated POV accusations, general incivility, accusations of deleting references, etc by editor MarkThomas

Over the past several months editor MarkThomas has repeatedly accused me of POV editing, engaging in uncivil comments, personal attacks and lying to portray my edits in an unfavourble light. He has also combined accusations of POV editing with deletion of solid references, references which supported facts that he subsequently described as being something "no-one denies" (or simiar). He has also deleted my requests from his talk page.

This has been happenning on the Cromwell page and (further ago) on the British Isles page. Here are a few examples;

Cromwell

[180] (saying refs are POV) <correction to first entry> [181] (deleting refs) [182] (deleting the same ref a second time) [183] (deleting a ref from an 1900 text as being POV)

During this time I added many references from serious sources (e.g. volumes from Oxford and Cambridge University Press), which seemed to make things quieter. However, after a gap, we again have an attempt to characterise the references given as being "Irish" (a typical MarkThomas accusation is that someone is using "Republican POV"), despite the fact that the refs are from several countries, primarily British.

[184]

At the same time, on the Cromwell talk page, there were repeated accusations of POV and the beginnings of creating history that never happened (I'm unaware that one of my references was "discredited" in Cromwell, but it's not the first or only time that MarkThomas says things like this on talk pages)

[185] [186] (accusations of POV) [187] (more POV, plus accusations of snowjobbing references, which is interesting since he'd previous been deleting references.)

[188] (an interesting diff, since here he says that "nobody contests" a point where he had deleted several supporting refs as being POV)

[189] (mild, but attempting to portray a ref as unsourced, despite the fact that he knows the source and had used it himself)

[190] (description of references as "Republican")

[191] (characterisation of the references as "Republican folklore")

Then, after a mostly good debate between greycap, sony-youth, koncorde and others, MarkThomas comes back with

[192] (which accuses me of deleting references) [193] (now i'm an obsessive reference destroyer) [194] (now he accuses me again of deleting references, apparently of gathering support outside the page by posting on "Irish noticeboards" - whatever they are) [195] (repeated accusation of deleting references and making false accusations)

Meantime, on the British Isles page, we have everything from basic POV accusations

[196]

to deletion of key references during a protracted discussion on how to write about the references in the text

[197] (deleting some) [198](coming back to delete more of the refs) [199] (and again deleting, once more asserting that the citations are somehow POV)

and [200] (accusations of POV editing, as usual) [201] (and again)

Meantime, in all of this, and despite the fact that he says he will provide references ([202]) MarkThomas almost never actually provides any references to support his own point of view (note, i don't call it POV, since we all have a point of view). However, he very frequently asserts that others are POV too., e.g.

[203] Other editors (whom i don't know and haven't followed their edits) have also apparently had a problem [204] [205] [206] [207]

(Note, these other editors have had their own disputes and couldn't been seen as a group)

Then we have some more examples of characterising my edits or talk page contributions as being something other than I'd said; [208] (i never said the view was universal) [209] (assertion that i'd been warned by an admin for apparently putting something on his talk page..which is a mystery to me)

Then there was also accusation of collusion [210] (also rejected by the other editor [211])

Assertions that I was blocked for 3rr (i wasn't) [212]

And then we also have another example of changing the argument to confuse the issue [213] (read back through the page to see how often MarkThomas had opposed using the word "often", whereas now suddenly he proposes it.)

And also accusations of bullying and agression [214]

And accusations of deliberate misquoting of references [215] (i never made the edits MarkThomas says i made and can't comment on their accuracy)

In all, I guess my question was well expressed already several months ago in this diff [216] .

Dealing with MarkThomas is just highly unpleasant. This has been a pattern now for months and it's tiresome. I've tried to ask him to stop and to apologise and he'll deny that he makes accusations, apologises for one thing then repeats it, deletes requests on talk pages, responds to them with "threats" that he'll get me blocked and banned, etc.

I've tried to stick to citation as much as possible but MarkThomas doesn't care and doesn't provide any refs to support his accusations of POV, just repeats them and edits the pages apparently using his own personal knowledge as the ultimate reference. <update with better format a couple of hours after initial post>.Hughsheehy 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Note, I also asked an admin (SirFozzie) for support/guidance in dealing with MarkThomas. MarkThomas made some remarks there which bear repeating here.
This relates to the genocide debate and Hughsheehy's repeated edits surrounding the question of Cromwell being a genocidalist, which is a minority view in academic history, but one that Hughsheehy obviously has very strong views about himself - he resents this rather obvious point being publicly stated, which is the heart of the grave offence I commit in his eyes.
I've just read through the Wikiquette material and the accusations there profoundly conceal and misrepresent the facts. Hughsheehy is not in general someone who likes to engage in collaborative editing. When I first went to the Oliver Cromwell article, there were a number of exceptionally POV statements that were unreferenced or badly referenced about him in the intro which I corrected. I was then met with what amounted to a barrage of accusation and harassment from Hughsheehy. When I resisted this, he added numerous references to revised (and slightly less POV) versions of the contested sentences. When the validity of some of these new "references" which were to say the least academically weak (one for example was a quote from a childrens tutorial on the BBC website) were challenged by me, I got further accusations and blanket reverts. Now many other editors have come to the article and systematically critiqued Hughsheehy's references and the statements themselves. I made several more minor edits to the contested sentences, one of which has stuck. It is my opinion that Hughsheehy resents this and is hoping to paint me as the offending party. Note the recent threat of libel against WP:LEGAL he made on my talk page. MarkThomas 08:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I replied on SirFozzie's userpage, but this is relevant here too.
Interesting that MarkThomas picks that specific reference [217] (which he deleted) as an example. It's from the UK National Archives website and is teaching material for English A Level History. Also, it was never a citation for anything about genocide, as it doesn't mention it. It mentions that Cromwell is hated in Ireland. MarkThomas deleted this ref and one from a 1900 biography of Cromwell as being POV, before later arguing that there were too many references on that point because "nobody contests it". As for the "several more minor edits" on the genocide topic, these included him describing a series of references as being from "Irish historians" (and thus probably irredeemably POV), despite the fact that the citations include Polish historians of genocide and British University lecturers/professors and (i think) one Irish historian...and yes, I reverted that edit. Hughsheehy 09:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a typical exchange with MarkThomas. Dealing with this level of POV accusation and reference deletion or mischaracterisation is highly tiresome. Hughsheehy 09:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Passing editors should note that there is already an Arbcom on this issue, and that two of the editors comments Hughsheehy calls in support for his case above are Sarah777, who was regarded as so systematically incivil to other editors that there was an RFC on it supported by dozens of editors and Domer48 who is currently blocked for, well, incivility. This is essentially a content dispute on Oliver Cromwell - Hughsheehy is of the view that Cromwell was a genocidalist in Ireland and bitterly resents any attempt to refute, alter or moderate his particular version of that. Attempts to do so are met with systematic agresssion in the form of accusations on talk pages, etc. Hughsheehy's version of events must be seen in this light. MarkThomas 10:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Passing editors should note that there is NO ARBCOM WHATSOEVER on anything I'm involved in, and certainly not on this. Saying there's an ARBCOM is misdirection/misleading from MarkThomas. As for me using "systematic aggression" on talk pages, MarkThomas doesn't produce diffs to support this either - just repeats more untrue accusations even as I try to ask him to stop making untrue accusations against me. I've put lots of requests on MarkThomas' userpage asking him to be civil (and IIRC I once tried to warn him he was close to breaching 3rr), but to no avail, which is what forces me to finally come here and also to ask admins for support.
As for Sarah777 or Domer48 or anyone else listed above, they're only there as examples of MarkThomas' behaviour with other editors. Hughsheehy 10:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Since I put up this entry I've been advised by SirFozzie (an admin) that I could/should create an RFC and also put up an entry on an ArbCom case (which originated on a page where I have never edited and have had no involvement) where MarkThomas is one of the main - ehm - "participants". The Arbcom case is here [218]. I still don't know quite what I've got to do with it, but there you go. Hughsheehy 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Monarchist editors ignoring capitalization rules

Monarchist editors such as G2bambino and Bastin8 routinely capitalize common nouns having to do with the monarchy in defiance of English grammar. When I recently tried to correct Commonwealth Realms they wouldn't even take the evidence of Buckingham Palace's own Web site that the word "realm" should not be capitalized in this context. I'm exasperated beyond words. Their own Queen doesn't capitalize "Commonwealth realm," but that isn't evidence enough for them. I don't know what to do. I'm outnumbered by people with an agenda. Jonathan David Makepeace 22:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue is currently under discussion, with many more parties involved, at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, staring at Requested move. --G2bambino 01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:VitasV article ownership, warning removal, and incivility

Resolved. AfD in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who story chronology

VitasV started an article (Doctor Who story chronology) which I felt had no potential to be anything other than an exceedingly long list that was already adequately covered elsewhere (it would include *all* the episodes and books)), so I prodded it. He replied somewhat less than politely on my talk page and also seems unclear on the concept of article ownership; when I went back to his talk page I found that my prodwarning had been removed, and a check in the history showed that he's removed other warnings and comments from other users. Not sure what to do in this case. Thanks! --Jamoche 06:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon. After looking over the situation, it is somewhat apparent to me that the actions of this user is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Assuming good faith, I think the only reason this user removed the template was because he was convinced that his new article's existence was justified. I'm not going to comment either way on that, because such is not this section's place. As for the comments seen in your talk page, they qualify (possibly) as borderline incivility, almost not even worth noting. I'm going to warn this user nonetheless. If uncivil comments persist, please let me know. Again, the matter of the template removal alone is not something that can be solved here. Re-instate the template, and if this activity persists, contact the Administrator Noticeboard.The Kensington Blonde Talk 18:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur in general with The Kensington Blonde's comments above, but I'd like to add a technical comment on article deletion procedure. According to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Conflicts, if a {{PROD}} tag is removed even by the original author, then the PROD is considered to be contested and the next procedure would be to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, but not to restore the PROD tag.
Another point to consider is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who has an ongoing discussion about this and other Doctor Who articles, including this one by User:VitasV. In that discussion, he's shown some additional incivility, but the editors there are teaching him about that and it looks like he'll get the idea. He's quite young according to his user page, and it seems he just needs to learn how to communicate better. He does not seem disruptive or tendentious, just inexperienced. I'm going to post a welcome message on his page and direct him to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User.
If you want to list the article for deletion, it might be good to discuss it at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Doctor Who first to see if the project editors support your idea since they are already familiar with the page. Just a suggestion. --Parzival418 Hello 21:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Parzival, and sorry I reccommended going to the Admin Noticeboard. I'm still not very familiar with deletion policy, mainly because I don't have much interest in being involved in it.The Kensington Blonde Talk 21:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I've noticed you've responded to several WQA reports, and I'd like you to know your help is much appreciated. --Parzival418 Hello 22:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gregbard incivility and ownership

Resolved.

I am an outsider to the ongoing debate among some philosophy-oriented users. As a frequenter of AfD, I found myself distressed at the language used by Gregbard at here under his 'keep' vote. It appears that this user has made some very valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but I wanted to voice my concerns about etiquette over this page under his 'keep' vote that I would prefer not to repeat. The edit summary for this edit is also hostile and expresses ownership. I understand that this user is angry, and feels attacked and ganged up upon, so it may be a two way street. Edits such as this one suggest sarcasm and superiority, and must hurt the morale of other well-meaning contributors. Surely this type of talk should be discouraged, so I was hoping to get comments and suggestions here. (Postscript: Is this a slight in philosophical circles? I'm assuming that since it was reverted, there's a chance it is, and would then be modest scale vandalism of a userpage.) Thanks for your input, peace and wikilove, Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The user seems somewhat uncivil, but so far it's relatively minor. I advise just ignoring it for now. At least one of the people he's addressing is an administrator who edits mathematical logic articles, so if he continues on that path he'll probably get himself in trouble on his own. Also, the bigger problem is not the lack of civility but the creation of multiple hoax articles. That's already being discussed at the AfD and if that pattern continues, again, he'll make trouble for himself.
So for now, just let it be and don't take his comments personally if he addresses you. If it gets worse, let us know. --Parsifal Hello 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I re-edited my comments above after being asked to review this archived alert by Gregbard. I don't have time to check into the details, so to be fair, I am striking through all of my comments above regarding any user's behavior. My comments were not intended to read like a judgement, and they are not a judgement. I hope this helps to clarify. About the details of the additional text below, I'm sorry but I am not able to review this further. Continued editing of this archive is not likely to help, because no-one is monitoring this page. If additional help is needed, a new report may be opened. Best Wishes. --Parsifal Hello 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


I just want to go on the record and say that although I have communicated uncomfortable assertations, at no time did I cross into incivility.

In the case of the deletion of FS, a language (one of those things that people use to communicate!) Dr. Rubin had been counterproductive toward expanding articles I was expanding on several occasions earlier in the day. I approached him diplomatically at first, and got no reassurance of any good attitiudes on his side the whole time. I asked specifically at one point about getting an "asshole vibe" from him and got no denial or mitigation. There is no interpretation of my words as "hostile" AT ALL.

I do not hold pride of authorship in articles, and I am fully aware of the consequences of a publically editable space. My interest in FS was to use it as a language for examples in other articles. Please, if you haven't already gotten the point about the formal language FS, understand that it is a language. Now I don't have the use of it. That seriously effects my ability to communicate concepts. No substitute has been forthcomming either.

Furthermore, your example of my words that you describe as "sarcasm" are not sarcasm. The issue being discussed is the fact that the imposed segregation of math and philosophy was causing the philosophy people from actively getting left out of the process on account of the organization of things. There he was using the fact that there weren't any philosophy people contributing as a point on their side. So you see that there is a closed system going on there. The solution involved using transclusions of a philosophy page and a math page (which I had to figure out how to do). They were making more and more work for me with no regard for the whole group of stakeholders.

There are a number of rational interpretations of my labeling Dr. Rubin as a "rhetorician." We had just gotten into a discussion about Dr Parker, a logician (and author of one of the best selling logic books ever printed). I was having a hard time convincing him that he was a logician. He labeled Dr. Parker a rhetorician. So if Dr R. views it as a slight then the label was deserved. I was quite fed up at that point (with Dr. R's rhetoric as a matter of fact). So I labeled Dr. R a rhetorician, with as much justification. He could very well call it a compliment couldn't he?!

I would appreciate it if you would see your way clear to saying I was not uncivil, but rather very well aware of any potential crossing of lines which I sharply DID NOT. I do not create hoax articles under ANY interpretation. I found the labeling of an article I started with a hoax banner mortifying. I was president of the Skeptics club locally. The ironic thing is that there isn't any logically possible way the article could be a hoax. It's logic for crying out loud. It would be like creating the Law of noncontradiction article and having it called into question as a hoax. There's no way it could be UNTRUE!

I don't appreciate being labeled as a trouble maker or being left on my own to be eaten up by the sharks. If I could please focus your attention on the math-centric pov that has subsumed a whole section of the Wikipedia. They are an unaccountable cabal because of the esoteric nature of the subject, their raw numbers, and the propencity of math people to not have a life at all. They are putting the content farther and farther out of the reach of the reader, and the editor. They have dis-integrated topic after topic into conceptx (mathematics), conceptx (everybody else). They have subsumed many logical concepts into math language which are more fundamental and accessable when understood as logic. They are organizing topics in a way that exhibits POV when seen on the multiple article level. I don't know what group has the power to deal with this issue even minimally but perhaps some interdisciplinary standards could be introduced.

Be well, Gregbard 20:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Incivility from DreamGuy

Repeated incvility toward multiple other users from DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). A quick look at his edit summary should show a number of them. Here are some examples: [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225], [226], [227], [228], [229]

Reported by IPSOS (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
For whatever my opinion's worth, both of you could use a dose of WP:AGF. The two of you have clearly had a number of policy disagreements, but I think the real problem here is that both of you are convinced - without evidence that I have seen -that the other is acting in bad faith. If the two of you intend to continue editing the same articles, I'd suggest making use of WP:RFC in order to have some further light shed on the policy disagreements themselves. As for WP:CIVIL, I don't think most of the edit summaries to which you link violate the policy, although the wording is often slightly more belligerent than necessary (a by-product, in my view, of the lack of assumption of good faith that seems to pervade your wiki-relationship).
Good luck! Sarcasticidealist 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I also took a look at these diffs, and I'm not convinced that this was the right response. Sarcasticidealist seems to assume that all the diffs came from encounters with the reporting user: they did not, but show a broad pattern of aggressiveness with multiple users. Here's a sampling of edit comments on user talk pages demonstrating the larger problem here:
  1. 18:12, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:70.53.254.98 (←Created page with '==Spam== Do not bother trying to sneak spam links into the body of articles or into templates, as those edits will just be reverted on site. Before editing here yo...') (top)
  2. 18:02, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Calling somebody a liar is a personal attack - not if it's true... who are all these nobodies showing up planting false warnings? geez, it's like they got together and planned it) (top)
  3. 02:30, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (response to person trying to not take credit for the edits he/she clearly made which were inaccurate)
  4. 01:02, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (untrue.... it's been well established that editors are free to remove harassing comments and to warn people to ; certain editors -- yourself included -- have firmly demonstrated ill will)
  5. 00:56, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Please assume good faith -you're banned from this talk page, and you are purposefully leaving comments you know to be harassing and false warnings, go away or you will be blocked)
  6. 00:48, 27 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→WP:LAYOUT - false warning from harasser... LAYOUT supported my edits until some peoplpe took it upon themselves to edit that page to be wrong)
  7. 23:42, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (removing whole section, as it's been nothing but an excuse for editors with harassment on their mind to complain and whine and try to work me up... go read policy and comma rules, save everyone's time)
  8. 23:19, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Comma in Adobe Photoshop - response to attacks by harassing editor)
  9. 22:48, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Comma in Adobe Photoshop - explaning... and would the banned editor stop causing edit conflicts... nobody asked you, and you know you are banned, so go away)
  10. 18:28, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→FYI - yet another lie from the harassing problem editor who was told never to post here again)
  11. 00:41, 26 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them)
  12. 20:57, 25 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dicklyon (False warnings, and harassment, AGAIN)
  13. 20:52, 25 July 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:DreamGuy (→Final vandalism warning - removing false vandalism warning... read the freaking vandalism policy already, and stop putting nonsense here solely to try to bully me)
GlassFET 18:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed this thread. I opened a case on DreamGuy on WP:AN/I a few days ago, too, not for the incivility so much but for the disruptive editing against consensus and the lying edit summaries when he does. It would be good if some admin who is not involved would take a look there and propose a resolution; too many people seem to be involved with him, so nobody makes a decision about what to do, if anything. Dicklyon 05:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Potential conduct issues on Talk:American Family Association

I'd like some neutral review of the user conduct on Talk:American Family Association, including my own. There's a content dispute there at the moment which has been dogged by a lack of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and possibly WP:OWN issues. Basically I would appreciate it if someone could have a look at the discussion (ignoring the content issues) and make some suggestions to involved editors who could benefit from an explanation of how things are done in Wikipedia. I deliberately name no names, except to explicitly include myself in the review, so that neutral parties approach with an open mind. Start at this point in the discussion: [230] and go back for perspective if necessary.

Thanks, Orpheus 09:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A Link to the Past

Resolved.

I run into this user quite frequently. It's difficult for me to list him, as he's obviously not a vandal and it appears he has the Wiki's best interests in mind. However, he is known for being stubborn, and sometimes downright abusive when he disagrees with another user.

As one example, he's taken a one-man crusade to remove "Zero Suit Samus" from the Super Smash Bros. (series) page, despite the consensus leaning to her staying on the list. He mas made many edits over the past three days to remove this information, but is careful not to remove it three times in the same day (every time he does, it's reverted quickly, and usually by a different user than before.) He claims that to remove it is in line the "no original research" rule, but the primary argument for inclusion is categorization on the game's official site.

He has also been known to yell at users, make sarcastic comments, claim other users are lying, and attempt to oust the decisions of administators when consensus doesn't appear to be going his way.

Thank you for your time, HeroicJay 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To add to this, he has now started harassing me (to note, I never advocated what he claimed I did in that edit.) --HeroicJay 00:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know about this. I see the patterns in the diffs you mentioned, and it does appear that User:A Link to the Past has been rather uncivil at times. I'd suggest leaving a note in his Talk page asking for discussion on the matter, and if he agrees, please participate in a civil discussion with suggestions on how to improve the atmosphere in those articles. If this ends up only causing more trouble, we can attempt to intervene for mediation, or we can refer you to other steps in the dispute resolution process, such as informal or formal mediation.
Just as a note, I don't believe that LTTP was attempting to harass you when he posted to your Talk page recently. His approach did seem very direct, but I didn't see anything in it that seemed to indicate a desire to harass you. Having exchanged with him myself, I believe he was honestly interested in discussing the matter, and that your response to him might have been a little hostile (though I don't think you violated any policies either). Not sure what I can suggest to change that situation at this point, though.
If we can be of any more help, let us know. Thanks. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't say I've ever had a personal...skirmish...with him, but I HAVE noticed him popping up a LOT in disputes, often about naming things, and usually on the low end of consensus if anyone agrees with him at all -- and almost always takes the stance that his opinion is correct and noone else is wrong. I had looked through his talk page a bit (before I saw this page) and saw he's been blocked for being diruptive, 3RR, etc. a number of times. I've also noted him making some weird edits (like removing Wikiproject templates from pages even after they are added back) that, again, seem to be geared toward him wanting things done his way no matter what. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I see that you are stalking me to dig up dirt on me, huh? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Link, the diffs that were posted in the original alert do show a disruptive pattern. The purpose of this page is to bring disruptive behavior to the attention of non-admin people who are willing to try to resolve disputes and give neutral advice. We'll help if we can, but keep in mind that if other editors feel you are continuing to be disruptive after this WQA has been given time to settle, they will be referred to stronger forms of dispute resolution, including formal mediation, Request for Comment on User, the Admin Noticeboard, and/or binding arbitration. This is not a warning from me, per se - just some advice. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
HeroicJay was quite difficult in that discussion. Everytime I made the slightest attempt to make the point that just because Zero Suit Samus is filed under the Characters cat (the ONLY place she could have been filed), it doesn't mean that she is considered by the developers to be as much of a character in the game as Mario or Link. Whenever I brought up the point that they've filed updates under odd categories before (such as calling a description of control types and naming "Game Modes") he called it irrelevant. It gets very annoying when someone refuses to acknowledge a quality argument that shows the smashbros. site useful in this argument, as it doesn't clearly group her as a playable character, but rather chooses to file her under the only applicable category. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with you over the topic here, and I'm not discussing it any further here either. I brought up that one example as an example, and additionally the most recent one, but I've witnessed or participated in disagreements with you before. Anyone who wants to see that argument should look on the appropriate page rather than take either one of our words alone. --HeroicJay 07:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It is far more than my bad attitude, it's the way you irritatingly attempted to denounced my arguments at several intervals. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Not much to say except that he's ignored messages that I've sent him on his Talk page frequently. When I raised this with him, he says that he's at liberty to respond whenever he wants (although I doubt he would have ever responded). He seems to respond swiftly when there's an argument against him though — it's a shame that he doesn't bother when things are on amicable terms. His work covers a lot of the WP:CVG; it's just a shame that it's so hard to communicate with a major contributor. A little trivial, I know. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Trivial and harassing. All you're doing is following me around for the purpose of whining that I didn't respond to something that I wasn't invigorated into participating with at the moment. Seriously, stop. I'm less inclined to discuss ANYTHING with you after you've systematically fought and complained about my not responding to your post. I respond to criticisms because people directly criticizing me or discussing something controversial is about infinitely of higher priority than moving an article. Now STOP. You'll probably then complain about my response to you, but I won't care. I choose to reply whenever I want, and I expect to NOT be harassed for doing so. Just like ANY Wikipedian. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

←The most important key in situations like this is to not take things personally. Some editors like to talk about their work and some don't. Some are gruff and some are pleasant. There are - of course - times when it really is necessary to discuss edits. If the edits seems to go against consensus, or are questionable according to the core policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV, then you can follow the method of WP:BRD, and WP:CONSENSUS. If you find yourself in a situation like that, discuss it on the article talk page. At that point if an editor refuses to respond to the discussion, there could be a problem - but it might not be incivility, it might be disruptive editing, ie WP:DISRUPT.

At this time though, it doesn't seem that is happening. If it is, please provide specific diffs to show disruptive editing. Otherwise, if it's just a situation where User:A Link to the Past does not like to discuss edits on his talk page, that's frustrating but it's not necessarily a policy violation.

I suggest that you focus on the content of the edits. If you don't agree with his edits, discuss on the article talk page, not his user talk page. If he does not respond, you can revert the edits you don't consense. If he reverts them back again, then ask again to discuss on the article talk page. Also, discuss with other editors, and ask them to help with the edits, per consensus. Eventually, if he edits against consensus, you might need further WP:DISPUTE resolution procedures.

If as you say, he is continually skirting the 3RR rule, that can also be considered disruptive. An editor that makes three reverts to the same topic every day, with multiple editors doing the opposing reverts could be considered to be violating 3RR even if technically it's not in one day. If it happens several days in a row and there is consensus against the 3 daily reversions, then it would be appropriate to report that at WP:AN/3RR. If you do report it there though, have your diffs and examples very carefully organized, and include comments from the multiple consensus editors making the complaint so that it's clear it's not just a two person edit war.

But if he is not editing disruptively and just happens to not like to talk about stuff on his talk page, well maybe that's just how he is and it could be best to let it go. Focus on the content, not the editor. Have a thick skin, let the annoying edit summary comments bounce off. If they become seriously rude or extreme, or if the editing becomes disruptive, then let us know and we can try to help. For now though, don't let it get you down. If I've missed something important, please let me know. --Parzival418 Hello 08:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. I like to respond to messages on my talk page. But I am NOT able to do so in a speedy manner, and I am NOT able to respond to messages that easily, especially when I'm not THAT interested in the subject.
  2. I shouldn't even be editing under the circumstances that I do - that is, I recall most of these disputes beginning earlier in the day, and on a hot Summer day too, so I was probably cranky and hot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you understand yourself well... :), we all have times like that, editing when we're tired or cranky, but at times like that we need to be extra aware of how we come across. Try to watch out for actions that others might see as edit warring, in other words, if you revert the same edit more than a couple times, then please take the time to discuss the issue - either on your own talk page or the article talk page, wherever you prefer. If you do it on your own page, at least inform the other editor(s) so they know where to discuss it with you.

In your edit summaries, it would be helpful if you consider how others will feel when they read your comments. They may not realize how fast you're editing and that those comments are just toss-offs... some may take those comments personally even if you don't intend it that way.

I think we can consider this WQA report closed, unless anyone has anything further to add. If anyone wants to continue this process, please include a specific description of what outcome you want to achieve since at this time, it's hard to see what else we can do unless there is a specific goal. One thing that may help is that if A Link to the Past appears uncivil in a discussion, you can ask him to please reply more respectufully. Mutual respect is always helpful in collaboarations, especially when everyone involved is particularly interested in a topic. And remember, don't take any of it personally, it's just words.

If no-one adds anything, we'll change the work-in-progress tag to resolved in a few days and then this section will automatically be archived after a while. Best wishes to all. --Parzival418 Hello 17:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Parziva1418. I think this should be done. LaleenaTalk to me Contributions to Wikipedia 13:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Turtlescrubber on Ron Paul

Work in Progress Work in Progress - comments welcome

Repeated incivility, personal attacks, and sarcasm. Most recently, accusations of "... loves to edit war" in an edit summary -- of a revert. Could someone please encourage Turtlescrubber to maintain civility? As the subject of the attacks, I doubt any further comments of mine would be taken at face value. ←BenB4 07:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I wish I knew about this page earlier. Ben has driven me, and many other editors to our wits ends on the Ron Paul article. Even a cursory glance at the the talk page should show the incivility and confrontational manner of this editor. User ignores comments, is uncivil, accuses editors of pov pushing and partisanship and shows a dogged determination not to compromise. Any compromise comes with the sweat of other editors pulling teeth on the talk page and in the article for days. Honestly, it's hard to stay civil after the umpteenth time of trying to calm down edit wars or produce new compromise versions. Really, I would love to remain civil but here is just an example of my trying to reach out to him on his talk page.

This is me asking for his input[231] This is me responding to his personal attack [232] Here is me upset about getting no response and further attacks [233] User has never responded to any of those inquires and has just minutes ago, asked me what personal attack? He never read my comments on his talk page? Other editors on the page are also fed up, as shown by comments like this, [234] This, [235]this, this section is nice [236] [237] or this [238] All from different users within the past 10 days. I could easily dig up 10 more. Here is a very recent threat he made against another user [239] Please read over the talk page and see where our frustration is coming from. It's not just me but everyone on the talk page thats throwing their hands up in frustration. Turtlescrubber 07:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I happen to be an editor on the Ron Paul page; I came across this page for the first time and saw this notice and felt I had to comment. BenB4 has accused many other editors (almost every one working on the article actually) of being on various campaign committees, has said that no consensus can happen when every other editor disagrees with him and he is the only dissent, and he has done this on personal talk pages as well as the article's talk page and in his edit descriptions within the history of the article. I ask that the commentary going on at the Ron Paul talk page be reviewed because many editors have indeed "been driven to their wits' end" as Turtlescrubber describes and a few dedicated editors seem to have left working on the article because of it. I have never seen any editor act this way and I have been around for a while.--Gloriamarie 23:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been some violation of WP:CIVIL on both sides of this dispute. I also think that there has been a distinct lack of assumption of good faith, which has both caused and exacerbated the civility issues. I hope that both sides would agree that frustration occasionally got the better of them and their word choices were inappropriate, and I won't spend any more time on the civility/agf questions unless somebody takes issue with my comments and asks for justification.
At this point, I would suggest trying to draft a paragraph on the newsletter issue that is sufficiently bare bones that none of the involved parties takes issue with any part of it, and work from there on a sentence by sentence (or clause by clause or word by word, where necessary) basis. It will be slow going, and it will require considerable compromise on both sides. However, considerable compromise is.
I would encourage any of the involved parties to comment here on my advice, let me know if it was helpful, and let me know if I have missed anything glaringly obvious (I do that sometimes). Sarcasticidealist 02:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, if you check the talk page. A draft paragraph on the newsletter issue was the first thing I tried. I contacted other users and left messages on their talk page asking for input. That is where all this had lead because of some initial rejections, by one user, of any compromise. Also, this is not a partisan issue. Gloriamarie who posted above is probably more or less my idealogical opposite (thats the feeling I get anyway), however it is easy to work with her as she is open to discussion and compromise and always civil to other users. While I am not always quite as civil, I am open to discussion and compromise. Almost every single editor on the page is reasonable and open to compromise and discussion, except for one. Turtlescrubber 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I started following the dispute too far down. After having read your draft (I presume you refer to this, I have to agree that what you wrote was a good basis to work off of. If User:BenB4 wants to include more information above and beyond the basic consensus version you drafted, that's something that could be hashed out from there. It does appear from my vantage point that, civility and assumptions of good faith aside, this process would move forward best of User:BenB4 would agree to start with a minimalist consensus version and then build on it as consensus could be achieved.
Of course, I'm talking only about process here; I make no comment about the content disputes. Sarcasticidealist 04:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute at Wikipedia:Relevance

Resolved. Alert withdrawn by original poster.

User:Kevin Murray has reverted this active proposal with the comment "There is no consensus and virtually no support for this proposal. Since it replaces an exisiting page it is not proper to mark it as rejected. If you can show a consensus repost."

The proposal (hosted at User:Father Goose/Relevance until this dispute is resolved) is specific to the subject of relevance and belongs at Wikipedia:Relevance if it belongs anywhere. It replaced a short, essentially placeholder page ([240]) six weeks ago, and no one raised an objection to its placement there, not even Mr. Murray himself: [241].

However, Mr. Murray has been antagonistic toward the proposal, and his statement above wilfully ignores five users who have expressed support for the guideline, who outnumber those who have dissented. At this point he is trying to enforce his views by shutting down continuing discussion and work on the proposal. While Mr. Murray is free to express his dissent, it seems he is trying to disrupt continuing work on the proposal by wiping it out. May I ask for some assistance in this matter?--Father Goose 21:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 incivility

Resolved.

I would like some outsiders to view and comment on the recent edits of User:Mbz1, particularly here where she seems to have started off, and User_talk:Cacophony. She has been excessively abusive and disruptive IMO, particularly towards User:Cacophony. I would try reprimand her on her talk page, but as you can see she also has it in for me as well. Thanks, --Fir0002 06:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 has posted a notice on her page that she is leaving Wikipedia, and she seems to feel she has been chased away by User:Cacophony and User:Fir0002. I am not taking sides, just reporting what I saw on her page. For now, I recommend just letting this go, since she has stated she is leaving.
She might return, and if she does and you see new problems, you're welcome to post them here. Regarding the past problems, I do see that she has been somewhat gruff, but since it's not continuing, there's nothing to be done.
Also, a user has the right to blank their own talk page (WP:USER). Many times other users have undone her blanking of her own page or her archive pages, which she appears to have felt was a form of harrassment towards her, ie, adding fuel to the fire. I am not saying it was harrassment, but I am saying that if someone blanks their own user talk page, that is their right, so please don't undo that edit. The discussions are still in the history if you need to retrieve examples to show problems.
I suggest that if she returns, try using extra politeness and see if you can work with her productively. Don't take her comments personally, just focus on the content. If that doesn't help and she causes disruptions, you are welcome to file a new report. --Parzival418 Hello 07:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice, she says on her talkpage that she has left however she is still editing (as you'd be able to see from her edits). Please check User_talk:Cacophony where she says that she has only left Wikipedia in terms of no longer uploading any photos. She is still being abusive towards Cacophony --Fir0002 07:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've removed the resolved template and kept this report open. I've reviewed the communications and I agree it's a frustrating situation. Sometimes it may require multiple editors to revert disruptive editing from one user. Unless the problem is extreme and ongoing, it can be a slow plodding process to overcome the disruptions, but they can be overcome. If 3RR is violated, then that can be reported separately at WP:AN/3RR, but if that's not happening, it could be that the best solution is to try and let the unpleasant comments go by and focus more on getting other editors together so the consensus can solve the problem. One disruptive editor alone against a consensus can't stop improvements, though it can take step by step WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS processes to get through the disruption. Aside from all that, and considering everything you've seen from her, what is it that you would consider to be a positive result from your report here? --Parsifal Hello 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Good question. Primarily I would like someone not previously connected with this problem (ie not me or cacophony) to give Mbz1 a reprimand or warning so that she will stop being so disruptive. I think, and obviously this is just my opinion, that she has got the idea that Cacophony and myself are wrongly harassing her, and she is in the right/being victimized in this situation. I think a few words from another editor may help the situation. --Fir0002 07:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
          • So I had a right to blank my talk page after all. It is good to know! Yes it is a harassment, when somebody was (and is) watching everything I was doing and undid it right away(not only with my talk page). I fealt a hunted and absolutely alone. I asked User:Cacophony to have a pitty on me and stop harassing me. It did not help. And right now I deleted my talk page again and it is back there by user User:Cacophony. So how else should I call it, but a harrasment? --Mbz1 16:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
                • By the way about my so called "incivility" at the sample fir0002 listed here. Agree I should have been more civil, but I do have a mitigating circumstance (I have not started uncivil behavior first). One user called me "a pain", other user blaimed me "in vandalism", yet one more user(fir0002) advised me to use eyeglasses and made a comment about my spelling.--Mbz1 16:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Comment . Tensions are high, each of the editors is on the defensive about their own behavior and at the same time has done or written things that have upset the others, probably without intending that result. Go back to the basics and start from WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If someone writes something that feels like a personal attack, figure maybe that's just how that person talks. Decide to ignore the insult, and be extra polite, turning the conversation away from personal comments and back to the content issue.

Use the "just let it go" philosophy. What matters is what content ends up in the articles. The debates that lead to those results will fade away. Low-scale misunderstandings get in the way of productive editing and just plain make things feel bad. You can stop that by not taking it personally - "just let it go."

That's happening, and now on both sides. I'm not going to say "who started it," and it really doesn't matter. Tthe answer is: everyone please just stop doing that. Focus your comments only on the content, not on the editors.
What to do when someone makes an uncivil comment to you in a discussion? Extra politeness. Defuse. If you feel annoyed, wait a few minutes before you reply. Often it can help to point out the incivility in a respectful way, and ask the user to stick to the topic. Make that short, then get right back to the topic yourself. Ignore whatever the editor said about you as a person. If everyone does this, after a while the person making insults will probably get bored and stop doing it.
Not every comment needs a reply. In a poll like a Featured Photo page, what matters is the consensus, not that every comment by one editor has a rebuttal. After rebutting a couple of a person's comments, you can just enter say something like - well I guess we disagree, let's see what the others have to say about it. Or you can just leave it unanswered. The consensus will determine the outcome. The most important thing for that is to make sure there are enough editors on the page to make a consensus and avoid a two-person edit war.
  • Inappropriate editing of User:Mbz1's user talk page by other users
Per WP:USER, editors have the right to delete content from their user talk pages. The guideline recommends archiving, but does not require it. The history will keep all the conversations anyway. Users also have the right to ask other users not to modify their user pages. When Mbz1 blanks her page or removes her archive links, it is not appropriate for other users to unblank her page or restore her archives.
Consider how it feels to a user when they have blanked their talk page and someone else comes in and reverts their change to their own page. Something like that can really inflame tensions in an already difficult situation. Don't revert others' changes to their own talk page. (The one exception to that is if they edit your comments to change the meaning of what you wrote, that would be a different issue I am not addressing here).
  • Mbz1 - apparently misleading and uncivil good-bye message
Mbz1, as I wrote above, you do have the right to blank your user talk page, and you have the right to delete your archive links if you wish. However, the "good-bye" message you left on your page when you blanked it is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It could be seen by some as a Wikipedia:Attack page, in that you are accusing other editors of certain policy violations, without providing evidence or filing any kind of formal report.
It's disingenuous to say that you are leaving Wikipedia, and then continue editing. If you want to blank your page and continue editing, please do. If you want to blank your page and leave a good-bye message and leave, please do. But do not leave an attack page, and do not say you are leaving if you actually are continuing to edit Wikipedia. If you do leave Wikipedia and you leave an attack on your pages, the attacked users, or others, would have grounds for editing your page to remove the personal attacks.
  • Mutual respect is the key. Don't take things personally, stay calm, respond to uncivil personal comments with extra politeness. Comment only on content and not on editors.

I hope my comments are helpful. --Parsifal Hello 19:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, your comments were helpful in some way to me. Like I said I was alone and did not know how to fight the harassment. I do not know how to file reports as well as fir0002 does. I'm still not sure how come that at least 4 users suddenly became so interested in my talk page that they restored it contest even at 2 a.m. sometimes. It was something very sinister in that. I wish I knew how they communicate between themselves in conspiracy to give me a hard time. You helped. You were right, when you said they were adding fuel to the fire by restoring my talk page (and by removing all my edits). I felt like I have no power over anything, even my own pictures and my own talk page.They saw my reaction on that, yet they continued to do it to make their point. I've deleted some messages at my my talk page (including "good-bye" message) but left some others . I'll see what happens and, if my talk page would stay like I want it to be for a day or so I would consider that I've won a very small victory and the matter is resolved.By the way, when I said I was living Wikipedia, I meant that I'll stop uploading my pictures and I did. I've never meant I will stop to vote for FP nominations. I was just so desperate and upset by all this, that I could have missed something in my "good-bye" message(not in purpose). Thanks,Parsifal.--Mbz1 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
I'd like to add that in my opion, if somebody was reported against like I was, that person should be notified because in my opinion everybody has a right to respond.--Mbz1 20:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
That's a good point, separately from all the rest of this discussion. I will add that to the instructions for when users file a report on this page. --Parsifal Hello 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Parsifal, I really wish I found that page earlier. I also like to make one more point (hopefully) the last one for that discussion. You called the restoring of my talk page "Inappropriate editing" I would have agreed, if it was done once or twice, or even 5 times, but it was done at least 25 times for the last 2 - 3 days, and after I literally begged them, to have a pitty on me and to stop doing this. I'm sorry,but I would never agree it was "Inappropriate editing". It was a harassment and a very bad one: harassment of an old , sick and alone by young , healthy and many. Oh, and by the way while I was writing that message user User:Cacophony has done it again (for the 26 time). Would you help me,Parsifal please? Thanks.--Mbz1 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Mbz1: I would advise against continuing in the direction you're going with your requests, as they are starting to look more like self-entitlement and possibly issues related to WP:POINT and WP:NPA. We are not in a position to "take pity" on WP editors, but rather to provide neutral and balanced advice. If you feel that other users are continuing to harass you despite repeated requests to stop, you are welcome to post a notice at the Administrator Noticeboard, which can deal with specific policy violations. (I cannot advise at this time as to which specific noticeboard you should post to, but someone there should be able to help you.)
Parsifal: I'm not trying to hijack your work here - just noticed a pattern that appears to be at cross-purposes with the WQA page in general. Hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
(No problem at all, your comments are most welcome. --Parsifal Hello 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but I don't find anything on Wikipedia:User page that authorizes a user to blank his/her talk page and I disagree with the notion that this is acceptable behavior. Short of personal attacks or libel, there is no good reason to remove other people's comments. It is very disrespectiful towards other editors to remove their comments without archiving. Wikipedia:Vandalism states "The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking...", so I'm inclined to treat usertalk page blanking as vandalism that should be reverted. If you could provide me a link to a page that authorizes blanking usertalk pages I would appreciate it. Thanks, Cacophony 23:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, WP:USER is a guideline, not an official policy. It does mention that users are essentially free to do what they want with their user spaces, so long as they don't violate user-conduct policies such as WP:NPA and posting libelous statements, etc. It also mentions in particular that a user can remove warnings from their page, and that is taken as a sign that they have read those warnings. Nothing specific has been written about blanking their pages, so it probably falls under the more general "this is my userspace, and I can do what I want with it" category. Additionally, the guideline says that users have the right to request that other users not edit their User and User Talk pages - that would include reverting blanking.
Please also keep in mind that you can get in trouble for WP:3RR on user talk pages, just as in article pages - it's just as much an edit war there as in non-user spaces.
That said, the page is just a guideline - none of this is set in stone. In some cases, user-talk blanking may be deemed inappropriate by an administrator. Just as I said to Mbz1, you are also welcome to seek help at the Admin Noticeboard if you feel she is violating policies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
KieferSkunk beat me to it. In my view, blanking your own talk page is reasonable; and off-hand I cannot think of any good reason to deny someone this basic level of control over their user space. You should not revert such a change. In my opinion, you have the onus backwards. The WP:USER guideline establishes a presumption in favour of the user to manage their user space as they see fit. The vandalism guideline does not override this presumption, because it explicitly states that blanking is sometimes appropriate. Although blanking your own talk page is not mentioned explicitly, you should accept that this is a clear case where the presumtion that the user is acting in good faith to manage their talk space should apply. Let it go. You don't have any good basis to insist on your material remaining in another user's talk space. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Duae_Quartunciae--Mbz1 00:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

←I concur with Duae_Quartunciae and KieferSkunk. Take a look at WP:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space, which includes these points:

  • As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit.
  • Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
  • In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission.
  • Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests.
  • Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

And here WP:TALK#Editing comments:

  • On your own user talk page, you may remove comments from others, although archiving is generally preferred and removing comments without any reason is generally regarded uncivil.

I've also never heard the word "vandalism" used to describe a user making changes to their own userspace pages. The section you quoted from Wikipedia:Vandalism does not generally apply to userspace, other than to someone blanking someone else's userpage. That would be considered Userspace vandalism. On that same page, there is a description of Discussion page vandalism which states the following:

  • Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own,... is generally considered vandalism.

That section specifically omits blanking of comments of others, from one's personal user talk page, from the definition of vandalism. She can blank her personal talk page if she wishes to. There are some users that blank their talk pages regularly, just to keep them clear out of preference. The history is still present if you need to retrieve something to show a pattern of uncivil comments or any other use.

Aside from whether or not it is formally allowed by policy, it's also just plain bad manners to revert someone's edits in their own userspace. No offense intended, but what's the big deal if she wants to blank her user talk page? Why not just stay completely away from her talk page? Don't add fuel to the fire. On the Featured Photo debate page, it's not just you and her, there will be a consensus to decide about the photo. Let the consensus do its work, and stop focusing on one other editor.

User:Mbz1, you should also stop focusing on the other editors. Don't talk about your personal problems or how any other editor might be making them worse. This is an encyclopedia project, not a social network. Direct your comments and edits only towards the content of the articles or photos, and limit your dialog with other editors only to that which will benefit the results by making the articles better. Read and understand WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and especially WP:CONSENSUS. Blank your user talk page if you wish, but do not post any attack comments there. You have previously used the titles of the links to your talk page archives as a place for personal attacks naming other editors - that also is not acceptable and you should rename those links, or remove them, but do not use them to summarize your attack comments.

If you still feel you are being harassed, that could become a serious matter, so let us know and we can advise you. But accusing someone of harassment is also a serious matter and is not acceptable, unless it is accompanied by evidence, so do not use that word casually.

Everyone involved in this dispute should stop watching each other so closely, don't take things personally, and make some great Wikipedia articles. OK? --Parsifal Hello 01:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Parsifal. I'm not sure what other words to use ,but being harassed against, to describe how I felt about them restoring my talk page, all the time(and my user page once), yet I'm willing to let go on it of course, if they will never ever restore the comments on my talk page that I wish to delete.Thanks for everything.--Mbz1 04:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    • Well it looks like this has proceeded satisfactorily. Mbz seems to have settled down and the PA against Cacophony have been retracted (although I'm by no means claiming a miracle cure as her recent comments on the Fog bow talk page show!). I still strongly dislike the fact that Mbz is either blanking or selectively deleting comments which she doesn't like, but I see and acknowledge that apparently she has the right to do so. So as far as I'm concerned this matter is resolved. Thanks for your time everyone! --Fir0002 06:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I would have missed on it, but because it is staying for the record I guess I need to clarify one point. I tried really hard to retract so called PA against cacophony few tims for the last day or so, but for some unkonown to me reason cacophony was bringing it right back every time I retracted it. I was about to give up, but then I retracted it one more time and suddenly cacophony settled down and stopped bringing it back. I also like to thank fir0002 personally for filing that report against me. It brought me real and much needed help. --Mbz1 20:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Thanks to both of you for your replies; it's good to know our efforts have made a difference. Best wishes... --Parsifal Hello 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


Uncivil comments after editing Politico-media complex

Stuck.

User:Dsmith1usa and I are in a little dispute over at Politico-media complex and the user has become rather aggressive and rude with these two comments [242], [243] after I removed some of his additions which I feel are unsubstantiated in the sources provided, suffer from weasel words and border on original research and afford undue weight to one commentator. Appreciate some sort of input to keep the discussion focussed on the content. Hiding Talk 16:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a response in the article Talk requesting that the "The Editor known as Block" section be removed, as it's a clear violation of WP:NPA. I invited both of you to continue any discussion about your personal dispute here, and we'll attempt to mediate as best as possible, but I also advised that the personal dispute should be taken off of the article Talk and either to here or to one of your User Talk pages. Hope this helps. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It either will or it won't. It looks like it is still meandering along a diatribe path, but thanks for the input. I'm pretty much just treading through the processes, to be honest. Hiding Talk 12:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at the discussion again, and it appears Dsmith is still making this a very personal argument there. I noted that your side of the argument has remained civil - good job! Dsmith, on the other hand, appears to be treading on thin ice with respect to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:POINT, and he seems to feel that he's entitled to warn the rest of the community about your "hypocrisy", despite what policies he might be violating by doing so. If he continues after further advice, I'll refer you both to mediation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Cheers, it's appreciated. Hiding Talk 11:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made several attempts to help defuse the situation on that talk page, but it is clear to me that Dsmith1usa is not interested in mediation - he has, instead, continued the dispute directly in the article talk page and has resorted to violating WP:NPA even after several warnings. I can't do anything more in this situation - I left him a warning in his User Talk page with a specific diff that violated the policy. Depending on his response to the warning, I would refer you to either a more formal mediation step, Request For Comment on User, or the Admin Noticeboard. (I noticed that you yourself are an admin, and I applaud your effort to work this out through the normal channels rather than taking this into your own hands.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, Dsmith has made a number of very wordy (to the point of being almost unreadable) comments in my own Talk page criticizing my attempts to facilitate discussion. Among other things, he has (or at least I think he has) stated that WP's Consensus policy is flawed, and he has referred to a number of people as "Wikipedia Equestrians" - I took his manner to mean the typical "aristocracy/tyranny of the majority" argument that frequently comes up in one-against-many situations. In any event, I maintain that he does not appear to be willing to work constructively in this situation, and he apparently refuses to do anything about the personal attacks that still exist in the article Talk. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of trolling

The comment to which you object was "apologies for feeding the troll". The earlier comment was actually the one that started the tiff, with an accusation of "forum-shopping".
In my opinion (since you are evidently asking) is that the person at fault here is the one who started out with accusations, rather than assuming good faith; and then compounding the problems by going straight to a wikiquette alert when they got what was actually a very mild reproof in response. I'd be inclined to offer some gentle wisdom, but at this point I just can't resist saying... apologies for feeding the troll. :-) Seriously, mate, you badly need to cool it. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Text of Rfc altered to make an accusation

An Rfc on an article filed a while ago has been changed by Green108 to make an accusation. 17:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by user Fyslee

Stale.

Please help. Fyslee keeps inserting personal attacks on me in article discussion pages. I have placed a series of NPA warning templates and he has either ignored or removed the templates and replaced them with more personal attacks.

  • My removal - Here I am removing a post where he is demonstrating a personal grudge he has against me because I didn't take his side on his ArbCom.
  • Here he makes more comments, some of which are fine, but most of which are personal attacks on me. I removed the personal attacks here and here.
  • Fyslee restored the comments here and then I re-removed them [245]
  • Please note that all along, I have been placing warning templates on Fyslee's take page - [246], [247], and [248].
  • Fyslee ignored these templates by continuing to post and restore personal attacks on me. He also removed these warning templates and replaced them with more personal attacks.
  • As I am typing this, Fyslee placed another attack on my talk page. Well, this one seems a little more congenial - as if he is offering me advice - but I think it is clear that his intention here is to enflame. Please review the result of Fyslee's RfA and note that he has a history of personal attacks.

I am not going to presume to suggest a remedy, but please note that Fyslee has been warned many times about this kind of behavior both prior to and after his RfA. I would like to see this behavior end as I feel he adds a level of combativeness to already tense talk pages which makes it impossible to resolve any content disputes. Thank you. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Levine. After reviewing your diffs and the RfA, I believe that this situation is probably being inflamed from both sides. I haven't done an in-depth review of the article in question, so I can't make any judgements or comments on whose edits are POV or what not. But to my eye (and without knowing a large amount of the history here), I'd say that you both have some valid points and are both kind of at each other's throats in this matter. So I have a little advice for you, and I will attempt to give some advice to him as well:
    • First, regardless of WP:NPA, it is generally not a good idea to remove or edit other users' comments on Talk pages when a dispute arises. This only tends to aggravate the situation, and from Fyslee's point of view, you are likely partially invalidating his points. I'm not endorsing his statements directed at you, but I believe a more appropriate way to respond to them is to address the content only, and to politely ask the other editor to remove the personal statements from his comments and leave them out of the discussion in the future.
    • Second, remember that when editors address one another directly on each other's talk pages, some are much more direct and blunt than others. I personally feel that Fyslee's recent comment to you on your Talk page is borderline on WP:CIVIL - he has some decent points in his message, but he also appears to be rejecting your attempts to notify him of his behavior. I don't think there's much more you can do in that particular situation other than to respond politely to him.
    • Third, if a content dispute continues over whether his or your version of the Stephen Barrett article should stay (and which one violates WP:NPOV), I would refer to the results of any previous arbitration (and request enforcement if applicable and appropriate), or go through the Article RfC process, formal mediation, or arbitration as a last resort.
It is all too easy for editors to confuse criticism of one another's content with personal attacks on the editor's character or the validity of his comments. I'd advise both of you to remember that you each have different points of view on this matter, and while you may not agree with each other, both of your POVs are valid. That does not mean that they are both necessarily correct or in compliance with policies and guidelines, but they are worth considering and discussing, and it is up to the broader community to come to consensus as to what should be in the article, as well as to ensure that policies are being obeyed. I will advise Fyslee that his statements toward you have been, in my opinion, unnecessarily harsh and personal, and that your point of view is no less valid than his. I hope that will help to settle things. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) It should go without saying (to those who are familiar with Levine2112's tactics) that he is having these same problems with other editors as well (they react to his provocations and baiting) and his feigned innocense and feigned civility is an old pattern which those who edit alongside him see through. His contentiousness and continual revert warring and (unpunished) 4rr violations are tiring and we aren't superhuman. His tactics have obviously irritated some of us and instead of accepting our advice and the opportunity to "see himself as others see him," he starts bombing us with warning templates, which is itself an attack which only inflames the situation. I too am tired of the situation.
As a strong supporter of a banned user, he was earlier exposed during an RfArb as a poor researcher who tried to mislead the ArbComs with false and carelessly researched linkspamming charges against me. His charges were totally picked apart (but he didn't get punished for it), yet he still tries to attack me and bait me. Now, instead of trying to defuse the situation by talking calmly to us, he misuses our talk pages and this board. If he considers himself man enough to dish it out, then he should be able to take care of things himself. I only discovered his provocative warnings on my user page at a late date, so to speak, and found them quite disrespectful, yet I didn't bomb his talk page with disrespectful attacks in the form of warning templates, which should be reserved for newbies and not used on other experienced editors. Such actions are his way of baiting and inflaming others and he's done it before. I prefer to tell him to his face and I have left a message explaining how I feel about his actions. It is an explanation, but of course he will interpret it as an attack. Adults should be able to talk together honestly.
He apparently has no idea how strongly his treatment of others affects them. Because we know him after a couple years, we can see straight through his seemingly civil way of twisting and wording things, but we aren't fooled. Others may be, but we know him too well.
I have not restored his last deletions. If he will be more careful and respectful in how he treats me and refers to me I will certainly be more careful in how I respond to him. I didn't start this and have no intention of finishing it either. I only responded after repeated provocations and this is not my best hour. I shouldn't have taken the bait and will be more careful in the future. After a couple years of this, it's hard to really know what he means sometimes, since the pattern og baiting and false politeness has been established for so long. If he is changing tactics and would like to start assuming good faith for once, I'd like to do the same.
I have just read KieferSkunk comments above and find them very useful and wise. I will try to do my best to improve my interactions with Levine2112. Thanks. -- Fyslee/talk 19:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate your words and wisdom here. KieferSkunk. Thanks. I sincerely this helps improve all of our experiences here a Wikipedia. (I regret however that Fyslee's comments above are patently untrue and continue to enflame the situation.) -- Levine2112 discuss 19:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
At this point, accusations and defenses are probably not going to help the matter any more. I'm not going to be able to review each of your histories to validate each other's claims, but I'd advise you both to step back and take some time off from the articles in which you both are participating. Go back in with a cool head after a couple of days or so, discuss the issues neutrally, and see what comes of the discussions then. Again, also consider using Article RFC if you're still unable to work it out or if you have trouble getting other editors involved to discuss the matter. Thanks, and good luck. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I regret that Levine2112 fails to assume good faith and accept that I have expressed things as I see them and that's my POV. I am not attempting to mislead anyone. That's just the way I see things and he needs to accept that his actions and long-standing pattern of editing and way of referring to myself and other users with opposing POV has caused feelings in other persons that he may not have intended, and apparently does not understand. That indicates he needs to be more sensitive, and..... so do I! I am not perfect nor any saint.
I accept the advice above and will try to defuse the situation as best I can. -- Fyslee/talk 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It does need to be noted that Levine is a bit tag happy and, seemingly, rather than resolving any issues, would rather take offense at almost any comment. But rather than actually being offended, he seems more interested in generating enough warnings to then come here as a victim. It should be noted that he has (on his talk page) expressed a liking to this sort of behaviour, of which I find very disappointing as it only suggests that he is editing to be disruptive (trolling), which leads to other editors (myself included) being frustrated, commenting, and having Levine slap a NPA tag on our talk pages. This is happening with a group of editors, and it does need to be asked, why does a group of editors have problems with a single editor that he feels he needs to continually ask "NPA". I would suggest that his behaviour needs to be examined. Shot info 22:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Has a Checkuser request User RFC (use this before going to Checkuser) been filed for this situation? If not, you may want to consider doing so. That would be a good way to deal with the situation if the consensus among the article editors is that Levine's behavior is out of line. Flame-baiting is definitely not acceptable behavior, but WQA is not really the place to assess if this is what he or anyone else is doing. All we can do here is to help resolve disputes, but it seems that this situation may be beyond the scope of WQA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No worries, there has been some discussion about the formal process, but I (for one) do not prefer this path after being dragged into the ArbCom described by Fyslee above (and I wasn't even involved). So I am cautious about the formal processes. Nevertheless, a RfC has been discussed and I think you might be correct in recommended this. Thanks for your time. Shot info 23:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note that Shot info has also been personally attacking in conjunction with Fyslee. In fact I was almost going to report him here with Fyslee, but I thought Shot info had ceased this behavior. Apparently I was wrong. Please see here for the warning templates I have placed on Shot info's talk page and fromt here you can see what remarks of his I was responding too. Again, I am not presuming to propose a remedy here. I just wish this kind of incivility would stop. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Even just before Shot info posted here, you can see how he even uses edit summaries in an attempt to enflame me. [249] This needs to stop. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Sighhh, it just never stops... Shot info 00:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Levine, it doesn't look to me like Shot's comment (which you posted a diff for) or the edit summary was a personal attack against you at all. This is starting to look like a many-to-one situation here, in which other editors believe you are flame-baiting and trolling, getting them to respond in an uncivil manner, and then reporting them for policy violations. I'm seeing more evidence of that now that I look back in the histories. Nobody here is blameless, but I think you should step back (as I mentioned earlier) and consider a change in your tactics.

NPA templates in user talk pages should be used with care. Please do not overuse them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary of recent actions: I followed up on Shot Info's Talk page and provided some guidance on the apparently overused NPA templates there. Brief argument ensued there in which both Shot Info and I asked Levine2112 to disengage. No further discussion occurred there. I also have not seen any new arguments between Levine and Fyslee. I have not been following the original article(s) where the arguments started, but last I saw, it appeared that all parties had disengaged from arguing with one another. Perhaps we're back to where we should be now. I'll give this a couple more days before marking as Resolved. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Stale: There have been no additional comments on this WQA in close to two weeks now. I have not been monitoring the individual users, so I don't know if there are any additional issues that pertain to this alert. I'm marking as Stale, but if anyone involved in the case has any additional information, you are more than welcome to add it here. I'll change the status as appropriate, if necessary. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Incivility on Talk: Radio North Sea International

Resolved.

Some seemingly umprompted personal attacks on editors in the last three sections of this talk page [[250]]. At least one editor -RICHARD GEOFFREY ASHTON - seems to have no Wikipedia history other than these attacks, hence - as far as I can see - some concern about sock puppets. Advice? I am not sure how to go about talking to this editor, or Konalgia911. Thanks. KD Tries Again 15:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)KD

There is no question that both of the above-named users are violating WP:CIVIL. From what I can see, you have managed to continue adhering to it in the face of their violations, for which you should be commended - it's not always an easy task.
If you suspect that either editor is a sockpuppet, you should file a report at WP:SSP if you have not already. That could solve part of your problem. For any non-sockpuppet violators of civility, I will try, as a hitherto uninvolved third party, to impress on them that their behaviour is not acceptable in the Wikipedia community. Hopefully that will help. If not, we'll have to take it from there.
I hope this was helpful. Please don't hesitate to respond here to what I have said. Sarcasticidealist 02:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. One of the other editors, who appears to have worked on the article in good faith, made an accusation of sock puppetry. I'll keep an eye on that.KD Tries Again 14:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)KD
They seem to be confirmed socks. I'll mark this as resolved. Sarcasticidealist 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute regarding James Solomon AfD

I've recently become more active on wikipedia, commenting on various AfDs, engaging in discussion and trolling Random Article to find articles for improvement. Results have been pretty good so far, but after finding the article James Solomon, and nominating it for deletion, I apparently offended User:Mikkalai. As is seen on the AfD page, I am apparently guilty of 'militant ignorance'. The user in question then removed two Copy to Wiktionary tags I had placed on the articles Vervelles and Guige. While it seems minimal as to vandalism, I would like to stop this problem short before it explodes.

Thank you, Ravenmasterq 02:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

While I'd say User:Mikkalai's comments on the AfD crossed a little over the WP:CIVIL line, I'd be tempted to suggest that you just ignore the incivility unless it persists - the user in question seems to have a long history of constructive edits, and if such a user slips up and crosses the line in rare instances I think it's best for the project to just let it slide (it would be nice if he'd acknowledge the slip up and apologize, though). If the behaviour persists or causes you to feel unwelcome in the community, then action is certainly called for, but it doesn't seem like too big a deal at this point. If it is a big deal to you, I'd be quite prepared to give the user a mild rebuke on his talk page, but I'd rather just ignore it unless it becomes a real problem.
As for the removal of the transwiki tags, I don't think it qualifies as vandalism. He apparently disagreed that the articles should have been transwiki'd, and behaved accordingly (although he should have left an edit summary explaining his disagreement). If you still want to transwiki them, I'd suggest that you say as much in the articles' talk pages and leave a note on Mikkilai's talk page inviting him to discuss the issue there. If he declines to discuss the issue with you after a few days, re-add the tags; if he removes them while refusing to discuss the issue in the talk page, that's a much clearer breach of Wikiquette.
Please let me know if you have found this helpful and whether there is anything else I can do. Sarcasticidealist 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The only problem I have with the removal of the tags is that they seemed to be targeted towards me personally; those pages grab little traffic and it seemed to be an edit out of spite.Ravenmasterq 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, if that is the case, Mikkalai would be in violation of WP:HARRASS, although I'm sure you'll agree that two transwiki tags are pretty flimsy evidence of such a violation. The only advice I can give you on that front is to keep monitoring the situation and, if you feel that he is "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor", then bring that up here. Sarcasticidealist 03:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
but this sort of thing can escalate very fast, and I'd really suggest you try to see if it dies down first. it's much less pleasant to deal with once a fight breaks out. DGG (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons article needs unbiased helper

Work in Progress Work in Progress - comments welcomeongoing edit war; POV-pushing; stalled consensual process; good faith efforts by some of the editors -- situation is complicated, more editors welcome. Eventually there should be an RFC for the article.

The Morgellons article is unbearable and abusive to any editors who don't believe that Morgellons is DOP. Herd of Swine keep deleting cited material from the country's leading authority to further his own agenda. He abuses everyone who disagrees with him. It's a nightmare to try to make the Morgellons article have a neutral point of view. The editors gang up on anyone who does not assume that it is delusional -- despite the fact that the CDC has called it an debilitating, emerging public health concern which warrants a multi million dollar investigation. People are dying of this disease and efforts via wikipedia to trivialize the disease HURT SICK CHILDREN AND ADULTS. It is morally reprehensible, and incredibly distructive. Anyone who tries to make the article balance is abused -- there entries destroyed without discussion -- weasel words added. Herd and his cohorts are wiki-bullies. Someone needs to monitor that site or eliminate the whole article. Please intervene and have an unbiased arbitrator help!! People have begged for this over and over, and nothing has been done to correct the situation. Pez1103 19:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the page where the problem is happening, and point out specific examples so we can find what you are asking us to look at. Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 19:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pez1103. I've had a look at the page, and it strikes me that all parties are pretty frustrated with the way things are going. I do find it positive that both sides are making extensive use of the talk page; it makes it much easier to assume good faith than if edits were unilateral and unexplained.
I must say that I find that User:Herd of Swine is making numerous attempts to try new leads, justify them, and invite debate over them. Your rejections of his proposals are, unfortunately, sometimes a little perfunctory (I speak especially of your response to his proposal here, where you say of his proposal only that "it's terrible" and that it "ignores the most significant facts in the article").
If you want to resolve the content dispute, I would advise any and all of the following courses of action:
  • clearly articulate your objections to User:Herd of Swine's proposed leads
  • start proposing alternative leads of your own. It seems pretty obvious that the lead you currently favour isn't going to achieve consensus, so start modifying it and proposing alternatives.
  • make use of WP:RFC
It goes without saying that all parties should be extremely careful to adhere to WP:CIVIL, even if it means being unnaturally and obsequiously polite to one another.
I hope this has been helpful, and please let me know if you have any other questions or you wish to take exception to something I have said. Sarcasticidealist 07:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Male pregnancy

User keeps inserting large amounts of original research and musing at length about "possible methods" of male humans becoming pregnant. 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not OR.This is speculation from experts.Everything is sourced.--88.82.46.208 21:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I confess that I'm having trouble following this, in no small part because none of the involved parties seem to have registered usernames. More over, from what I can tell User:88.82.46.208 seems to currently be engaged in removing large sections of material from the article (rightly or wrongly; I make no judgment), but the same IP seems to be defending the inclusion of the contentious material above.
From what I can tell, your bigger problem is a content dispute; what Wikiquette breaches there have been - some violation of WP:CIVIL, and behaviour coming dangerously close to revert-warring - have been secondary to the real problem, which is that there seems to be a fundamental different as to what content is worthy of inclusion in the article. I see that you made use of the WP:THIRD tool, which is good, but there didn't seem to be much attempt to build on what came from there. You might also try posting a WP:RFC, as was suggested on the talk page.
Basically - and this isn't going to come as news to you - you need to resolve your content dispute. From what I can tell, all concerned editors are (mostly) aiming for civility and discussing changes, so your problem doesn't strike me as being fundamentally one of Wikiquette (even the initial posting here complained of violations of WP:OR, which are content violations). If involved parties would consider it helpful, I'm prepared to do a deeper read of the content issues in the article and comment on the article's talk page as a third party.
Besides that, I'd strongly encourage all of you to register user names; it makes following these discussions so much easier. Sarcasticidealist 07:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fansite Feud

Resolved.

I watch the page Charlie Hunnam - i wrote the majority of the article. Every other day someone edits the external links they either delete one fansite and keep the other, add both or delete the one thats kept and put in the other. Its getting very annoying and i have no idea what to do about it. Sometimes its an IP address which changes, sometimes its an IP that i recognise and more recently its a username. Having the edits showing up on my watchlist every day or so is a pain and i actually had issues with both the webmasters in the past (not wiki related) and i know that its them doing the editing after i traced IPs and recognised usernames and because i've had issues with them in the past i don't want to personally get involved again but the continual editing of this page is so very annoying and i was kind of hoping someone could come in and help. I tried to do something about it but neither of them seem aware of the talk page etc. Just hoping this is the right place to ask for a little help. Princesskirsty 20:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like this might constitute a violation on the part of User:Charliefanuk of WP:EL ("Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any."). If he is the site's webmaster, that's likely also a WP:SPAM violation. I'll post a note on his talk page briefly explaining these policies and asking him to adhere to them. If the problems persist, we can look at other measures (possibly including page protection or partial protection?); in the meantime, though, I don't think it's reached the point that the amount of reversion required is totally unreasonable.
Let me say as well that I think you've handled this very well. Your edit summaries in the article are especially detailed, which I certainly appreciated as somebody who was visiting the article's history page for the first time. Sarcasticidealist 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem does seem to be continuing, but from anonymous users. I've deleted the fansite links and left a note on the talk page explaining this decision. I'm also now monitoring the page, so I'm happy to do necessary reversions quickly, and if any single user or IP is continually problematic, we can initiate action to rectify the problem. Sarcasticidealist 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Well i traced one IP address and i KNOW that its the webmaster of the site that ends .com.ar and the webmaster of the .org is the charliefanuk person. i know that they're friends and their edits are making absolutely no sense to me at all. But i am very greatful for your intervention because i know that if i would make too much of an impact they would go after me via their websites and emails like they've done in the past (and continue to do if they're in the mood). So thank you so much for watching the page, i really appreciate it. If you look at their contributions you'll see that they do similar edits to the pages that are related to Hunnam - his films and tv shows, its really getting out of hand. Thanks again!! Princesskirsty 17:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I don't think the level of edits that these people are making has gotten totally out of hand yet, so I think that, sadly, we have to accept the kind of reverts that currently need to be done as the kind of regular maintenance that high-profile articles need. Hopefully, when they see that their edits are quickly reverted and that they're not getting a rise out of people, they'll get bored and go away. If they instead decide to ramp up their efforts, we'll have to look at either blocking their IPs or semi-protecting the page. As for the associated articles, if you want to provide me with a list of them I'd be happy to start watching them too. Sarcasticidealist 23:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing, there is Beast of Bataan, Green Street, Cold Mountain, Abandon, Undeclared, Young Americans, Queer as Folk, Whatever Happened to Harold Smith? and Byker Grove. They even did it on his ex-wife's page Katharine Towne but i think someone watches it because it wasn't there for long and it was a while ago. I lost track and got really confused. Thanks again for helping out, this has been driving me up the wall. Princesskirsty 12:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism has increased in frequency enough that I can't revert it all and stay within WP:3RR, so I've requested partial protection. Hopefully it will be granted. Sarcasticidealist 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I see that it got protection, i hope this helps the issue. Maybe they'll get the point because i don't think they see it at all Princesskirsty 14:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Incivility on Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega

Resolved. The article has been deleted. --Darkwind (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Despite being asked to assume good faith, Kephera975 persists in making insinuations that I have a conflict of interest, when I have already disclosed that I do not. This is interfering with actually discussing the issues involved, as this user is using this rhetoric without actually discussing the current issues which I've brought up. IPSOS (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the editor in question to refrain from unsubstantiated COI accusations. I will continue to monitor the situation. Sarcasticidealist 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Resolved.

This admin semi-protected the article Bat, after it was vandalised twice. I felt that this was perhaps a little inappropriate, so I left a comment on his talk page.[251] At first, he replies rationally, with the comment "There looked to be a possibly coordinated vandalism attack from two IP ranges, sorry." Then I pointed out that there were only two vandalism edits, and suddenly, instead of replying to my comment, he removed it as "trolling".[252] I was shocked by this, and reinstated the comment with a question on why he thought that I was a troll.[253] He reverted it without an explanation[254] (inappropriate use of admin rollback), and again when I asked him not to do so.[255] The next thing he did was leave a comment on my talk page, that I should have been "civil" in my message. Not knowing what I did wrong, I replied asking what part of my comment he deemed to be "uncivil", and he hasn't replied since.[256] Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 21:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This appeared to be a coordinated IP attack at the time when it was protected, and has since been unprotected. Much ado about nothing, but I appreciate the concern. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
If so, thank you, then it was a lot of a fuss about nothing. But if you appreciate the concern, why didn't you just reply to my comment instead of removing it as trolling? That would have solved the entire thing :-). Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
To the initiating user - perhaps this report would be taken more seriously if you hadn't reported the Administrator in question at as many noticeboards as you could? It really doesn't allow much hope for WP:AGF to be applied ~ Anthøny 22:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict), well I didn't really report him to "as many noticeboards as I could". I merely asked for the page to be unprotected, which isn't really reporting someone, and I didn't mean to file the 3RR report, as I thought that he would not rollback the comment about this WQA (it is required that you inform the editor whom the WQA concerns). Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Melsaran also nominated Wikimedia Commons for deletion today. I too am having difficulty lending good faith after considering his previous block log [257] and that he created a page just hours prior to this incident at User:Melsaran/My comments which explicitly states: "When I edit your talk page, you are free to delete my comments". If he genuinely has a problem with people deleting comments they don't like, he might want to retract that statement. RFerreira 02:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) I concur with Can't sleep, clown will eat me: Much ado about nothing. Unless someone would like to post a serious description of a problem that is currently occuring, I would like to close this report and move on. If anyone does not agree, then please remove the resolved tag and list some diffs with focused complaints and a suggestion for how the situation could be improved.

Also, it would be important to avoid using the user name of Can't sleep, clown will eat me, because every time I see that name I can't stop laughing, and that makes it hard for me to do my work. --Parsifal Hello 02:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD noms by User:Southern Texas

Resolved.

Possible bad faith AfD noms[258][259] of articles recently/regularly edited by Balloonman (talk · contribs) immediately after Balloonman nominated an article created by Southern Texas (talk · contribs) for deletion. Dbromage 04:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: This user has "retired" from wikipedia... thus, further action is probably not necessary at this point.Balloonman 05:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. If issues continue to arise, please let us know. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I spoke too soon. He claims to have retired, but just recently made the following attack post on my talk page, "I don't care what you think you anti-semitic troll. Pro-Iran and Anti-Bloomberg, I think I make my point." All because I nominated an article for deletion and believe that another article of his has an extremely POV title, State terrorism by Iran. A quick review of his edits or glance at my talk page will show somebody who lacks civility. Balloonman 14:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Southern Texas (talk · contribs) has also made a personal attack in the AfD discussion.[260] Dbromage [Talk]Flag of Australia 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I left a user warning (level 2 of 5) on Southern Texas's Talk page and also informed him of this WQA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Dromage had already told him of the WQA, but he deletes things on his page when he doesn't like what it says. He had a 3rr issue last week.Balloonman 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I reposted the content of my exchange with SouthernTexas on my talk page regarding the 3RR note I put on his board (which he then removed.) I would refer to the "First Dispute" too but he backed down after I pointed out WP:Civil and he realized that I only made three edits, not four. JasonCNJ 02:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to everyone involved in my incivilty on August 7, 2007. I am especially sorry to JasonCNJ for edit warring and not assuming good faith and to Balloonman for not assuming good faith and making personal attacks. I hope we can put this all behind us. I promise that I will remain calm and civil from now on.--Southern Texas 19:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate seeing that, Texas. Thank you. Balloonman, Dbromage and JasonCNJ, are you satisfied with this? If so, I'll be happy to mark this as resolved. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I am more than fine with that, and appreciated Southern's coming to my talk page to work this out as well.Balloonman 21:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
This is resolved as far as I can tell. I also appreciate SouthernTexas' efforts at resolution, too. JasonCNJ 21:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. I've gone ahead and closed this alert. :) Great job, guys. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Mildly inappropriate behavior by User:Jeroje

Resolved.

The dispute stems around the use of the phrase "so called Bengali renaissance" in Oriya cuisine (which I just replaced to avoid conflict). He objected to the use of "so-called". As far as I know the only "renaissance" was an Italian one and in a totally unrelated article, being non-committal to the notioj of a Bengali renaissance is better.

Jeroje initiated a discussion in the | Oriya cuisine talk pages.

Twice he reverted edits by two other people (who share my opinion?). Here and Here.

What is the purpose of initiating a discussion when one is bent of having his way without supplying any argument?

Furthermore, I am the one supplying facts, only to invite comments such as (in italics):

Later part of the post I found really mis-directed.

(no justification supplied, except a blanket statement)

so you wanted to see actual "theater" in 17th century Bengal ?

(I fail to understand this)

so the article says that the recent political issues are because there were no renaissance ? I want to meet this person.

(his response to me citing a academician)

wow! "truely speaking ?" The only real renaissance happened in Europe. why do you think so because I have reference who doubts that? you seem to have read all the indian history textbooks .

(sarcasm, rudeness)

there is no counter argument to no argument

(what is the purpose of discussing, if one only provides blanket statements?)

it seems there is something disturbing you about bengal renaissance, I will suggest you make a new page which describes these counter arguments. It will be very valuable to wiki and to me in particular.

(again, contextless statement).

Now, this is only a minor issue. However, I am raising this issue here (i) to prevent further conflicts as it appears that he and I are going to contribute to similar topics, and (ii) since I made painstaking efforts to apply my reasoning behind my choice of words, supplying links, references etc., which I could have spent elsewhere if he insists on having his way from the beginning.

As a compromise, I have reworded that sentence.

Thanks.

SDas 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have an article Bengal Renaissance that appears well-sourced and authoritative. I don't see why there is any need to use the phrase 'so-called' with the Bengali Renaissance. If you are questioning whether a Bengal Renaissance really occurred, perhaps you should be making that argument on a different Talk page that the one where this dispute is happening. EdJohnston 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree... I would be put off by somebody adding words such as "so called" to a historical fact that occured in an article I wrote. I wasn't sure from the above what the problem was.Balloonman 04:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
There are quite some peer-reviewed papers that use "so-called" for Bengali renaissance, which happens to be more of a Bengali claim (all the references in the article Bengali Renaissance are Bengali ones too). Nevertheless, I think I have a better understanding of the source of his anger now. The current wording avoids the use of the phrase "Bengali Renaissance" altogether, which should be kept as it is. I'll try to patch things up with him.
Thanks to both of you for this valuable feedback.
SDas 15:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Marking as resolved... unless we hear otherwise.Balloonman 04:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wetman

Resolved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

An unpleasant altercation for both parties: Wetman incorrectly warned me not to make wholesale BCE>BC changes to an article, not realising that the article in question was using a mixture of dates and not a single convention and had merely been normalised by me. I told this editor that he had made a mistake but should use whichever convention he wished if he disliked my choice. He has called my edit "intrusion" and "interference". When he began selectively deleting my posts, I objected to the unfair impression given of my actions and responded by deleting my remaining comments from his user page in order to dissociate myself. Wetman has replaced this with a summary naming me as a "problem user"[261] and when I attempt to remove the personal attack it is reinstated and I am accused of harrassment. I know I'm not blameless in this, and I would like to see an end that is acceptable to both parties but Wetman refuses to discuss the matter. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The talk page in question has now been archived. I left a brief comment on Wetmans talk page, which is now also archived. Before archiving, the word "problem" was removed, sort of. (I say "sort of", because it was then reused so that the original form remains plainly obvious. Since you were being a problem, Lu2o, you'd better live with it. At least it is archived. Clarification inserted, DQ, 05:59) In my view, you actually were being rather a problem there; and it was good of you to note that you are not blameless in the matter. Now that Wetman has archived the talk page and started the whole page afresh, I strongly recommend you consider the matter closed. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
"Problem" has indeed been deleted as requested by User:Duae Quartunciae. Not "sort of". Deleted. All the User's offensive posts at my userpage have been wisely withdrawn. My orginal post about not "correcting" BCE to BC that was quickly deleted by Lo2u read as follows: BC/AD is a convention always used in Wikipedia articles on specifically Christian subjects. In non-Christian subjects, changing BCE/CE to BC/AD is a discourtesy, rather like "correcting" spelling to American practice. I'm sure you understand that whatever convention is established in an article, we simply go with it. You'll notice that no one ever "corrects" BCE to BC: why do you suppose that is? My talkpage has been archived: readers may wish to consult it. --Wetman 05:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Duae. And Wetman I'm grateful to you for dropping the matter. For my part I will of course follow your wise lead and remove the post from my page. Although I didn't believe that any of my posts were overly hostile in content I accept that trying to remove them after they were put back was a very bad way of handling things. At least one third party user believes I was being a problem so I apologise for that unreservedly. I hope any future encounters can be more pleasant. --Lo2u (T • C) 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC) BTW Wetman, I thought your advice about getting rid of fan cruft was truly brilliant.

Is Digital Command Control in breach of Wikipedia principles?

Resolved.

Many of the links in the Digital Command Control page look on the face of it to be standard Wikipedia links but actually point to an external Wiki site www.dccwiki.com. Examples are the word Track in the intro and DCC decoder in the first section. This external site itself seems to be some unknown persons attempt to create there own DCC wiki. I'm not experienced enough with Wikipedia to quite know how it has been done, but it seems wrong to me and much of the material on this external site should be in Wikipedia itself. I would welcome opinions on whether this is a breach of Wikipedia principles and what should be done about it. --St1got 08:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting question but I don't have the answer. Those are inter-wiki links, similar to the ones we use to link to images on Commons and pages on Meta.
I suggest you post your question here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Someone there will either have the answer or be able to tell you the right place to find out. If you do find out about it, you might leave a note here to let us know what you learned, or post the link to your discussion at the Village Pump so we can follow-up. Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 08:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've done that and will let you know --St1got 09:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to thank Geni for cleaning up the page and removing the external prefix links. St1got 08:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Malicious irony by BillCJ

Resolved.

BillCJ is responding to serious and honest discussions by me, on the matter of naming military aircraft articles consistently, with malicious irony. See Talk:JAS 39 Gripen. I don't believe that his comments promotes good faith, and he might need a reminder on how to be civil, even though he's been on wikipedia for a long time. I'm not a native English-speaker, so I may be oversensitive, or I may have misunderstood something. Is this kind of comments typical here? LarRan 09:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

After reading up on the discussion you linked to, I don't believe BillCJ broke any policies in his responses to you. He appeared to be trying to respond in a serious and civil manner to the conversation, though evidently his style of writing is significantly different from yours, and it appears you two have misunderstood each other. But BillCJ does appear to be focusing mostly on the content, as are you, and he pointed out that he doesn't understand why you took his comments personally. It certainly is easy to believe that one user's comments could be directed at you personally, and there are many cases where they are. But in this case, I don't see evidence of anything other than a simple misunderstanding here.
Here are some tips for you, LarRan:
  • In addition to WP:AGF, I would recommend that you read "WP: Assume the assumption of good faith", a short essay that talks about how easy it is to fall into citing WP:AGF while at the same time assuming bad faith yourself. Also check out WP:POT - it touches on this issue as well.
  • Also be sure you are familiar with Wikipedia's Consensus policies, which describe both what consensus is and how to go about reaching it. In this case, since you and BillCJ appear to be at opposite sides of the debate and there aren't very many other editors participating in the discussion, you are welcome to propose your move or merge and to continue discussion that way. You can also file a Request For Comment, which can attract more editors to discuss the situation. Getting an outside view is often very important in ensuring that everyone arrives at a conclusion they can live with. :)
I hope this helps. :) Please let me know if you have any questions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanx KieferSkunk, it helped - eventually. I followed your links, and read some of the tips, and I realized that it's easy fall into that trap - not assuming AGF - however I wouldn't say (at least not with certainty) that this was the case here. There were some pages that are absolutely priceless, for example Wiki's 'Lamest Edit Wars'. I almost laughed my head off. Thanks again for taking your time and trouble. Consider the case closed. LarRan 19:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. Just remember, keep your cool, and usually everything will work out on its own. :) Marking as resolved. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Melsaran

Resolved.

I made a comment here, which was reverted by the editor being reviewed [262], and then I added it back, because I felt my comments were appropriate. Then [263] it was removed again, perhaps by mistake, perhaps by intent, but I wonder if anything I said there was inappropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 02:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Since your comments have all been restored, it looks like any actual wikiquette issue is already resolved between you both. There may be residual negative feelings; but hey. Can't be helped. What we don't want is for it to spill over into other pages. Since you ask: I think your comments were legitimate. The removals were rather surreal, in this context. But I'm going to be presumptuous, and take the liberty of marking this as resolved already. If you think there is anything actually needing involvement of more editors, feel free to remove the "resolved" tag. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to mark it unresolved, since it seems there's something the editor wants done, but I'm not sure. I'm willing to accept a little re-ordering if the tools and questions are moved up, but I feel the comments should be kept together. Is this unreasonable to ask on my part? FrozenPurpleCube 21:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What she wants is for you to let it go, and let her editor review go back to focussing upon her actual edits of pages. That is not unreasonable to ask on her part.
But Melsaran has not helped. She did not actually delete your comments; she placed them within a collapsible region. There is a small heading, and a button marked "show" or "hide". Here is an example:
Melsaran was being very opaque in her exchange with you, merely saying that your text was not deleted (which was true) while not explaining what she was doing and why. She considers all the long exchange about the AfD to be distracting from review of her conduct as an editor. She would would like feedback on her editing of pages. She has allowed that you've given feedback that relates to past AfDs, but she would would prefer it not dominate the page. A combination of your being unwilling to let it go, and her being unclear about what she was doing, has led to a large distracting exchange in the review. Very unfortunate. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for explaining that to me. I had no idea what was going on, or what she was trying to do till you explained it. I appreciate it. But I do wish I'd been asked, so I could have given my opinion, which would be a "no thank you, I don't like the idea of singling out comments for hiding" though I'm willing to move everything to the bottom, that's about it. The idea of hiding things bothers me though. And yes, it is unfortunate that such has occurred. FrozenPurpleCube 23:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Another perspective, from what I've seen she could have just as esily invoked a WQA against you. In some places, I found your responses to her to be questionable in regards to WP:CIVIL---you seemed to be egging her on. Which is disappointing because I generally have a very high regard for you. In our past dealings, I've been impressed by you and your contributions; but here, I found myself agreeing with Melsaran, "let it go." When I saw this, I thought for sure that I'd be on your side, but...Balloonman 21:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I hope you weren't thinking I was bringing up this against anybody, I was getting feedback on my conduct as such. Is there anything I could have done to address your concerns? Or could still do? I know I like to talk about things a lot. I'll happily discuss things for pages with no malice or incivility intended. Maybe I talk too much so it seems like badgering. FrozenPurpleCube 23:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I think this is resolved enough for now. Thanks for the input folks! FrozenPurpleCube 03:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:jebbrady (and puppet?) versus WP:SOCK, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, etc.

Stuck.

Even without a specific example for each charge, this list of particulars is unfortunately long. However, this is at least the third attempt an editor has made to get an effective intervention in this situation before getting tired and moving on. A comprehensive intervention seems to be the only way the Herbert W. Armstrong biography will ever be permitted to contain basic biographical data for more than fifteen minutes. These are the problems with Jebbrady at Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong and the article's history page:

  • He may be in violation of WP:SOCK, as apparently one individual uses two identities, user:jebbrady and an anonymous identity located at 69.115.162.235. (This is being reported to Wiki's sockpuppet investigators).
  • He has apparently been blocked for misbehavior regarding this article before, see User_talk:Jebbrady, but still has not conformed with Wikiquette in any of the discussions on the article's talk page. The Armstrong talk page also shows that someone sought the third-party opinion option, which has had no impact on him at all.
  • He has violated WP:OWN by demonstrating vigorous ownership of Herbert W. Armstrong and related articles on Armstrong's associates and splinter churches. See the article's history page and then see the edit/contrib histories for both identities in the links given in the sockpuppet bullet above. He also asserts the right to control what sources editors are permitted to use: "As a history grad, I know how citations can and are abused. I'm not accepting the use of web sources--I'm sorry".
  • He violates WP:NPOV when he repeatedly deletes even innocuous material (e.g., that HWA was married twice and had four children, cited to a mainstream source; that the divorce was a difficult one, cited to four sources, including TIME magazine). See the most recent example. He permits no material at all from sources of which he disapproves, ranging from mainstream news outlets to webpages or books critical of the subject of this biographical article. He refuses to allow even an internal wikilink to a fuller explanation of one of Armstrong's key beliefs, Anglo-Israelism, see diff. His determined censorship over a period of months deprives Wiki users of the most basic, routine family info about the biographical subject, much less the significant controversies and schisms in which Armstrong was involved.
  • He violates WP:VERIFY by deleting sourced material without explanation, while failing to replace, augment, or contrast it with sourced material to the contrary.
  • His violations of WP:NPA are too numerous to recite; please see anywhere on Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong. Aside from imputing dire motives to everyone he's interacted with on the talk page, there's another problem. According to the NPA policy, "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored." His statement "If any Wikipedia editor cares to debate here the appropriatenes of relying on Time magazine when it comes to American religious groups (read "Christians"), the Bible, or social issues, they'll get their clock cleaned." in his response to Wiki admin Andre is almost certainly not meant as an actual physical threat. However, it demonstrates the level of perspective and maturity he brings to the discussion. The legal threats he makes re a church group suing for libel are apparently directed at Wikipedia itself rather than at individual editors, but are meant to silence and intimidate. See, e.g., here and here.
  • More than once, he has violated WP:SKILL by asserting that other editors are incompetent, unscholarly (search the talk page for "sholarly" and "sholarship"), and unprofessional (search the talk page for "unprofessinal"), etc., because he disagrees with their choice of sources or their attempt to include any POV from any source not entirely congruent with his own. He repeatedly cites his undergraduate degree in history as the reason he knows best, and as the reason he has the expertise to overrule all other contributors.
  • He routinely violates WP:EQ. He often fails to sign his Talk page comments, does not bother with the indentation protocols, and more than once, has put his entire lengthy comments in bold to dominate the discussion. He does not provide edit summaries on any of his edits.
  • His violations of WP:GF are demonstrated by his attacks on every person who has responded to anything he has said on the Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong page. Please note his declaration that courtesy is proof of bad faith. He made a similar accusation on that page in December of 2006 against User:RelHistBuff.
  • He violates WP:CIVIL by being sarcastic, denigrating, overwhelmingly prolix and tangential, and sometimes perverse, as in his accusations that courtesy is a sly ruse. He responded this week to an admin's one-sentence affirmation of TIME Magazine as a mainstream source with a with a nine-line diatribe concluding with a threat.

I don't know how to resolve conflicts with someone with a multiple-incident record of conflict resolution failures and an abiding belief that the use of courtesy is a nefarious bad-faith strategy. Help. Lisasmall 13:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for completeness, the previous block that you can see a discussion of on User_talk:Jebbrady can be seen in the block log of a different IP account, 67.80.157.45 (talk • contribs • logs). There are also some warnings still visible in the Talk page of that IP. This account is in addition to the IP mentioned above, 69.115.162.235 (talk • contribs • logs). EdJohnston 05:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Update ten days after filing this WP:WQA:

  • on the sockpuppet situation, see two admin interventions on User_talk:Jebbrady. The second intervention occurred after I told the admin handling the situation that Jebbrady had added yet another IP address, evading the block the admin put on one of the IP sockpuppets. Since I thought Jebbrady was making at least some effort towards identifying himself, I asked the admin if he could handle it informally instead of leveling additional formal charges, and the admin kindly did so.
  • However, even after two warnings from the admin handling the sockpuppet report, Jebbrady still will not cooperate with the tilde signature protocol, and is manually typing in a "sig." While this cures the identity problem, it continues to aggravate the user history problem for anyone working on this WP:WQA by spreading his activity over multiple IP's plus his regular account named Jebbrady. He will not log in consistently, which would provide a comprehensive, coherent record of his contribs and deletions no matter what IP he is using.
  • on the WP:EQ issue above, he's still having problems with signatures and still does not provide edit summaries (see Edit Summary Tool). However, he has agreed to use the colon-indentation protocol on talk pages, and to stop using bold for his entire posts. If he adheres to this agreement, it's improvement.
  • on the WP:CIVIL issues, they seem to be staying the same or getting worse, still repeatedly engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT after an admin has told him, twice, that TIME magazine is a reliable source, and lapsing into WIKI:LAWYER more frequently than before. He continues to assume bad faith, use provocative and insulting language, and issue what he calls "challenges." Also, despite correction from EdJohnston and a request from me, he continues to try to spread the conflict to individual user pages instead of keeping it on the article page.

This situation is not resolved yet, but EdJohnston has been working on it, and other Wikipedians have contributed too; thank you, please keep trying. This case is still active and should not be archived yet. -- Lisasmall 02:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to additional comments to this Wikiquette alert. I have had horrendous problems with this user. I originally had a fairly neutral version of this article which I was working on in October 2006. User jebbrady started editing it at the end of that month. I tried to reason with him but he could only bring in his POV, continuing to revert all my suggested changes. In December, as seen in the article's talk page, I asked for a third opinion to resolve the dispute amicably. Even with the support of the third opinion, User:Amatulic (see the diff here), jebbrady refused to cooperate. I decided to not take it up any further and let him keep the article in its current degenerate state. This is a terrible weakness in Wikipedia. A controversial article on a well known topic has the possibility of getting something resolved. Something less well known is left in a terrible state in the hands of a POV warrior who has a lot of free time on his hands. I would like to get this article out of the "ownership" of jebbrady and back under the control of Wikipedia editors in general. Some kind of intervention is requested. --RelHistBuff 08:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Update after 10 more days: WP:CIVIL is still a major issue. Editors who provided cited material were chided for not citing existing text (that he put in) instead. When an editor condensed his references to multiple points in the same chapter to a single <ref name> tag followed by other references to the same, he accused him of deleting his cited material. He repeatedly puts down a user who has chosen not to sign up for an account, calling him a "masked marauder" on one occasion. Also, I'm not "allowed" to summarize his multi-screen screeds into something that's actually readable: he reverted me twice, taking out parts of someone else's comment in the process, before he was told by EdJohnston that I could summarize if I wanted to.

As far as formatting issues go, he'll put in a pretty-much-random number of comments to indent his text, and he signs at the top and bottom. If he signs as an anon, he may come back days later and re-sign as Jebbrady, changing the timestamp radically. He recently moved a talk page section that he felt had gotten lost in the middle of the page, and changed the timestamps on it.

I have asked him to set the preference that reminds him about missing edit summaries: he apparently hasn't bothered, and he doesn't seem to be using the preview button, either, which leads to long chunks of Jebbrady (or one of his IPs) in the edit history.

This is starting to look like RFC territory to me.--SarekOfVulcan 13:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Add to that the fact that he's still using two different IP addresses, 69.115.162.235 (talk · contribs) and 208.253.158.36 (talk · contribs), in addition to his registered account. 24.6.65.83 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Update:

And another thing is his constant mentioning of Raising the Ruins, and his insinuations that there must be something wrong with us for not using it as a reference. For example,

(Concerning Raising the Ruins, there’s still no comments on this discussion page after six months about this treasure trove of fist rate source material). Kind of amazing. It definitely is a sad commentary on the level of professional sincerity among the editors of this article, and it will be brought to the attention of Wikipedia Staff if need be—all the way to the top if necessary)

That's a post from June in Worldwide Church of God -- today, he posted again to Talk:Worldwide Church of God, asking an anon if they were familiar with this book, a reference of his to which was copied to the same talk page on August 3. I asked him several days ago to please stop bringing it up at every turn, but to no avail, apparently.--SarekOfVulcan 19:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is very interesting to me...He likes brusqness, does he? I'd like to try and learn some more about him. Perhaps if I just ask him directly, in the fashion that he demands, I can hold a conversation with him. Even with the most unusual people, there is always a way to relate. Surrogate Spook 00:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, please do. He seems to demand a kind of interaction that I'm unwilling/unable to provide myself. If you can connect with him and get him to understand what we're about here, that would be incredibly useful. Thanks!--SarekOfVulcan 02:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Further update:
I have taken the above discussion as a mandate for restoring factual details to the Herbert W. Armstrong article that have disappeared from the article between 15 April and 12 August. If you have opinions on that point, feel free to comment at Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong.

There may still be a need to add a Criticism section, and I believe that someone could create a draft of such a section in their user space. It could be reviewed on the Talk page before adding it to the article. EdJohnston 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Update August 17, 2007 by original complainant Although I've taken a voluntary step-back from the article for over two weeks, problems continue:

  • WP:ICA (a new problem) In courtesy, when Jebbrady said he wanted a few weeks to do a rewrite on the article, I told him I would step aside so he could do so without me complicating the process. That was the last week of July. I have not read, edited, or done anything with the article since for two weeks, voluntarily stepping out of his way contributing to other articles not related to the contested article in any way. Today, I was made aware that despite my absence he recently accused me of creating a sockpuppet to WP:RFD the contested article, see here. Any comparison of the person who allegedly made the RFD and I makes it obvious we are two different people with vastly different approaches to spelling, syntax, and contributions. To make the unfounded accusation adds a WP:ICA violation to the ongoing WP:CIVIL problem he has. He was also uncivil to the admin who pointed out the WP:RFD source was not likely to be me, "yeah right."
  • WP:NPOV He asserts a personal animus and vendetta against himself or Herbert W. Armstrong that just isn't there, and inflicts that attitude not just on me, but on every editor who... well, on every editor. Here: "there is going to be a major debate, and those who take up that side [the non-Jebbrady side] in it are going to get creamed." He wants that article written with only his sources, only his words, and only his POV, and anyone who varies from that one iota is gets dumped on, something he threatens/promises to do quite openly. I glanced today at the contested article's talk page and found that in the two weeks+ that I've been away, Jebbrady has continued, almost without exception, to denigrate editors and admins who try to interact with him.
  • WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT The glance at the article talk page shows he's still denying the use of TIME magazine and other mainstream news sources, although administrators have told him more than once that they are acceptable.
  • WP:MEAT This is not an accusation; it's an invitation to draw your own conclusions. Checking Jebbrady's userpage today to see if there had been additional attempts to work with him there re the ICA or earlier SOCKS & CIVIL violations, I found a barnstar apparently related to this article dispute from an unusual new user. It might be a meatpuppet, it might be a sockpuppet, it might be entirely innocent. It might be one of those remarkable situations in which a brand-new account on Wikipedia has an editor who knows what a barnstar is, knows how to give them out, and goes immediately to grant one to some deserving individual -- and makes no other contribs at all.
He uses IP addresses and then merely types in "jebbrady" rather than using the tilde sig which would produce user:jebbrady. This superficially gets him past questions about his intent to deceive people who can observe the manually typed signature, but it does not resolve what is actually a very serious problem in conflict resolution, where it's important to use article history pages and user contribs pages to know who changed what when, and to see what a particular user has done.
Anyone trying to review this user's conduct has to check several "contribs" pages, and of course can't use the article history page at all, because his typed signature doesn't appear there -- only a series of different IP's which he's used. It gives the impression of, say, four editors making eight edits apiece, instead of one editor making 32 edits all alone. (That's a hypothetical illustration; I haven't gone back and counted.) Furthermore, he's been warned so many times by so many people in such detail that at this point, even the most generous reviewer allowing for the maximum of innocent ignorance has got to consider that he's doing it on purpose to dilute and disperse his record.
Since he's typing in his name manually, refusing to sign in and use the tildes, he is effectively (and possibly intentionally) concealing his own contributions on article history pages, article talk pages, and all the contribs pages for his multiple identities. Clearly the article is headed towards mediation or arbitration, and the user may be headed for WP:BAN. His continuing use of multiple IP's as well as the user:jebbrady account is going to make reviewing his behavior very hard on the admins who adjudicate the mediation/arbitration and/or ban.
In the heading above labeled update after 10 more days, 24.6.65.83 listed two of Jebbrady's IP aliases which he uses in addition to User:Jebbrady. This illustrates what I mean by Jebbrady's dispersal of his activity record. Not logging in is not itself a violation of WP as far as I know, but refusing to do so when repeatedly requested to do so to help keep the record clear for conflict resolution is a clear violation of WP:SOCK's "avoiding scrutiny" provision.
  • WP:RFC Updating the heading above labeled update after 10 more days by Sarek, the article's talk page now has a an RFC. This is not the first time that Jebbrady's behavior on this article has gone to RFC. It didn't work before and I don't expect it to work this time.

This situation is taking up hugely unreasonable amounts of time from numerous good editors and admins. A long-term solution needs to be found. Using article talk pages to indulge Jebbrady's desire for midnight-in-the-dorm-type discussions of the "thought-provoking questions" he wants us to discuss, or worse, "debate," isn't it. The article talk page isn't a chat room. Neither the talk page nor an article itself should be propaganda or proselytization. Wikipedia isn't Conservapedia or Jeb-apedia. Jebbrady's history at Wikipedia in the past ten months is limited to editing a narrow range of religious articles to launder or smear certain figures and sects, and bloviating at, and reverting, anyone who changes a word. Kind words and coaching haven't helped. Formal RFC's, THIRDs, WQA's, SOCK warnings, and even suspensions, haven't helped. Good editors have exhausted themselves and moved on, and the article remains a puff piece with a guardian zealot. Enough. I'm not an admin; will some admin please take the next step, or tell me what it is so that I can initiate it? -- Lisasmall 06:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He was also uncivil to the admin who pointed out the WP:RFD source was not likely to be me, "yeah right."
Two mistakes here: I'm not an admin, and the full quote was something to the effect of "Yes, I already knew that (yeah right)". Jeb misrepresents us often enough: let's not return the favor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 13:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Sarek, I'm sorry, I thought you were an admin because of how you became involved. I assumed or misremembered that everyone at Editor Assistance was/is an admin; my mistake. I'm new at conflict resolution. As to the incivility, I still think my interpretation is the correct one, but it's good you pointed out there is another way to look at it. Even if I am correct, it is the least of his incivilities, so I don't mind dropping it. Anyone who wants to see it themselves can find it here. -- Lisasmall 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I filed a request for arbitration.--SarekOfVulcan 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I filed a new sockpuppet/meatpuppet report yesterday to try to get compliance with the audit-trail creation referenced in 2.2 of WP:SOCK to help support the arbitration and clarify authorship of future edits by Jebbrady. -- Lisasmall | Talk 12:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As we seem to have exhausted the possibilities of this WP:WQA, and we are now moving to arbitration, unless anyone objects, I will close this WQA with a "stuck" notice in the next day or so. The record would not be complete without noting that Surrogate Spook did attempt to provide a newcomer's input as he said he would, and it had no effect on Jebbrady's conduct. -- Lisasmall | Talk 12:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've placed the "stuck" template. The request for arbitration is open for comments here. Thanks to all the editors who stepped in to ASSIST, THIRD, or RFC, or who joined in after working on the SOCKs. -- Lisasmall | Talk 13:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged article ownership and personal attacks by User:Chrisjnelson as posted by User:Jmfangio

Stuck. Recommend posting an WP:RFC (Request for Comments) - see notes below

User has failed to respect the desire to discuss. He has engaged in personal attacks here and on Template talk:Infobox NFLactive. He has also aserted WP:OWN on throughout the Infobox talk page. Repeated requests for polite discussion have been ignored even with fair warning that the behavior is doing nothing but aggrivating me. The majority of the content is at the infobox talk page. Most of it is in sequential order. Both user's talk pages (that is mine and his) show signs of this as well. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I probably did make some things that would be considered personal attacks a few days back (where the profanity is). I was pretty pissed. If I have to be reprimanded for that, I'll completely understand. As for this business about ownership, I've done nothing of the kind. Given those kind of unsubstantiated claims, as well as the fact that Jmfangio was told he violated WP:3RR by an admin and still claims he did not, I question his knowledge of Wikipedia policy. And when it comes to "refusal to discuss", that's simply not true. Without dragging you into the specifics, which you can see for yourself on the infobox's talk page if you're interested, I'll tell you that Jmfangio is simply mistaken on one subject. I have proven myself and my related edits to be factually correct, and have since said I will not discuss the issue further because of this. I have done all the discussing on the issue that is necessary, and it's not my fault if he has failed to grasp it.
Like I said earlier, I'll definitely understand if I'm reprimanded for any personal attacks a few days back. I shouldn't have said some of those things and let the emotions get the best of me. That stuff is pretty much over and won't happen again, but if you want me to take some time off I can do that.►Chris Nelson 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither editor has bathed himself in glory on this matter. I have tried to provide perspective as a WP:3O and have witnessed enough intransigence to suggest that at minimum both individuals need to take a break as they have dug in their respective heels and hardened their positions. In no particular order, there have been violations relating to incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, and article ownership. The editors have effectively trammeled over informal 3rd party efforts to assist and a recent RFM was not accepted by one of the parties. Jddphd 12:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE Would someone who is willing to take action please get involved. This is spiraling out of control. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

←Jmfangio, after reviewing the discussions, and considering that the efforts of Jddphd and WP:3O were not well received, it does not look like we can be of assistance here with any kind of direct intervention. It's up to you and the others to stop taking things personally and discuss the content, not the editors.If the editors continue to engage each other on personal issues, no progress can be made. Chris Nelson has already apologized and that's a good start, it would be good to see an apology from you as well. Try to be extra polite to each other - beyond the politeness you would normally need, so that way, it's really clear to everyone that the discussions are done with mutual respect.

Also, it seems like there might not be enough editors working on this to form a consensus that can get past the edit warring. When there are more editors, it's easier to make a consensus because you don't have to convince any one person to change their minds, all you need is to read and follow WP:CONSENSUS.

My suggestion is to file an WP:RFC to attract more editors and seek consensus. Carefully format a description of what the dispute is about, on the template talk page, then post the link at WP:RFC (more on that follows). You could also invite editors on the talk pages of related Wikiprojects. What you need is enough editors discussing the particular question, in an organized fashion, so you can develop a clear consensus. Then ask the administrator that protected the page to review the RFC consensus and unprotect the page so the edits can be made in accordance with that consensus.

Go to WP:RFC and look at how other requests are formatted. Some are messy and some are well-done. Look for good examples and copy the way they are set up. Make sure to have separate sections for the involved editors to make their initial statements, a section for supporting references, per WP:V, and provide sub-sections for uninvolved editors to enter their comments after they review the situation. Make the link on the WP:RFC page go directly to the correct section of the talk page so visiting editors don't get distracted by all the other discussions. And, most important: when you set up the WP:RFC - absolutely avoid any discussion of editors' behavior. The Request for Comments is about the content of the template, not about the way the editors are interacting. If you go off into that stuff, it will just get messy again and you won't find the results you want. Focus on the content, don't talk about editors, be extra polite, format a clear RFC,... invite other editors to bring their comments, and then - respect and implement the consensus decision. Good luck! --Parsifal Hello 05:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Belligerent behaviour from User:Gilabrand

Resolved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In this edit, User:Gilabrand reverted an edit of mine, and in the comment chose to claim that I had "no authority" to make edits to that particular page. I'm a relative newbie but I'm pretty sure this isn't acceptable behaviour, or an acceptable view point for Wikipedia. Is there any kind of censuring procedure for editors who behave like this? Robert Ham 21:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if there is a lot more than this, I think. In this case, the most relevant guideline is probably WP:COOL. In other words, you're best to relax a bit and try to settle by example rather than by trying to get a beat up of other editors. After all, you are editing Jerusalem. You are removing it from the category Cities in Israel, for reasons mentioned in the talk page but not with any consensus. Given the lack of consensus for your changes, there is likely to be a bit of irritation expressed when you get reverted; as you undoubtedly will. The edit comment replacing it was not really appropriate, but not worth getting upset about. Relax, carry on calmly. Trying to get an official censure will make matters worse, I suspect. What you need is consensus for the changes. Just my feeling on the matter... —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought I did have consensus. Evidently not. Robert Ham 09:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Filll, User:Orangemarlin, User:Jim62sch

Stale. No comments have been added in the past week. EdJohnston 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that I have been grossly insulted by a group of editors. My attempts to resolve an issue that Orangemarlin had with a new editor resulted in a series of personal attack by three editors, another has joined the chorus. The worst of it was wikilinking part of my comment to holocaust denial. This sort of thuggery should not to be allowed to continue. I am requesting that someone attempt to resolve the situation, I have no wish to continue contributing until it is. Should I supply diffs for this? Fred ☻ 12:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC) added another Fred ☻ 12:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And in the meantime you're vandalising other editor's user talk pages by removing content, assuming personal attacks where there are none, and being utterly tendentious. Of course, we can all supply diffs to take this to another level: Wikiquette is hardly the big issue here. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 14:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I gladly and without reservation produced a long detailed copious apology on your page and on my page, which you promptly deleted. I am stunned at this continuing behavior. I do not understand...I am missing something here. Was my apology not long enough? I would be pleased to produce a much longer apology in a further attempt to placate you.--Filll 14:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Amended heading. Fred ☻ 14:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
If no diffs are supplied there is nothing to investigate. EdJohnston 15:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Even with diffs I suspect you'd find this is a storm in a teacup, I think frede shouldn't be so quick to take offense. ornis (t) 15:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Sufficient indication of incivility is on the talk pages of those above. Some delving into the history may be required, User:Filll has revised many comments in the meantime. User:Orangemarlin has changed my comment to insinuate that I deny the holocaust. My simple questions have been answered with aggressive statements denying there was ever a problem. The supposed apology is the history of my talk page, the much preened, but no less sarcstic, version is on his page. I would remind ConfuciusOrnis that to malign an individual, on the basis of his nationality, is bigotry. If diffs are still required after a cursory glance at the situation, I will supply them. Fred ☻ 16:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
And obviously, the burden of proof if on the accuser, so feel free to provide diffs.
In fact, I demand that the diffs of the alledged offences and the diffs of the explanations to Fred be provided post haste. •Jim62sch• 16:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
to malign an individual, on the basis of his nationality, is bigotry. Eh? Now you're just making stuff up. ornis (t) 16:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologise, if your reference to an australian, a thug, was coincidental. I made an assuption, something we should avoid. I do not make things up. Can an uninvolved party have a look at this, thanks. If there is no insults, then it is as [they] say, and I will retire. Fred ☻ 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC) & [insert] Fred ☻ 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
He's a kiwi actually. ornis (t) 17:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Glad people know that, makes me less embarrassed to be australian. :) Fred ☻ 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I am not allowed to correct posts I made myself on my page for grammatical mistakes? To clarify my points? There is no secret conspiracy here. If I find my wording was unclear, I modify it, on main pages, on talk pages, and wherever. This is now inappropriate? I am not allowed to correct my own mistakes? And you do not feel my apology was appropriate? Not heartfelt enough? Would you like it longer or shorter? Would you like me to just leave Wikipedia to make you feel better? I do not think this is an appropriate response for the good of the project, given our relative contribution levels. If you prefer, you can write the apology yourself that you would like to receive from me and I will copy and post it under my name. Fair enough? How far do I have to go to make you feel better? I really am sorry. I had NO idea that me wikilinking a username in your post on Orangemarlin's page would upset you so much. I really did not intend to upset you or anyone else with this. How can I explain this?--Filll 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The alledged offences were those of inference, not of implication. Jumping to contusions is always a very risky practice -- for the jumper at least; it is a nuisance to the rest of us.
At the same time, true offences and violations of WP:VAND are being cast aside in the interests of placating someone who wilfully inferred argumenta ad hominem when there were none. Quite the waste of our time and bytes. •Jim62sch• 18:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay everyone, step back. There is obviously quite a dispute going on here between all of you, so I would strongly suggest that you all disengage right now and cool off. Please go read WP:COOL, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and make sure that you're familiar with them, and in the meantime, please let the WQA mediators (whether myself or another person) spend a bit of time to catch up on the issue so that we may provide guidance. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Acually, the dispute is pretty one-sided. Also, one could easily debate the civility of this apparent fiat, "so I would strongly suggest that you all disengage right now and cool off." I'm quite cool, gelid in fact, however I have little tolerance for nonsense. Cheers. •Jim62sch• 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
My point is that this thread went very quickly from an initial complaint to a full-blown argument here on WQA, before anyone helping out with WQAs had had a chance to respond and investigate. Trust me, we'll be able to piece together the history and provide guidance, but having an active argument continuing in WQA only hinders our ability to help. That's why I said everyone involved needs to disengage - it doesn't matter how one-sided the argument is. The fact that there's an unmediated argument going on here makes it more difficult to resolve the matter. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
My edit conflicted. Having read the above, I will withold my comment. I look forward to resolving the matter to everyone's satisfaction. Fred ☻ 18:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I'm afraid it's unrealistic to demand as much original research ("Some delving into the history" is putting it rather mildly) of uninvolved editors as you're doing. If providing examples and evidence of your enigmatic accusations is a problem, please see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide or Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide. Hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 19:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC).

In the absence of diffs, I can only guess at the reason for the dispute, but if anyone is desperate to figure this out without help from the submitter, you can check out User_talk:Orangemarlin#discourse, User_talk:Macdonald-ross#Confession, or even possible complaint about Jim62sch?. This is a very esoteric complaint, and if we could just stamp 'Rejected' on it in big red letters I'd be tempted to do so. EdJohnston 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I must agree - it's very difficult right now to see what any root causes of this issue might have been. At this point, I'd say let's give Fred some time to more clearly explain his complaint, with diffs or stronger pointers to discussions where he feels the issue has gotten out of hand. Right now, we're not in a position to help much, except to tell everyone to keep their cool (which I already did above). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd say - this is all very confusing and it's not the job of WQA volunteers to do intensive investigations to figure out what the problem is. Therefore, I suggest we consider this alert on hold, until someone provides us with specific diffs, showing a specific example of what they consider to be a problem. We can't help if we don't know what the problem is. --Parsifal Hello 23:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


please restate the problem, if it still is active

Please let us know if you consider your dispute resolved or not. It seems there has been an apology, so I'm a bit confused about why it's still a problem.

If it is still a problem, we're willing to help. But we can't take the time to be detectives. We need a clear and concise problem description, with specific diffs, showing where and how the problem is happening. (If needed, refer to Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide).

If more than one of you wants to make a statement and provide example diffs, that's fine, you're welcome to do so. But please refrain from using this page as a place to argue about it further.

Help us to understand the situation, that way we can help you resolve it. Thanks. --Parsifal Hello 23:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. I followed the instructions above to avoid turning this into a court. If evidence is required:

  • I made an enquiry of Orangemarlin here: (section) He made bad faith comments on another (Mcdonald Ross) ending at my talk with "As for keeping him around, he's ruined several articles because he's pigheaded. Not sure I want him." I removed his initial posting and replaced it with a permanent link here
  • Filll changed my comment on that page, wikilinking the users name (MRs). As I deliberately avoided that, I expressed my feelings and asked a question: here up to here where my edit comment thanked a third party's post, namely "Filll, my friend, you should not have said the first sentence of the above paragraph ... Consider this a serious warning for NPA." His next few posts were to give me his "apology", as he has misrepresented it.
  • This does not constitute an apology [264]. His satisfaction, with his stream of sarcasm, prompted him to post it to all concerned - presumably to intimidate others. [265] and four more to polish his prose. This is his MO, I have since been informed. He was preening this comment for sometime, delighting in his own talent for dramatic irony.
  • Not wanting to miss the fun, Jim62sch joined in with, given above and, later, possible pathology ":I surmise that you detect the odoriferous smegma of putrefaction emanating from the patient's corpus collosum."
  • OM decided to have another say. Various edits by them followed.
  • I demanded (pretty annoyed by this stage) that Jim62sc remove his insult. His response was "Insult? Insult You've yet to see a true insult. In fact, you see them where there are none. There's a medical name for that, y'know, starts with a p."

The users did not leave it there, it was Jim62sc last post and his next post after logging back on. Please let me know if more diffs are required, or I can create a sub page and lay the whole thing out flat. They seem to act with an assumption of impunity, I am continuing with this because it will very likely happen again. My efforts will make the next editor's defence a little easier. Fred ☻ 01:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is sadly and completely biased. I am very sorry that Fred.e has decided to continue to push this. I am totally astounded that he wants to waste so much time and energy in this exercise. We will have to respond with one or more versions of diffs with other sides of the story.--Filll 03:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about providing more diffs. We have enough information now. Those diffs show all the sides because it's all connected.
If you have diffs you feel will make a difference in case we didn't notice everything, OK, go ahead and add them, but I don't think it's needed.
I don't have time to reply right now -- I or another editor will post a reply in the next day or so. In the meantime, please avoid posting on each other's talk pages or doing anything else that might escalate your conflict further. --Parsifal Hello 05:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor. This is feedback from someone who doesn't know any of you. If anyone doesn't agree with my comments, you're welcome to explain what you feel I missed. If you do, please be specific, with diffs.

  • Fred's WQA report appears to be accurate. The others described him as uncivil but I did not see that. His actions were not perfect, but overall, he stayed polite even as the situation escalated.
  • On the other hand, Fred's removing Orangemarlin's comment from Macdonald-ross's user page was inappropriate. He did it in good faith, in that he saw the comment as a personal attack, but it almost always works out better not to edit or remove the comments of others, except in extreme cases.
  • There were a variety of inflammatory and uncivil comments from Filll and Orangemarlin, including outright insults, and some especially "colorful" language from Jim62sh.
  • It was inappropriate for Filll to edit Fred's comment to add the wikilink; not a big deal, but modifying others' comments is generally a bad idea on talk pages. Fred responded with a polite question that Filll later described as a "demand".
  • Filll's response to that question earned him a serious warning for NPA from an administrator.
  • Filll's "apology" was a sarcastic provocation. If it had been a real apology, the story would have ended there, but it was not even close.
  • Orangemarlin's creative wikilinking of Fred's initial comments, especially to "holocaust denial" is clearly a personal attack, even though Orangemarlin calls it being "passive agressive".

That's what I saw. If any of the involved parties provide diffs showing I am wrong, I am willing to retract anything that is not accurate.

So - what next?

  • Just drop it; let it go. Pretend it never happened.
  • Get back to editing articles. Talk about content, not editors.
  • Anyone who currently has on their talk pages a personal attack comment regarding another editor should remove them. If you choose to keep them, you will be displaying for anyone who visits your page that you are a person who maintains attack comments on display. If that's how you want to be perceived, well go right ahead and leave them there, you're only damaging your own reputation, not the reputation of the one you're attacking.
  • If someone has an attack comment about you on their page, just ignore it. If they post an attack comment on your page, remove it, or use strike-through markup. If you reply, just make your reply a polite request that no uncivil comments be posted on your page.
  • If an attack comment is posted on an article talk page, don't let it get to you, don't take it personally, just respond with extra politeness and request that uncivil comments be retracted and omitted in the future. Or just point out that it was uncivil and move on. Don't argue about it. Don't reply in kind. Don't punch the tar baby.

That's about it. Just let it go. If the situation continues, then additional dispute resolution procedures may be needed. Those are all a big hassle, so I hope you can avoid them. If it gets to that point, let us know here, and we'll suggest the next option. --Parsifal Hello 09:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My language is always colourful.  ;) In any case, as this entire "dispute" was blown out of all proportion it's best if everything is dropped. Filll's non-apology was exactly what was merited as there was nothing for which to apologise; my comments, while "colourful", were certainly appropriate given the conext that an editor saw insults were there were none, and seemed quite intent on stirring up trouble for the hell of it; OM was clearly disgusted that his edits had been assumed to have some sinister aspect (so much for AGF), when they clearly did not. Quite frankly, this is a waste of everyone's time.
As for my "reputation", I have three FA's and a larger number of GA's to my credit, and it is well-known that I do not suffer fools -- the same basic modus operandi I follow IRL: I get my job done quickly, superbly and to the satifaction of everyone involved, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to look kindly on the intransigence and wilfull ignorance of others. Obviously, in Wikiland this latter aspect might be seen as a negative (and a bit arrogant) but so be it.
In any case, I don't expect to cross paths with Fred.e again, so as far as I'm concerned this matter is closed. Cheers. 13:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My only comments: 1. What a waste of the project's time. 2. Fred.e should apologize to everyone for wasting their time. 3. I won't even dignify some of his sad accusations with a reponse. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Personal attacks by Moe Epsilon

Resolved. The original complaint was frivolous, and the page in question was protected. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please provide some guidance on how to deal with someone who insists upon re-inserting an unwarranted and unfriendly personal attack? The edits can be seen in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Darlin history. Burntsauce 21:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see it, Burntsauce, but WP:NPA states: "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited." And especially so, on an AfD page, which is marked as "don't modify this". Sorry.--SarekOfVulcan 21:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. This one is dead easy. Moe is doing the right thing, and Burntsauce should leave the page alone. The "attack" is pretty mild, and it must be left in place as a good faith contribution that is part of the record of discussion, even if it does not assume good faith itself. Sorry Burntsauce, but it stays. I'm not editing it back myself just yet; and I may not need to. Just providing comment on the complaint itself, as an onlooker. And Moe... please try to assume good faith in your comments. There's no reason not to, no matter how many deletions are proposed. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see I wasn't notified of this. Sorry, but it's not an illusion that he put many notable biographies on AFD, i.e. Jessica Darlin, Rodney Anoai, etc. — Moe ε 22:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. It looks like a poorly conceived campaign to improve the encyclopedia as he sees it. Hence it is in good faith. I see you replaced your comment; as is appropriate. Burntsauce... leave it alone. Thanks. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That isn't a reason to assume that he's doing so for the purpose of harming the wiki. If his reasoning for nominating as many biographies as he did was that they weren't notable, or that there was some logical reason for doing so, then there's plenty of reason to believe he did so in good faith. If his reasoning was that he doesn't like those particular people, or he just wanted to give other editors a hard time or devalue their work, that would be a bad-faith nomination. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Who says he's not giving editors a hard time? Certainly not the Pro Wrestling WikiProject which has been struggling do to his overly essentric bursts of blanking articles for WP:BLP violations, which weren't accurate. As you will see now on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that he is trying to get one of the best professional wrestling sources blacklisted. The only hope for professional wrestling articles are external links like these, and his is blatantly keeping the progress of this encyclopedia down by suppressing articles being created and then nominating them for deletion thereafter. No malice intended, I think not. — Moe ε 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be greatly appreciated if you would stop assuming bad faith. My efforts to uphold WP:BLP are in the interests of improving our encyclopedia, and nothing more. Burntsauce 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I didn't even mention IMDB, and thats off-topic, onlineworldofwrestling isn't user generated, so you're point is moot. Blanking articles, which have been repeatedly reverted, nominating clearly notable bios for deletion and making phony claims of policy are not for the best intrest of this encyclopedia. Any time someone goes to your talk page and tries to discuss something you don't like you blank it out without a response. — Moe ε 23:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Just as an FYI: My response about WP:AGF was a general comment, but I have not done as much research or gotten as involved in this alert as Duae has. I made that comment from a general standpoint - as with all policies, specific cases can call for different interpretation of those policies. I'll leave the rest of this alert in Duae's capable hands. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note. Burntsauce has yet again tried to modify the official discussion record, despite having been told on this alert that he cannot do this. Moe is clearly in the right here. Assume Good Faith is all very well; but it becomes really hard to sustain in the face of this kind of behaviour. Moe; I take it back. You're right: there is a major problem here with this editor. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My only problem is with willful ignorance of WP:BLP and it seems that only one specific group of Wikipedia contributors are under the belief that they can get away with it. I treat all articles the same. Burntsauce 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You now also have a couple of other problems. You have the problem of approaching a WP:3RR violation on the deletion discussion record. You have the problem that inappropriate modifications of this official record are now getting a bit of wider notice. You have the problem that your most recent edit comment on that record itself failed to assume good faith, and made a totally inappropriate accusation of vandalism. And you have the problem that all this poor behaviour is getting a bit of wider notice, so that you are likely to get a more more scrutiny. I'd be really surprised if that's going to do you a lot of credit. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
And he calls rightful reverting of him ignorance. Not exactly the best descision-making. If you think this is a serious approach to correcting violations of policy Burntsauce you are highly mistaken. You are clearly in the wrong about the Terry Gerwin article, the "personal attack" request here and BLP claims. — Moe ε 23:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued incivility from User:Scorpion0422

Resolved. Seems to be a non-problem. I'm marking it resolved, since there was nothing to do and it's now old. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I first reported on what I felt was a pattern of personal attacks and vigilante-style editing from this user back in June. [266] He refused my efforts to discuss differences with him, as suggested by the mediators and since then, he has continued to revert my edits to any Simpsons article without any valid reasons [267] [268] [269], and I have taken good faith in working with this user, but he continues to ignore evidence I have presented [270] and continues with personal attacks on my talk page and in edit summaries [271]. I notice that he has a pattern of being inflammatory and disruptive to editors that he disagrees with.--Folksong 00:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [272]

Like I've said, you keep editing GA articles, which are supposed to have an elevated level of prose. It has nothing to do with you, I'm just trying to keep these pages at the level they were when they were promoted. As far as I can remember, I've only reverted you on three articles (two of which you have reported me on, the other you nearly reported me) and I'm sure you've edited many more articles than I've reverted you on. And why do you keep bringing up stuff that I've already been disciplined for? -- Scorpion0422 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
At a quick look though all the submitted diffs and a check through the nearby history, I do not think there is any case to answer here. The old stuff should be water under the bridge, and the later changes are minor content dispute, being carried on without any big problems from Scorpion0422 with incivility or failure to assume good faith that I can see. Scorpion, it would be desirable to try and take ten minutes to try and modify an edit rather than just revert it, even if you think the effect of the edit was detrimental to the article. It would probably save time in the long run. Folksong, you need to assume good faith and be careful with that word vandalism. You guys are just going to have to continue to keep cool and keep talking.
If this escalates at all, then the winner will probably be the one who manages to keep the coolest, and shows the best assumptions of good faith. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo

Stuck. Actually, not stuck so much as taken up at #Kievan Rus' a bit below. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo is continuing personal attcks toward all potential editors in Kievan Rus' article. He is using the word "idiot" adressing their work and reverting the information that he dislikes. See Warning: please don't add idiotic infoboxes: they will be deleted 15 August 2007, Warning: please don't add idiotic infoboxes: they will be deleted 13 August 2007, rmv idiotic box from the lead 22 June 2007 and many others. Please, make brutal User:Ghirlandajo to be civil, be tolerant to views of others and be polite! Thank you in advance.--202.249.213.38 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to resolve the issue in the discussion pages. There are issues there that I cannot understand, and none of you seem to be talking about them. Try to set a standard for politeness yourself when you do this. Avoid describing this little tiff as "brutal". That comes across as just a tad hysterical. You don't want that.
I think you have a fair point. Calling the infobox "idiotic" was not helpful. Ghirlandajo does not explain his concern in the discussion page, and he certainly should. I can't see what the problem is. No one is talking about it. My advice is to be WP:COOL. Keep focused on the matters of content; don't try to make a big fuss about the fact that the word idiotic is used. Try this, for example.
==Infobox Former Country concerns==
Ghirlandajo, can you please say here what you think is wrong with the info box that you removed in this edit? I think it contributes to the article, because (...).
It will help to avoid saying anything at all about the "idiotic" remark, I think, unless it is repeated. If you just ignore it, then it has a better chance of being forgotten and not repeated. Good luck —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a member of the Project Former Countries, and I fail to see anything helpful about their activities. The idea of an infobox for the countries that existed millennia ago is absurd. What was the flag and COA of Assyria? It's a good idea for a Kurdish nationalist to seize upon. As far as I can see, the infobox is just a tool used by modern nationalists to advance their fringecruft. The agenda of this particular sockpuppet is to paste the modern Ukrainian COA, with modern Ukrainian colors, to the top of the article about a state which existed a millennium ago. It's like inserting the modern Italian flag into our article about the Roman Empire. Will it be tolerated, let alone seriously discussed? P.S. I have my reservations about the propriety of this "Wikipedia alerts" page. It reminds me of WP:PAIN which had to be closed down after it became, in essence, an attack page. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This report is entirely specious and should be closed. An unregistered user whose (very few) contributions tend to calling others "vandals" is upset over editorial comments that an infobox is "idiotic"? Give me a break. For the record I agree that the article is much better without the infobox for several reasons, but that is a content issue. Further, the insistence on irrational standardization that requires things like infoboxes is highly detrimental to the encyclopedia, but that opinion is also a content issue. Tim Shuba 07:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my overall impression (except that I like infoboxes, which as you note is not relevant here). I left a note at Ghirlandajo's page to let him know of the existence of this alert, and to ask his input. My advice is still to talk about content issues on the discussion page; just to keep a record of what is going on, even if it is a matter of dealing with some form of cluelessness. But hey. I am cool with closing this as a non-issue, and will do so shortly after a bit of time to allow for any other comment. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Arrghh. Close it already, it's ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC).
2 Ghirla. Where did you find Ukrainian COA at the top of the article? There is only the one of Rurikid symbol of 10th c. - the trident. Blue and yellow are not "ukranian colours", but just "blue" and "yellow". Now the trydent is an image from the coin which you have downloaded, but your commrades still removing the infobox. You are fighting with natioanlistic stereotypes of your own. Infobox provides short information about the country and is very convenient for readers. Also, I would ask you to calm down your accusations in sockpuppeting. Its not the matter of anon-users but users who have got many accounts. --133.41.84.206 08:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Further comment directed to the alert below at #Kievan Rus'. One alert on this is more than enough. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Kievan Rus'

Stuck. Overtaken by a recently returned arbitration decition. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A group of editors (see [273]) are constatntly removing Infobox Former Country from Kievan Rus' for pseudo-reasons of "original research". The article in this edition with template has nothing OR-ish, providing reader with a short information about that former country. The Infobox Former Country is used in many articles in Wikipedia stadardizing all articles about historical states, so I dont understand their stubborness in removing the template. They do edit warring without making even an atempt to disscuss the problem at the talk page of the article. They are not looking for consensus and do not give any arguments.--133.41.84.206 08:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment, see the thread #User:Ghirlandajo above. This "report" is submitted by the sockpuppet of the user who submitted the original one. But seriously, a question to the regular handlers of this board. Is there a reason why this board is needed. Is it fundamentally different from WP:RFI and WP:PAIN both deleted per my urging with the wide consensus approval. AFAI can see, this is used either as a Wikipedia:Request to block or as a Wikipedia:Complaints department. Is it needed? --Irpen 06:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Irpen, I'm not responding to this WQA posting right now, but I've replied to your questions about WQA in general on the talk page. --Parsifal Hello 07:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
We certainly do get a lot of contributions from fringe viewpoins who see Wikipedia as (at last) a place where their particular nuttiness can be published in what appears to be a credible source. They usually get reverted when contributing to articles of general interest (I think); and sometimes we have extended episodes of cluelessness. Many good editors end up leaving in frustration. It looks very much to me that you and a couple of others are dealing with this issue by claiming a kind of ownership over your articles, periodically cleaning out edits back to established versions, and dismissing any need to talk about what you are doing in the discussion page. I'd like to see some kind of more formalized recognition of expert review on articles. In the meantime, I wish you guys would just for heavens sake TALK about the problems you see on the discussion page of articles. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 07:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that a discussion thread be created at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries. The issues here seem too technical for the contributors at this noticeboard to come up the learning curve quickly. Either that, or just pick one article, for instance Kievan Rus' and conduct one or more article RFCs. Whichever place you choose, I hope someone will start a discussion thread that expounds the alternatives as clearly as possible. There is more heat than light in what has been posted here at WQA. If you agree to move the discussion, leave us a pointer to the place where you are continuing to have it. EdJohnston 02:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
There should be no need for this board to come up to speed. This is not a venue for content disputes. The idea of discussion is a good one, but it requires a willingness for people to discuss. That seems to be the major problem here.
If I understand it right, some editors dismiss this whole dispute as being unworthy of comment. They object to the use of wikiquette alerts as being merely a way to make attacks, and just want to shut down the whole alerts system. They consider that the complaints are unworthy of comment, and that any other editors who attempt to mediate are merely being made dupes by people making frivolous complaints. They assert strong control of the page in question, and claim to have the expertise and background and understanding to justify this control.
I would like to make a strong advisory comment here. Use the discussion page. If people are making frequent major edits to undo what they see as inappropriate changes by editors pushing an agenda of some kind; you still need to say something about the problem on the discussion page. Similarly for editors who are trying to introduce major changes. You can make your statements firmly without being uncivil. Please, please, please; if you consider yourself to be an expert on the topic who is fighting off POV-pushing, you need to demonstrate that by a concise, clear, substantive comment on the problem in the discussion page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Events addressed in this alert have been overtaken by a recent arbitration decision. The decision recognizes long standing and deep seated problems relating to articles on Eastern Europe, liberally defined. The conclusion is in two parts. A general amnesty for all involved parties, and a reminder to edit courteously and co-operatively in the future. This is excellent advice, and this Wikiquette alert is immediately closed, being resolved by the amnesty. Best of luck to all concerned in a difficult situation. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TheRingessDeleating problems

Resolved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

TheRingess keeps deleating information that I put in saying it is "urban legend" but is not! Please, help me I am going mad!

John Schnell 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Help us help you, what articles? what talk pages? how many times? As a hint, try to reference your material when you put it in, so that the policy of no original research can't be used to remove it. --Rocksanddirt 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Some diplomacy might help, but many of the items added by User:John Schnell to Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Encinitas, California seem to lack references. For example, see [274]. If John has access to back issues of a local paper, he might be able to find references for some of the facts he has asserted based on personal knowledge. Saying you were there is not enough for Wikipedia purposes, due to our insistence on reliable sources and verifiability. Editors who want to know what the dispute is about should look at the history of Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Encinitas, California since 5 July, and also see its Talk page. EdJohnston 03:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The removals of unsourced material and linkspam look consistent with enforcement of [WP:V]] and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Simply because a web site exists on the internet is not sufficient reason to link to it. For external link policies please see: WP:EL. Buddhipriya 20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no case here to answer. John has been given some good advice about attribution. Basically, he has been adding information to Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Encinitas, California based on his own authority as a resident. But Wikipedia requires information to be based on verifiable sources. It is that simple. A friendly word also about handling such matters. You should not try to make a Wikiquette alert until you have first tried to resolve the matter on the relevant talk pages. I'm marking this resolved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tried the talk page but she or he will not answer!!! She deleats stuf by me on the Cardiff By The Sea article! John Schnell 21:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding something. ANYTHING you write on wikipedia can be removed by ANYONE if there isn't any proof. And you being there isn't proof, you have to have articles or other reliable sources. DurinsBane87 22:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Blanche Poubelle and talk page problems

Resolved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has done a great job on Swedish Social Democratic Party and has contributed to article Neoliberalism, but I am getting irritated with this user's conduct on Talk:Swedish Social Democratic Party. After my (I hope so) rather mild criticism on some aspects of her edits, she reacted with militant comments, as if she owned the SSDP page. E.g. comments [275], [276], [277], , by which she accused me of political biases, noted my “keen censoring eye” etc. You see, she changed her response a number of times, until reaching this 'final' text which seemed, well OK (see history of the page for details). After my comment, by which I attempted to elaborate on my concerns (mostly neutrality), she responded with accusations of “authoritarian tone of your [i.e my] political complaints”, of having made her do edits I “demanded in a disrespectful way” (!), “ill-toned complaints” etc. In the end, she once again deleted her insulting comments and replaced it with a more tolerable reply. I also find unacceptable her request that I “revel (sic!) in your [i.e. my] existing achievements” in Wikipedia - she must have been aware, that my contributions don't number less than hers. All in all, this user has, in my opinion, violated WP:NPA, Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments (constantly changing her comments, hiding (removing) insulting ones). I expect your comments and suggestions. Erik Jesse 09:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for documenting your concern so thoroughly. The impression I get just from the diffs to which you've linked is of a user who has a short fuse and who hits "Save Page" first and then thinks later. All things considered, a user who regrets the kind of sarcasm in which she was engaged is preferable to one who engages in that kind of sarcasm and then starts defending it in a knee-jerk fashion when called on it. I guess my question for you is how big a deal this is, really? I agree that her initial comments violated Wikipedia policy, but then she deleted them and replaced them with more civil ones. Ideally, she shouldn't post the sarcastic stuff in the first place, but do you really feel this is harming the encyclopedia? (I ask that question in earnest and to elicit an answer, not to imply that the only reasonable answer is no.) Besides that, I don't think I agree with your interpretation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments - as I see it, it only advises against changing your comments after somebody else has responded to them, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Certainly, coming up with six editions of the same comment isn't optimal, but I'm not sure I see it as a policy violation. Sarcasticidealist 10:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I also doubt if there's the 3. policy violation, that's why I raised the issue at the informal level. The problem with the user is that
  1. she often mistakes Wikipedia for soapbox or a blog
  2. lays too much emphasis on particular points of view she personally agrees with (both in case of SSDP and Neoliberalism).
  3. is not coöpereative in case of criticism or suggestions, rather, 'explodes', if one dares to contradict.
There is no big deal with the diffs, but I got the impression that she first expresses her views rather overtly (deliberately makes it) and then covers things up. So that I'd get both her real response and the 'acceptable' reply. I got tired with it, and wished to hear other opinions, so that she might (if she made us that favour) consider her conduct. If I find more time, I'll just start removing not neutral things she has added to SSDP article, there's little use trying to argue with her. Erik Jesse 10:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's premature to conclude that there's little use trying to argue with her (although "argue" is not the preferred nomenclature - "discuss" or "reason", please). In fact, you seem to acknowledge on the SSDP talk page that she did eventually remove the POV language to which you were objecting. I'd strongly encourage continued discussion over unilateral action at this point.
I'd also suggest that in the interests of WP:AGF, you try to avoid assuming the impression you mention above - it may have been a good faith response on her part, or it may be something more nefarious, as you suggest, but absent evidence one way or another we should assume the most innocent plausible explanation.
Finally, I think your last reply on the SSDP talk page is teetering on the edge of WP:CIVIL. Specifically, I don't think the last sentence was in any way useful. I'm not blaming you for the problems - clearly User:Blanche Poubelle's deleted posts are much less civil than anything you've written - but I think WP:COOL is very much in order as we try to sort this out. Sarcasticidealist 10:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can agree with that. The more that Wikipedia is not one of my top priorities and I readily drop the activity if I feel that the thing is not working at the moment. Erik Jesse 11:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Great. I've left a note on Blanche Poubelle's talk page asking her to be more careful with her comments before she hits "Save page", and I'll continue to monitor the situation to see how things are progressing. Sarcasticidealist 11:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Steve Dufour's personal insults to other editors.

Resolved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the latest example: [278]. - Redddogg 14:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet another frivolous alert. There's no case to answer here. The link goes to an edit that is three weeks old, which was a bit peevish but definitely not worth this alert. The real issue seems to be with other editors causing trouble. The substance of the matter was discussed at: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barbara Schwarz (closed). This alert should be closed too. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with User:Duae Quartunciae; the edit cited is not, in and of itself, enough to establish a problem - it's an isolated, and not terribly severe, violation of WP:CIVIL. However, User:Redddogg calls it "the latest example". If he's prepared to provide more cites that would establish a pattern of behaviour, I'm willing top listen. Sarcasticidealist 21:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
For the most part he isn't blatantly uncivil, however I think the problem stems more from a WP:COI concern re: Barbara Schwarz.
Maybe WP:COIN would be a better forum? Anynobody 03:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Likely it would be. For what it's worth, though, I've reviewed all of User:Steve Dufour's edits to the Barbara Schwarz page for the last four months, and the only one I can find that seems at all questionable from a WP:COI standpoint is one. Sarcasticidealist 03:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
To his credit he does refrain from editing the actual article much, however the issue Redddogg mentions is the nature of his posts to the talk page. He tends to have problems with acknowledging the relevance certain aspects of her life have on her notability and the article. For example he feels the first sentence should not mention her nationality or the fact that she is a non-us citizen; Like he did here. After I explained to him that it's part of her notability he questioned that, Has anyone said that the fact of her being German is a part of her notability?. Since it's been pretty much confined to talk only and hasn't been overly problematic I haven't taken any action since WP:COIN is more about actual article edits than talk page discussions. Anynobody 05:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that voice of reason. The matter you raise now is a purely content dispute. The way you express it presumes that you are correct; whereas I personally think Steve's point is entirely valid, and that her nationality is quite secondary and better out of the lead. But that's really irrelevant, since we don't address content matters here. Since Steve has tackled this content matter with perfect civility in the edit you mention, and since he has let you guys keep that curious addition in the lead sentence in any case, there is no longer any reason for wikiquette be involved. Good luck with the page, and stay cool. I'm marking this resolved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that's wise. I've just reviewed the entire (non-archived portion of the) talk page, and it doesn't seem to me that he's having any real negative impact on the article; there's certainly a lot of repetition, but consensus seems to be chugging on (albeit a little more slowly than it might without him). I can see why regular editors of the page might find him inconvenient, but I only saw the one violation of WP:CIVIL (the psychiatric help bit) and no violation of WP:COI (which, as you say, deals almost exclusively with mainspace edits). I'm marking this as resolved for now, but feel free to bring up any new concerns if/as they come up. Sarcasticidealist 05:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (Duae beat me to it.)

Continued hostility/personal attack from User:Misou

Resolved. The user in question has received corrective action as of 17 August, and there don't seem to be any further issues with their recent edits after the block expired. --Darkwind (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't talk for other users, but I noticed that the incivility has been persistent. The sarcasm and disparaging tone already makes it difficult to discuss issues on respectful terms. I take offense as being described as an individual bent on 'hate propaganda'. All considered, it's difficult for me to imagine that the points I bring will be considered honestly by the user. Raymond Hill 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing ArbCom on if a Scientologist (COFS) has a WP:COI because she is editing Scientology articles. This is obviously a question to be asked for Raymond Hill as well. He is running an anti-Scientology site which is being used as "reference" also in those articles he is editing reguarly. This is the background for the above. I apologize if I went over the acceptable way of presenting this. Misou 15:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
As a general rule of thumb, if someone said the same to you and you would feel attacked or offended, change how you say it. Politeness gets one a lot further in this place. Regardless of the merits or accuracy of your descriptions, if you can phrase it neutrally you get a lot further. Also, remember to comment on content, not editors or thier motivations whenever possible. Best of Luck! --Rocksanddirt 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


I believe the basis of Misou's "lack of good faith" is rooted in the fact that several editors of Wikipedia's Scientology articles are openly and publicly webmasters of anti-Scientology websites. While this doesn't excuse rudeness on Misou's part - especially his/her unwarranted heckling of User:Tilman on his talk page - it does point to a real problem. I could also provide a LONG list of diffs that show that Misou and other editors have been spoken to by anti-Scn editors in an extremely demeaning, sarcastic, abrasive and insulting way with no repercussions for those editors, so I can certainly see how Misou might start to think such behavior is condoned around here. wikipediatrix 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's quite true - there's plenty of anger and attack-fodder on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, WQA isn't the place to fix the community as a whole. :) --Darkwind (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Discourteous deletions by User:Blnguyen & User:Skyring in John Howard article

Resolved.

In the article John Howard (The Australian Prime Minister), Blnguyen and Skyring(Pete) continually delete 'useful content', but not in a courteous way. The deleted information is factual, verified and referenced, and its truth is not in dispute.

The Wikipedia has guidelines about deleting useful information, on this link: Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting...

Blnguyen and Skyring(Pete) delete useful information without initiating a discussion, which would be the courteous way of allowing other editors to see what the information is.

On the discussion page, Talk:John_Howard, there are 2 recent examples. One topic is Bob Hawke motion on race, opposed by Howard (Bob Hawke was a previous Prime Minister). The initial delete edit by User:Blnguyen is here (note that a discussion was not initiated by him at the time the deletion occurred), and it happened again yesterday when new information was added here.

The other subject matter was Talk:John_Howard#John_Howard.27s_secret_ancestry_revealed, where today User:Skyring deleted the content, even though a discussion was taking place between other editors days before the deletion took place. As I write this, Skyring(Pete) had not contributed to the discussion. The deletion can be seen here. Lester2 02:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take any comments from this user with hefty dose of scepticism. User:Lester2 is a WP:SPA troll account that would do well to read WP:CONSENSUS. Check his history to see his edit warring on the one and only article he edits. He has been blocked no less than 3 times for trying to ram through his slanted POV, and now resorted to these forums as a last ditch effort. The last request for comment he initiated resulted in him agreeing to seek consensus for any of the pointy additions he trys. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 02:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Prester John for your kind words :) Lester2 03:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the statements about the RfC made above are strictly accurate. See my remarks at Talk:John Howard#Request for Comment. Hornplease 04:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester2's short but disruptive history is visible to all. I have encouraged his sometimes productive edits and praised his research skills. However, he does not seem to grasp that although something may be true and well-sourced, it is not necessarilly relevant to a biographical article, especially when its intent is clearly to smear the subject of the article. The edit I removed, with a hint to seek consensus first, had only the most tangential relevance to the subject.

His action here is another in a long line of attempts to seek third-party approval for his behaviour. If he were being victimised or bullied, then he would be quite within his rights to do so and I would cheer him on, but the fact is that he is being treated with as much courtesy and co-operation as he would get anywhere else in the WP community. I encourage him to edit more articles on other subjects and see for himself. --Pete 03:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting 'useful content' in a discourteous way is, unfortunately, how many edit wars begin. In fact, there's one taking place right now, (see History with content I've inserted, and User:Skyring repeatedly deleting it again. Lester2 04:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Only you seem to think the allegations about Howard's uncle are "useful". I politely re-echo the repeated calls that you study up on consensus. --Pete 04:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I ask that this Wikiquette Alert also looks at general incivility, both here and on the John Howard discussion page. I feel that some editors use derogatory terms as a tool to drive other productive editors away. I don't think there's ever justification for personal attacks. Thanks, Lester2 05:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Another paragraph has just been deleted. This one about control of semi-automatic handguns. Once again, no attempt to move the information to another place, or start a discussion. Not one of the deleted paragraphs is disputed over factual accuracy. If we adhere to the "Avoiding Common Mistakes" document (linked to above), then this information is classed as "useful information". We can retain useful information. If an article gets to long, we can create sub-articles. If someone doesn't like the phrasing, they can keep the references and try changing some words. If there is too much information that is "anti", they can add more "pro" information. Political articles need to have both. But cleansing an article can lead to Wikipedia gaining [http://www.smh.com.au/am/2007/08/24/ news headlines like it's getting today. Maybe it would be worth asking the people who deleted content about what their reasons for doing so were, to discuss whether or not those were valid reasons. Thanks, Lester2 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The edit summary says it all. Howard copped long and sustained criticism from pro-firearm supporters. It would be ridiculous to ignore this and mention some lukewarm anti-gun comment that had no visibility at the time. What was it, a letter to the editor? --Pete 04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Skyring-Pete. The gun control info was one deleted by Blnguyen. I don't think any of the gun issues you mention should have been deleted. I'm sure it would have been possible to include all sides, and probably into a concise 2 or 3 sentences. I don't think we need to delete each other's content and throw it away, when all are factually correct. Also, a message in the edit history window that says "find consensus" is not a good substitute for a discussion on the Discussion Page. Lester2 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester, I've discussed WP:MULTI with you. This is not a page for content disputes. The edit summaries in the deletions give reasoning, and do not violate WP:CIVIL. Please discuss on Talk:John Howard and use the RFC process or mediation if you cannot get consensus there. The most recent deletion is a not unreasonable interpretation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT#INFO; even if it is wrong, use DR to fix it. THF 14:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Muckrakerius using talk page to further agenda in uncivil, libelous manner.

I recently posted what I believe was a legitimate question on the Shoot 'Em Up talk page in the interest of adding pertinent information about its release and screening process. Since then I have been the victim of several personal attacks by Muckrakerius, (who has only contributed to one other article on Wikipedia). So far he has accused me of being a corporate troll, of lying about my sources, and most recently about lying about my own personal life. I am perfectly willing to engage in reasonable discussion about the film, the film's entry, and the uses of Wikipedia talk pages, but I consider attacks on my character to be "off limits" and ask that they stop. Thank you. ChrisStansfield 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I state that you are lying and have an agenda because you do. Please do not use the term LIBELOUS because you are thus threatening legal action. The purpose of a talk page is to discuss the article. You have been asked repeatedly to PROVE your point. You won't. Fine. But you HAVE been lying throughout the back and forth and have been proven as such. PLEASE STICK TO FACTS. Muckrakerius 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you two. First of all, let me say that I agree with ChrisStansfield that Muckrakerius has been violating WP:CIVIL. Muckrakerius, if you plan on sticking around, I think you'll find it not only mandated by Wikipedia policy but helpful to your cause if you learn to disagree a little more politely.
That said, this disagreement originated in a conversation that was virtually entirely unrelated to improving the article. One way to avoid having people jump down your throat over opinions you express is to confine the opinions you express to those which are directly relevant to the Wikipedia article itself, rather than to the article's subject. While I think that Muckrakerius has got to change his behaviour, I think the easiest way to deal with the problems you're currently having is to just end the conversation in which they're occurring. Sarcasticidealist 21:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
In my own defense, Sarcastic, the question about the subject I posted on the talk page was clearly phrased as an attempt to find relevant information to add to the entry itself, which certainly is legitimate in a film article. I did not just say, "I thought the movie was bad," nor did I state that my own original research in this case was significant enough to warrant adding it to the main entry, which is clearly in good faith. I asked if anyone knew how long the film had been held aftyer being made, which for purposes of the article is, I repeat, completely valid if you look at articles for films like The Brown Bunny and the like.
Further, need I point out the responses of muckrakerius above to underscore my point? Thirdly, muckrakerius has now continued the attack on my own user page. Considering about half of my life is fully documented on the Internet under my own name, any attempts to paint me as an employee of any studio is absolutely ludicrous. I also DID answer his allegations with "facts," by extensively quoting from the same site that is used as a reference in the article itself.I fail to see so far how anything I have done violates Wikipedia policy ChrisStansfield 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I worded my response too harshly - I don't think you have violated Wikipedia policy, and Muckrakerius certainly has. Moreover, I think you clearly won the debate on the talk page about whether the movie had been scheduled to come out sooner originally, and I say go ahead and add that fact (properly cited) to the talk page; if he reverts it, that's an entirely new issue. In the meantime, his accusations about your so-called "agenda" are so transparently false that I don't think they're doing any harm. It looks to me like a classic case of "don't feed the trolls".
Of course, if you feel that this *is* doing you some harm, you might want to report it to the Admin Noticeboard. Over here, all we can do it reason with people, and I'm not sure how much good that's going to do in Muckrakerus' case.
Finally, it wasn't apparent to me that your initial question was an attempt to find relevant information to add to the entry itself; it became apparent later on, of course, but it initially appeared to me that you were treating the talk page as a messageboard. In the future, you might do well to be quite explicit about your intentions in asking such questions, so that the slower editors know what's going on. Sarcasticidealist 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think it would be perfectly in order to delete Muckrakerius' comments from your talk page, if you don't want them there. Sarcasticidealist 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you SarcasticOne. I agree to try to be more patient. It is my belief that this User is employed by Lionsgate films to promote the film 3:10 to YUMA and his trolling was designed to negatively affect Shoot 'Em Up. That said I promise to behave nicer to the trolls in the future.Muckrakerius 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
If you believe that this user is in conflict-of-interest, you can report him to WP:COIN, but you'd better have some evidence beyond that fact that he has said nasty things about a movie that happens to look awful. Sarcasticidealist 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for you help, Sarcastic- I appreciate your reason and logic in responding to this, as well as your willingness to accept my good faith. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is over- at the moment, I doubt any harm will come to me, though if I find in the future that I'm being sued by a movie studio, I'll have an idea why and may call upon your help. ;) I will try to take your semantic advice, meanwhile, about talk pages. (I enjoyed the wry comments, too.) ChrisStansfield 22:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

New issue regarding conflict with User:Muckrakerius

Resolved.

I know I said that my issue was resolved, and I truly hoped it was. However, yesterday someone named "Don Murphy" tried to add me as a friend on Myspace. I responded by asking him if I knew him, and this was the answer I received: "I was referred to you by email as someone hired to attack my film on line. I ask you to stop and reveal your employers."

Since it was only recently that I dealt with this here, I had an idea what film he was talking about, but I did not recognize his name, so of course, I checked him out on Wikipedia.

This was my response, verbatim: "Oh, for Christ's sake. Nobody has "hired me to attack your film online." For that matter, I never attacked your film online. I said in parentheses in one sentence that I thought it was silly. If Roger Ebert or Leonard Maltin says the same, are you going to accuse them of being hired shills?

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that, "rather than being told by email" etc, etc, that you are actually the gentleman on Wilkipedia who first accused me of being a troll, despite the obvious evidence that a hired troll doesn't spend two years editing articles on Popeye and reality show performers in advance to "set up an identity."

I am not employed by anyone to attack your film, and I genuinely hope you make as much money from it as you can. Lord knows, if I were being paid by a major studio for such nefarious purposes, I'd live in a nicer apartment than I do. Best wishes, Chris"

Here's the thing- I don't know if this guy really is the producer of the film or not, or why he would be worried about one guy on wikipedia who thought his film was silly. But should I be contacting a lawyer, or what? ChrisStansfield 04:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is weird as you got all legal last time this came up and as you know Wikipedia does not take kindly to legal threats. You seem to have stopped your organized campaign against the film. Perhaps since you were exposed you stopped and didn't get paid. I don't know. I am not sure why you are asking for Myspace advice on Wikipedia though. Muckrakerius 04:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we really can't deal with off-wiki issues (and this sort of thing is, unfortunately, a hazard of editing Wikipedia under your real name). Unfortunately, I think you have no choice by to ignore that kind of nonsense until it actually becomes actionable harassment, which I don't think is for quite a while (although I'm not a real lawyer, only a wikilawyer).
I have sympathy for your position here, insofar as Muckrakerius is clearly trolling and is taking the trolling off-wiki, but I sincerely don't think there's anything we can do about that. Sarcasticidealist 07:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I have never posted any kind of responses to my recollection here so I hope it is ok for me to comment here. If it is inappropriate, please do not hesitate to remove and advice me on my talk page that only a selected group of editors respond here. Anyways, file a formal complaint with the headers and identifying information to My Space. I have never been to this site but it has been on the news a lot and from what they say on the news is they have gotten very strict about the site and the postings there. Also a complaint to the person's IP with the offending information might also aide you. Just a suggestion, but sometime this approach does work. Good luck to you, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has in the past indef-blocked users for off-wiki violations of WP:HARASS when the off-wiki behavior can be definitively linked to the on-wiki account. But if it's a single polite (if trolling) Myspace email, and there haven't been any more after a response asking the harassment to stop, that's not quite to levels requiring intervention. THF 13:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I know about that- I wasn't being clear, I guess. I don't want a lawyer to go after THEM- they're just a nuisance and I'm a big boy. I'm just wondering whether I need someone to defend myself if this really is a concerted attempt by the movie studio. Also, I should note that once again, on this page, Muckrakerius has resorted to doing the exact things he promised he would refrain from....if this goes on, which dispute page is the next step? ChrisStansfield 13:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "defend yourself" from "a concerted attempt by the movie studio." If this is really Don Murphy, it's just a single paranoid producer, who should better recognize the potential for disastrous publicity from threatening someone who disliked his movie if Murphy's accusation is wrong. I've asked Muck to be civil on his talk page. If Muck persists in on-Wiki personal attacks (or provable off-Wiki harassment), I'd raise with User:Sandahl, who unblocked Muck upon Muck's promise of good faith. If Muck continues to edit Shoot 'em Up tendentiously, let me know on my talk page. (Separately: leave messages for users on their talk pages, not on their user pages.) THF 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, like I said, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not really all that familiar with the movie business. That said
  • I suspect that Myspace isn't studios' preferred method for threatening legal action.
  • Probably, if somebody randomly informs a studio that somebody else has been hired by a rival studio to bring their pictures down, the informed studio would demand, at the very least, a scintilla of evidence that this is the case before it confronted anybody about it.
  • Even if, for some reason, this studio *is* contacting you via Myspace and is considering taking legal action against you (which I think is unlikely to the point of absurdity), the burden would be on them to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that you committed some kind of tort against them. Since there is no evidence to this effect at all, you're probably fine.
I think it's pretty clear that you're just dealing with a troll who derives pleasure from making outlandish accusations of conflict of interest against other users. And, as you said, such a troll is just a nuisance. I think you're okay. Sarcasticidealist 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, both THF and Sarcastic. Yes, you're probably right that Myspace harrassment isn't the first method studios would use (though I would counter that by saying I'd never have thought companies would edit Wikipedia in order to make a point, and clearly I was wrong. ;) ) I guess this whole thing has made me a bit paranoid, especially since I found the producer's message on my myspace after a very long day. That said, i have responded to Don (whom I believe is the genuine producer), and upon pointing out everything that has gone on, Don has apologized to me and has stated that he does not, in fact, believe me to be a "hired gun." If anyone ELSE still has doubts, he's welcome to ask for the transcript of Don's last response to me. :) ChrisStansfield 14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, if "Don Murphy" is behaving non-trollishly, perhaps he *is* the genuine article. Stranger things have happened, and I have been wrong before. Anyway, I'm marking this as resolved. Sarcasticidealist 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Cydevil38's disruptive editing in Wandu Mountain City

Stuck. Referred to WP:RFC/HIST per WP:NCGN to resolve content dispute, now that editors have cooled down. --Darkwind (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This user wants to delete Pinyin romanizition of 丸都 (i.e., Wandu in Pinyin) and leaves only Hwando (Korean romanization) in the article Goguryeo. Then he falsely and repetitively claims that Hwando is a historical name while Wandu is a present-day name, so that he can use the historical name only (Note: this claim about using historical name only in an article is also from nowhere, but it is not my concern here). Unlike his untrue claim, Wandu and Hwando are merely different romanizations of the same historical entity. Cydevil38 is an amateurish wikieditor who is incapable of reading canonical history records like Samguk Sagi and he always fails to quote any original history record or original wikipolicy contents (At least I have never seen his original quotes even upon requests). What he presents is his original research which is improper to be put into wikipedia. Here I am requesting an alert to monitor his behavior in editing the article Wandu Mountain City.--Jiejunkong 02:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind you, Jiejunkong (t c), that your own comments here are treading perilously close to violating NPA. To stay on the right side of that line, try not to use adjective terms in describing your fellow editors, most especially not those which can be considered pejorative - "amateurish" and "incapable of reading" are uncivil and could be considered by some to be an attack. Please remember WP:COOL before making any additional posts. --Darkwind (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I have known Cydevil38 for a long time and wrongfully assumed that an administrator is in the same situation. It is my bad and I apologize for the tone. But let's get to the technical part, I will post related evidence in the talk page Talk:Wandu Mountain City. It is my remark that Cydevil38 will post many google search results (which can be done in 1 second by typing a search term), and he will disappear when I ask him to present original quotes of related history records.--Jiejunkong 02:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
There was already a RFCU[279] on this kind of behavior, but it seems he's not interested in improving his user conduct. Cydevil38 02:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The RFCU was also about my attitude towards you, nothing is new this time.--Jiejunkong 03:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wandu Mountain City" is an English word designated for the UNESCO World Heritage Site. This site is based on the ruins of Hwando fortress, a historic city that served as the capital of the ancient kingdom of Goguryeo. With regards to Hwando, I have repeatedly given Jeijunkong the necessary evidence that it is the most common romanization used in reliable English publications. Cydevil38 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In order to encourage a neutral opinion from everyone who chimes in, it would help if you'd link those reliable publications here for us to see. --Darkwind (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Here you go. Hwando[280], Wandu[281]. Cydevil38 02:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jiejunkong on one point here, which is that you did indeed do exactly what he expected - you posted links to google search results as "evidence". A link to a google book search is not a source. A source would be a reliable scholarly publication (or something similar) that discusses the use of the two romanizations and provides its own evidence as to which is more accepted. Just seeing that your particular search lists more books under Hwando+AND+Koguryo than under Wandu+AND+Koguryo proves nothing --- in fact, using that comparison to draw the conclusion that Hwando is thus more accepted is fairly close to OR. A Wikipedia editor is not supposed to draw conclusions themselves (see WP:OR again), they're supposed to cite conclusions already published in a reliable source.
Based on what you've posted here, I see no reason for removal of Wandu as an alternate romanization of Hwando. Even if a reputable source says that Hwando is more common or more accepted doesn't mean that Wandu should be removed from the article if it's a valid Pinyin romanization of the same Chinese name. However, I don't have the time to dig through the various article histories to find out if you've even strenuously made that claim. (hence my next outdent comment) --Darkwind (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer such a study that specifically covers the subject of which romanizations to use for Hwando, or Goguryeo for that matter, but I'm not aware of any such works. And since there was no set guidelines for resolving disputes on romanizations, I tried using the ones recommended by WP:NCGN. I know WP:NCGN isn't a perfect fit for this dispute, but I thought it provided the means to prove which word is more appropriate for an English encyclopedia. Even the application of WP:NCGN is limited, because Hwando is rarely mentioned in reliable English publications, such as lacking entries in the three major encyclopedias(though there is an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica Korean edition and other Korean encyclopedias). Anyways, I hope to continue the discussion with you at Wikipedia_talk:Translation[282], which I believe is a more appropriate venue for this debate. Cydevil38 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I agree, this isn't the place to continue discussion on the content dispute at hand. I myself really have no interest whatsoever in the outcome of the content dispute itself, I'm just trying to get you and Jiejunkong to see eye-to-eye, as it were, so that you can come to a consensus on this issue. Please see my next outdent comment for a suggestion as to your (collective) next steps. --Darkwind (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Cydevil38 stopped editing Wandu Mountain City (both the article and the talk page), but then he could have created a POV fork Hwando (fortress) to bypass the problem. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress) for details.--Jiejunkong 06:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, can you please post links to diffs where Cydevil38 either removed the Pinyin Wandu or posted a comment suggesting its removal? I haven't the time to find it in the talk pages or the articles' history. --Darkwind (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The romanization name was written as Wandu by User:WangKon936.
  1. Cydevil38's 1st unilateral change.
  2. Cydevil38's 2nd unilateral change. Note that this is a blind revert. He changed my wikification of Gwanggaeto Stele, which has nothing to do with the argument. The wikification is a collateral damage.
  3. Cydevil38's 3rd unilateral change. This time the Gwanggaeto Stele is spared.
  4. Cydevil38's 4th change.
Now User:Odst and User:Wikimachine, who have exchanged many personal messages with User:Cydevil38 in the wikipedia, showed up in the talk page and left some random improper messages (see [283],[284]). Also they continue to do Cydevil38's reverting before consensus can be made ([285],[286], [287]).--Jiejunkong 05:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, and you were going so well. This alert has been declared stuck and referred to a more appropriate forum. There seems to be no reason for that to change.
  • Neither of the comments you mention are "improper" or "random". The first expresses some irritation, but not exceptionally so in the page. You brought up this alert. You should expect people to notice it and join in. That is not random or improper.
  • In the same way: it is not accurate or helpful to refer to "Cydevil38's reverting" when it is other people who are engaged; these are other editors who have a similar point of view. Do not belittle their participation. They are welcome to join in.
  • For everyone involved, we continue to urge patience and calm. There is a very apt talk box at the top of the page urging a cool head. This is good advice for you all.
  • There are claims being made by various editors about what "default" position should be allowed to stand in the absence of consensus. There is no such rule. You are all going to have to work for consensus, and stop panicking if your preferred final resolution happens not to be one in place right now. If a protection has to be applied, it is going to be more or less random which version is the one at the time. It will get sorted out eventually, and in the meantime please keep cool.
This latest addition to the alert was made after the alert was declared stuck, and gives no cause to change that status. Please relax, and deal with the content dispute calmly and constructively, with recognition that there will be other voices contributing. In the meantime, there's no default basis for declaring which version should stand while you work towards consensus. That is what the content discussions will address. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
(1)As to the "other" users, User:Wikimachine and User:Odst are not strangers to User:Cydevil38. You may take a look at the three users's talk page and see what's going on there. The relaying pattern of meat puppet is also a little baffling to me.--Jiejunkong 07:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
(2)For putting {{RFChist}} on articles, there is a technical difficulty. Chinese characters are in many wikipedia pages. Currently the romanization of the characters in these pages mostly has the problem being discussed. The problem is there, but it doesn't cause trouble when the contents are not disputed, but it does cause trouble when any disputation happens. If we vote on every Chinese character that causes disputation, then the problem will persist for a quite long time. 丸都 is only one of the case, 國內城 may be the next, and there are hundreds of the cases in the queue.--Jiejunkong 08:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The RFC can serve as an excellent place to begin to form consensus on what standard of romanization to use for names that are written in Chinese characters but pertain to Korean history. As an alternate suggestion, perhaps you could open a discussion on the project discussion pages for WikiProject Korea and/or WikiProject China, as those users are likely to be the most interested in the matter and most familiar with the languages involved. Nobody says you have to open an RFC for each individual name, just form a consensus on the standard to use. As it is, this has definitely gone beyond the scope of a WQA, and I suggest that further discussion be taken to an alternate forum as previously suggested. --Darkwind (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Once I finish the reliable source collections in Talk:Wandu Mountain City, I will put the evidence and proposal to the RFC site and on the project discussion pages for WikiProject Korea and/or WikiProject China. This will probabily cost the incoming weekend before the collections are done. Thanks for the good advice.--Jiejunkong 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's the first diff[288]. I considered it a minor spelling fix, because the Goguryeo article, as any other Goguryeo articles in other encyclopedias, consistently used the Korean romanization for historic Goguryeo entities. I didn't expect someone to make such a big deal about it. Cydevil38 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that you both have cooled down and are willing to discuss the content dispute itself CIVILly, I'd suggest that you take the content dispute to RFC/HIST, following the suggestion in WP:NCGN for dispute resolutions, as that's much more likely to attract editors interested in the subject at hand. You'll be able to get a reliable community consensus on which romanization to use in general. I'm marking this WQA as "stuck-referred to another forum." --Darkwind (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Translation#Romanization_of_Chinese_characters a few days ago. I put it under the "Translation" section because this problem is completely about Chinese characters. In other words, if there is no Chinese character, then this problem is gone. WP:RFC/HIST could be another choice. But since modern Korean kids typically cannot read Chinese, they don't respect Korean canonical records like Samguk Sagi (which was written in classical Chinese). This causes more trouble.--Jiejunkong 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John Uncivil comments

Resolved. --Darkwind (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John has been posting in numerous places that I'm a WP:SPA, telling people I'm a "troll" and other generally derogatory remarks. It is possibly set off by my previous Wikiquette alert (above). I make a second report so I can inform User:Prester John that I have made a report.

I haven't discussed who is right or wrong regarding content. I just want the incivility to stop. Some recent examples in the last day or so are the comment on my previous report above [289] a publicly viewable similar remark within a false 3RR report [290] spreading the same allegation about WP:SPA, and another unnecessary remark on an article I had just completed -> at Talk:Lyall_Howard. If he really thinks I'm a WP:SPA, then he should take the issue up in the appropriate channels, but not spread it all over the place. It's even appears again on his user page: [291]. Thanks, Lester2 06:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and terms like "troll" should be avoided. But I note:
  • You have been blocked three times in three weeks for edit-warring. WP:3RR is not a upper bound for edit-warring to be gamed, and an admin could have legitimately blocked you for continued edit-warring after previous blocks even without the technical violation of four reversions, so the report was not illegitimate, though not as persuasive as it could have been.
  • A single reversion is an appropriate way to deal with a content dispute, so the deletion of material you added does not violate Wikiquette. See WP:BRD. There was already an RFC, and your use of WP:WQA to discuss the same content issues violated WP:MULTI, and your complaint that Prester John repeated allegations against you "all over the place" when you brought a content dispute here violated WP:KETTLE.
  • "SPA" is perhaps an overaggressive characterization, but over half of your edits including all of the recent mainspace ones are to the John Howard page, so it is not an unfair comment on edits, rather than editors, and thus not a violation of NPA. Over 90% of your edits in the last six weeks are John Howard-related.
  • An editor is entitled to maintain an evidence page in userspace in preparation for "taking the issue up in the appropriate channels."
My conclusion: (1) Prester John was uncivil in calling you a troll instead of assuming good faith, since some of your edits have been productive, but his substantive comments about your edits and procedural actions on this page and in the links you provided are reasonable, and he has been taking the issue up in the appropriate channels; (2) Pete has been remarkably resilient in addressing your concerns in the above WQA report; and (3) you yourself are skating on thin ice by acting disruptively, and should do more to demonstrate good faith. WP:AGF is a presumption that can be rebutted by repeated bad conduct, though editors should, as Pete has done, continue to adhere to WP:CIVIL when editors misbehave. I take no position on the John Howard content dispute, which I have not investigated; these comments are purely procedural. THF 08:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, THF. I will read the above links you posted. Lester2 09:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Shooter (2007 film)

Resolved.

User: Bob Lee Swagger 2u has been adding sections pushing an extremely not-nuetral point of view, despite him being asked to stop by both users and admins. He's recently also decided that it's a conspiracy being forced against democrats, and threatened me here link title. DurinsBane87 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, he just got blocked. Thank you for your time. DurinsBane87 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the block was only for a week, I left a {{uw-npa3}} at the bottom of his talk page anyway, in case he tries to resume that sort of behavior after the block expires. If it resumes, I'd suggest taking it straight to WP:AN/I where an admin is more likely to see it immediately (this page is run by volunteer editors). --Darkwind (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Soxrock's alleged disruptive editing pattern

Stale.

Note: This issue was archived without any attempt at resolution. I have restored it back here with hope that someone will try to come to a consensus on this issue. Thanks, Caknuck 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite pleas from several editors, User:Soxrock persists using a highly disruptive method of editing articles that, while technically not against any specific policy, is disruptive and detrimental to the database as a whole. Specifically, the editor in question has been making rather minor changes to articles (typically dealing with sports statistics) as a series of several dozen tiny edits instead of one or two large edits. Several editors, including myself, have urged Soxrock to stop this primarily through the use of the "Show preview" button. We have explained that his editing style has major negative impacts on the project's servers: the server load and bandwidth required to update the pages for every single edit he submits, the clogging up of edit summaries and the wasted extra storage space required for the thousands of intermediate pages he leaves in his wake. None of this has dissuaded him from this pattern.

For specific examples of this behavior, please see the following diffs:

  1. [292] — List of managers for the Cincinnati Reds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), 218 consecutive edits over the course of 27 1/2 hours.
  2. [293] — 2007 Tampa Bay Storm season (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), 47 consecutive edits over the course of 14 hours.
  3. [294] — 1961 American Football League Draft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), 250 edits (plus 5 edits from another editor who was trying to demonstrate how to accomplish the same amount of work with only a handful of edits) over the course of two days.

These are only the most egregious examples from the past week.

When confronted about this disruptive behavior, Soxrock has been alternatingly duplicitous — by saying he will change his ways (see here and here)— and indignant (as with here).

For some reason, this only seems to be problem that has surfaced in the last two months. Per my comments here, I think that Soxrock has a bad case of editcountitis. (See here for Soxrock's edit count and edit summary usage.) What we need to impress upon him is that in the long run, he is doing more harm than good as far as the project goes.

Thanks, Caknuck 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

His main purpose for doing this, as Soxrock himself has admitted, is to avoid edit conflicts. But in reality, he makes these series' of edits on articles in which he is the only editor, if not one of the very few editors, who edits that article, reducing the risk of any edit conflict arising dramatically. --Ksy92003(talk) 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe his main purpose of doing this is to drive up his edit count. I questioned his editing techniques before, here: User_talk:Soxrock#Small_Edits_on_ATH_Stats. Just looking at his contributions, I see that the situation hasn't gotten any better. The last 37 edits (all on June 25th) of this article 1999-2000_NHL_season are his, including an astounding 29 edits in 17 minutes. Bjewiki 12:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(←)I think the reason no-one responded when you posted this previously is that it does not seem to be an issue of civility or editing disputes. Now all the information is almost a month old, so it does not seem like a situation needing immediate attention. Considering that Wikipedia has millions of articles and something like 75,000 editors, plus high-speed editing bots doing maintenance and cleanup, I don't think his edit count is significantly burdening the servers.

What is it that's bothering you about this? Is he violating WP:CIVIL and causing trouble to you personally, or to another editor in particular? Is he inserting material in the articles that does not conform to WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS, or WP:NPOV? If any of that is happening, please provide some specific examples so we can take a look.

But if he's just editing fast, why is that bad? Think about how many edits bots make every day, where they add things like tag dates and other minor corrections to templatges. Those must create many times more pages than the editor you are reporting. If you think I'm wrong about that, you could post a request at the Village Pump (Technical) and I'm sure you'd get a quick reply to the tech question. If his edits are vandalism, that's different and would be an important issue. If so, we can refer you to where to report that.

Also, I reviewed his talk page and he seems to have productive and civil editing relationships. Please clarify what you're looking for here. I don't mean to make light of your report, I just don't understand why you see this as a problem. Thanks. --Parzival418 Hello 07:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't even get this all. LaleenaTalk to me Contributions to Wikipedia 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I can metaphorize it (Yes, that is a real word. I just typed it, didn't I?). In recreational car racing, there are those with little money that "win" because of large amounts of skill, skill that is gathered by long practice. They love to drive just to drive, and there is no better feeling than to continue improving. Then, there are those that just want to drive faster than everyone else, and have more disposable income. Those that win due to a large amount of money spent upgrading their car instead of practicing their art are often very irksome to those who drive for the love of driving, rather than the love of winning, as it cheapens a beautiful thing. Or, as I should have put it, it's like using a gameshark or a code to get lots of gold or the ultimate weapon at the beginning of the game. Cheap. Yeah, it kinda bothers me too, but no, I don't think he's hurting anything other then our sensibilities. Surrogate Spook 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you; it may be annoying to some, but it's not a policy violation and unless someone posts a clear problem statement here in the next day or so, I'm going to archive this alert. --Parsifal Hello 22:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[the below paragraph was moved from the top of this section, where it had been placed out of chronological sequence. Therefore where VisitorTalk wrote "below" in this comment, please consider it refers in this case to "above" --Parsifal Hello 22:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]

The complaint below implies that making a series of small edits to the same article, over a short period of time, places an unreasonably great technical load on Wikipedia when compared with batching the edits into a single edit. In addition, the complaint implies that making a series of small changes, rather than a single edit combining those changes, is disruptive to the community. In addition, the complaint implies that it is inappropriate for an editor to reach a high edit count through these small-edit techniques. As a new editor, I would like to see the documentation of these alleged policy issues. VisitorTalk 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello VisitorTalk. The key word in in your comment here is "implies". While there are implications here, there really is no significant problem that I've been able to find. If you read my response above, (it starts at the ← symbol), that will give you a good summary. In my comment I provided several links that begin with the letters WP. Those are links to the policy issues you are asking about. In addition, here is an article that explains that the server load is not a problem: Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance.
As I mentioned above, it's possible for someone to use an editing method that is "annoying" to some other users, but that is not the same thing as "disruptive." Disruptive editing has a particular meaning, and from what I saw in reviewing this situation, it does not apply here. Others may disagree with me about that, but no-one has said that, so I assume there is no ongoing problem here.
I suggest that as a new editor, you read the basic policies and then focus first on editing articles before getting involved in dispute resolution pages like this one, unless you find yourself in a troubling situation and need help. Here is a good place to start to get a full overview of the Wikipedia policies, guidelines and help systems: WP:WELCOME. --Parsifal Hello 22:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the links and clarifications, Parsifal. VisitorTalk 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Tezza1 disruptive editing pattern

Stale.

User:Tezza1 persists using disruptive editing Railpage Australia. The user is strongly anti the subject of the article, has openly stated he does not believe the article should exist and campaigned for its deletion in an AfD. The AfD decision having been keep, the user engaged in disruptive editing to devalue the content by adding unencyclopedic content, and "warning" that the article could be nominated for deletion again for containing unencyclopedic content. Further actions include repeatedly adding and restoring unencyclopedic content, demands not to remove unencyclopedic content, accusations of COI for anybody adding new information to the article, threats to invoke WP:3RR for users removing unencyclopedic content he has added, unilateral reverts of collaborative edits to a non-consensus version, agenda pushing, WP:POINT and listing an article for speedy deletion immediately after it was unprotected. The Null Device 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Null. I am looking over the edit history and am responding to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1. I see clear evidence of numerous policy violations by this user, as well as possible sockpuppetry. I believe that, for the most part, you and the other editors in that article have remained civil and have kept the discussion on topic, and for that you should be commended. I did leave a note in the Talk page against one set of comments that stepped over the line with respect to WP:NPA, but otherwise, I agree with your assertion about Tezza1's disruptive patterns.
If the RFC/U against Tezza1 fails to resolve the conflict, your next step may be to take this to Arbitration. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it sounds like you all have taken reasonable steps to resolve this issue already, and they haven't worked thus far.
Good luck, and let me know if I may be of any further assistance. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, It's a content dispute about a commercially owned site passing itself off as something else.I've only said it should be encyclopedic. As it stands parts of the article could be considered as spam WP:SPAM. As for the user The Null Device, he is only a recent participant (from 23rd July) in editing this article [295], no doubt because I submitted the article for independent Peer Review on the 19th July as his flood of edits occurred after 23rd of July which I consider was a blocking strategy. My complaints about this users editing "flood" and report to the COI noticeboard, probably explains why he posted his complaint here. This user has yet to follow the first three steps of the dispute resolution guidelines [296]Tezza1 13:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll attempt to respond to this point by point:
  1. There is a longer history between you and other editors on that page than has involved Null Device - this is true. However, it appears that Null Device is simply continuing the dispute resolution process against you that was taken up by previous editors - therefore, he is not required to go through other methods first. Plus, WQA is actually listed as one of the first dispute resolution methods anyway, so I need to ask, what's the problem with what he's doing?
  2. COI is a serious allegation - almost as serious as harassment and libel. As such, you need to have significant proof that a person is in a conflict-of-interest situation when you go to report them to the COI noticeboard. Given what I was able to see in the situation, you've leveled this accusation against quite a few people in the Railpage article, and that seriously detracts from our ability to assume that you're editing in good faith.
  3. As has been pointed out multiple times, whether a site is owned by a commercial company has no bearing on the site's own profitability status. Non-profit organizations are very frequently owned and overseen by commercial companies, but that does not automatically make them for-profit, commercial organizations. I don't know the specifics about Railpage Australia, so I can't speak to this particular situation from a content standpoint.
  4. It appears that there is a strong consensus among other WP editors there, and you appear to be consistently rejecting that consensus, resorting to WP:NPA and accusations of WP:COI in an attempt to discredit those editors. I would strongly advise that you stop going along that route.
I hope this helps clarify the situation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The Null Device has been a participant since March, not 23 July.[297][298] The article is not considered WP:SPAM as it has been nominated for {{db-spam}} on several occasions (including by Tezza1[299]) and this was rejected by administrators. His actions display many of the characteristics of problem editors. The COI accusation against the regular editors of a page he actively campaigned to get deleted is bordering on harassment. This seems like a campaign to discredit not just the regular editors but anybody who doesn't agree with him, including Wikipedia itself. He did not take the RFC seriously, described the dispute process as "BS"[300] and did not accept the offer of mediation. Thin Arthur 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I have to repeat yet again that the so-called "flood" of edits were collectively a series of collaborative bold edits taking into the account the collective opinions expressed in the then most recent AfD debate and on the talk page. Tezza1 then unilaterally reverted these reliably sourced changes. To quote WP:TE, "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption."[301] That is the basis of this WQA. The Null Device 08:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment In response to KieferSkunk coments.

  1. Maybe someone can jump into recent discussion and lead the dispute resolution process. I'm not an Wikipedia expert in this, but one administrator has said this was premature and other had the The Null Device withdraw [302][303].
  2. Yes COI is a serious allegation, but recent edits and discussion about technical details is more than a passing interest in the article. It's more than "the average man in the street would know" or be of interest to.[304][305]
  3. True, many commercial organizations have "non profit" ventures. But the difference here is that it is usually the norm to set up an separate transparent structure such as a trust and register for non profit status under Federal and State Government laws. Railpage seems intertwined with its owner [306]. An example of a commercial organisation setting up a non-profit venture is Ronald McDonald Charities [307] - interesting to note they have an "written like an advertisement" tag in their article (03 Aug). I have asked other users to provide evidence for Railpage "non commercial status" [308]. To this date they have not. Asking for "donations" by a commercial organization like Railpage Australia [309] , is technically a "voluntary payment for service". There is no transparent disclosure process where the donated money actually goes, and any "donations" would be classified as income generated by Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd [310] and subject to tax. I have even tried to compromise, stating "Commercial - Yes, Free membership, Voluntary payment for service"[311]. ALL this discussion, just for ONE box [[312]]in the top right hand corner of the article!!!!
  4. I consider the number of active "contributors" in the Railpage article could be counted on one hand.

Tezza1 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot respond directly to point #3, as it involves more detailed information about Railpage Australia than I have handy. But I'll respond to the Wikiquette issues:
2: There is a difference between being well-informed and having a conflict of interest. Let me give you another example: I am heavily involved in WikiProject Video games, and I have made a lot of edits of a highly technical nature to many of the game articles within that project. I have what you can call much more than a "passing interest" and "street-level knowledge" about many of those games and the machines they run on. However, that does not automatically mean I have a Conflict of Interest in those articles, as I do not work for any of the companies that made those games (I did work as a tester on Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge, so there's POSSIBLY a remote COI there, but not within the scope of WP's policies), and furthermore I have no vested interest in publishing any specialized content that only I would know about.
The editors you've accused of COI on the Talk page have all had reasonable explanations about their involvement with Railpage - namely, they are members on the Railpage forums and/or they've volunteered some of their time with the organization; they found technical details straight from the Railpage site itself or from other publicly accessible sources (in other words, the information they put up was NOT insider info); and they have made it clear that they are not intimately involved with the organization's inner workings.
4: The number of currently active contributors to the article does not have any direct bearing on the state of consensus. Looking through the history of the Railpage Australia article and related articles, I've seen more than a dozen different people contribute, and it appeared until fairly recently that they had reached a consensus on much of the article content there. Now, just because a consensus exists doesn't mean it can't be changed - WP:CON is very clear on this point. But when a consensus exists, the onus is on you to change it through meaningful, fair and balanced discussion, and what I've observed from you, Tezza1, is a tendency to simply reject the consensus and attempt to discredit the other editors, rather than to discuss the matter in a civil and fact-based manner. In effect, you have put yourself in a possible position of Conflict of Interest, but more to the point, you have made it difficult for discussion to take place there.
Again, I hope this clarifies the situation somewhat. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You were willing to comment on "commerciality" before, so why can't you make a comment now? Yes, you are correct, that I reject the "consensus" on the main point (commercial) even though I disagree strongly with some elements (not all!!) of the article, If you look at the recent history I have refrained from editing content in the actual article. The purpose of the discussion page is the discuss and debate!!!! Arguments against the consensus should be allowed even if people don't agree with a POV. As long as its non defamatory, and backed up by creditable online references, it should be allowed. Even the editing war back in March 2007 was about an incident was supported by documentary evidence (newspapers and the Railpage Forum itself), I did not originally post that information on Wikipedia, but I supported and argued its inclusion. Look at my comments on the discussion page, have I not put references and links to support my arguments?. On a closing note, to use a legalistic term, I have stepped out of the "arena" in the Railpage article, KieferSkunk, based on some comments made, you unintentionally seem to be descending into it.Tezza1 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing commerciality from a general standpoint, and simply pointing out what other editors had already said in the article. However, I am not qualified to make a judgement about whether Railpage Australia IS commercial or not. That's the distinction. And I am purposefully limiting my comments to discussing the manner in which you pursued the discussion, not the content of the discussion itself. That's all I am attempting to do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This WQA has been sitting idle for a while. Anything more going on with it? Or should I mark it as stale? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has been very disruptive with a negative POV, does anybody have any idea's or further comments? Is WP:PROB too early at this stage?203.122.101.142 09:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than what's already pointed out above, can you cite any specific examples? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, there is an FAQ article on Railpage that states where the donations go to. Read it: http://www.railpage.com.au/faq-1.htm#80 Doctorjbeam 01:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving this comment on Tezza1's User talk page, as he may not be reading this WQA anymore. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:KieferSkunk He'd be better off reading this COI User:Doctorjbeam and taking note of it, given time I have a few more fish to fry, including one who spends most of his active day editing Wikipedia. Tezza1 13:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't see how other people's editing habits are any of your business or why it's your job to "fry" them. Thin Arthur 06:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Multiple disputes involving B9 hummingbird hovering

Stale. --Darkwind (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering has been warned numerous times over the past several months by multiple editors about WP:OR, WP:V, and personal attacks, but continues to have frequent conflict, often inserting the same contested material on multiple articles. I am requesting some independent opinion on this matter.

Here is a current example of conflict-oriented editing on Mantra involving a content dispute over a book by Bucknell & Stuart-Fox (1986):

  • 2 August (5:02) User:B9 hummingbird hovering inserts the Bucknell et. al. book into the References section, but it is not used in any footnote or otherwise mentioned: [313]
  • 2 August (5:04) Since WP:LAYOUT calls for the References section to contain only works cited in Notes, I remove the uncited book: [314]
  • 2 August (9:27): Book is reinserted, this time with a quote: [315]
  • 2 August (12:56) User:IPSOS removes the quote as irrelevant to the article: [316]
  • 2 August (13:23) Book is reinserted: [317]
  • 2 August (15:44): User:GourangaUK reverts insertion as inappropriate and requests discussion on talk page: [318]
  • 3 August (1:51): Book is reinserted: [319]
  • 4 August (04:50): I remove the materia as irrelevant and note that it is being inserted on multiple articlesl: [320]
  • 4 August (13:18) Book is reinserted, with personal attack on me: [321]
  • 4 August (13:55) User:IPSOS removes the content as irrelevant, noting lack of consensus: [322]
  • 4 August (14:15) Material is reinserted: [323]
  • 4 August (22:51) I remove it, categorizing it as content spam: [324]

Regarding the book involved in that conflict, B9 hummingbird hovering is inserting Bucknell et al. on mulitple articles, many with the same pattern of insertion of the book with no quotation or other citation that would justify placement in References (according to WP:LAYOUT). E.g.:

If you review the edit history for this user various other articles where similar conflict has taken place can be found. Any opinions on how to handle this situation? Buddhipriya 02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(I'm responding to this case after confirming with User:Buddhipriya that he'd still like assistance, despite the age of this alert.)
This case is what is known in technical circles as a "doozy". The user's edits all appear to be good faith edits, but there's no question that he is (or was at the time of this alert) ignoring consensus. He seems willing to discuss the issues but I tend to agree with User:IPSOS that most of his arguments don't make sense (and I don't mean that they're weak arguments - I mean they don't seem to mean anything at all). Moreover, his recent edits seem to be primarily violations of Orwell's second, third, and fifth rules.
As for how to handle it, he seems to be reluctant to accept the word of two editors, especially two editors who he sees as allied against him, as consensus. Making use of WP:RFC to get more people involved in specific cases would likely be useful, since this is, at its heart, a content dispute. The specific issues involving that book seem so to be stale, but if there are any specific issues going on now I'd be willing to try talking with him, as an outside party, to see if an understanding can be reached. Sarcasticidealist 21:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I hope you will clarify that by "he" in the above remarks you are referring to User:B9 hummingbird hovering and not to me. Since the posting of this report the editor has reduced their attacks, but has continued to press issues in ways that may involve failures of policy. I would appreciate it very much if you would dialog directly with the user to get their side of the story and provide an independent opinion on the policies of WP:OR, WP:V, and the need to avoid personal attacks. I also have found it difficult to understand what the editor is saying at times because the editor uses language in what is perhaps a metaphorical or poetic manner that I sometimes find simply incomprehensible. This has limited my ability to engage in direct dialog. I chose to use a Wikiquette alert rather than an RFC as a first step because I was wanting to begin with the least invasive method for getting independent opinion. Buddhipriya 21:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
My apologies - "he" indeed refers to User:B9 hummingbird hovering. I'd be happy to talk to him, but I'd first like some more recent examples of issues that he is pressing; from what I can tell, the one you cited initially, while it was certainly a problem when you cited it, seems to be largely resolved. At that time, I will also explain that, in article talk pages, clarity is perhaps to be valued over beauty. Sarcasticidealist 21:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Here is a fresh example of WP:OR: [333].
  • Here is a fresh addition of unsourced content which conflicts with the basic facts in the article: [334]. Buddhipriya 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I have left some comments on his talk page. Let's see what happens from here. Sarcasticidealist 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations that I am a troll and a stooge of ZanuPF for reverting inappropriate material on Robert Mugabe

Stale. --Darkwind (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted the following message to WP:AN:

There is persistent vandalism of Robert Mugabe. Since he is a living person, I presume the special care as pointed out in WP:BLP applies. In the last case of vandalism, User:Brian.gratwicke inserted the term "illegitimate" in the description of him as the president of Zimbabwe. I removed it, and, because he has been warned for his edits before, and has been on wikipedia for quite a while, I issued him with a "uw-vandalism4im" warning given the nature of the vandalism to a living person's article. He objected to this on my talk page, and I replied stating that if he wanted to claim that the election was rigged, he should be able to come up with the appropriate references. His reply was to accuse me of being a troll. I take this to be an extremely serious accusation as to my credibility without any supporting evidence, and certainly was not my motivation and never has been as one can see by my previous work on wikipedia. I would like to request some immediate action taken to deal with this problem. He is "demanding" that i withdraw the accusation of vandalism and has now repeated the accusation that I am a troll. He is attempting to escalate the matter, by alluding to an idea that I may be a ZANUPF stooge, which is clearly insulting and derogatory and without foundation,but I am refraining from replying.

The response from WP:AN so far has been disappointing in one crucial respect. First of all, I accept that I may have been inaccurate in describing the addition I removed as vandalism, though I still consider a case may be made for that (see my reply to the response to my original message). However, I am disappointed that the one administrator who has replied has not commented on the real issue that motivated me posting to WP:AN in the first place: that of the unfounded accusations that I am a troll and the allusion that I am a stooge of ZanuPF for merely reverting POV-pushing that was unverified and inappropriate (and could lead to further difficulties) on a wikipedia article about a living person. I find it difficult to retract and apologise for the mis-identification of vandalism if the accusation against me of being a troll and the allusion that I am a supporter of ZanuPF remains uncommented on and not dealt with. The original mis-identification should not, I think, be seen as some kind of free licence to respond in the way that Brian.gratwicke did. I would like some advice on what to do here. Finally, I am surprised at the apparent bias shown by the adminsitrator who replied to me with the following sentence: "Mugabe's last election was heavily criticized as unfair and he is seen as a dictator by a number of people around the world; the use of the word "illegitimate" is therefore valid" as it oversimplified the situation. My personal thoughts about Mugabe is that he is not someone I would like to see in charge of any country given his behaviour, but I do not feel that would justify such language or such simplistic conclusions in an encyclopaedia, which wikipedia aspires to remain.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a first. We have a wikiquette alert apparently as the second step after being dealt with at the Administrator's noticeboard!
It is only two hours since your latest response at the noticeboard. Relax. Give it a bit of time, and perhaps you may also cool off a bit yourself and put it all in perspective. I suggest you delete the material added to your talk page by User:Brian.gratwicke, recognize that you provoked this with an inappropriate accusation of vandalism, and let it go. You really only need to get fussed when incivility becomes an ongoing disruption. It is better not to go straight to administrator noticeboards and wikiquette alerts after one childish outburst. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL: User:Calton and User talk:THF and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Syring

Stale. --Darkwind (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Accuses me of "spinning" and then calls my argument "crap" after I politely asked him to explain what appeared to me to be a non sequitur and suggested "spin" was an uncivil way to characterize my good-faith concern about a WP:BLP1E violation. THF 05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And then Calton left this uncivil remark on my talk page. THF 05:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The same initial response has been posted to both users' talk pages. Responses should be made here! Thanks. --Darkwind (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It does look to me like Calton could use a good healthy dose of WP:AGF - his reply to the AfD discussion was not so much about the notability of the content, but more along the lines of "This was a bad-faith nomination". One of the WQA folks (I don't have time at the moment) should probably leave him a message reminding him of the policies and inviting him to this discussion so that we can more effectively mediate the dispute.
THF, I'd encourage you to remain civil in your responses to him, and for the time being to keep your distance for now, as it'll be all too easy for this to spiral out into a big shouting match between you two. I appreciate you bringing it here, though - it'll give us an opportunity to help mediate and redirect the energy back into the content issues.
As for the content: Keep in mind that the term "left-wing" (applied to the media) is somewhat of a loaded term among many - it's apparent that Calton doesn't like having media stories attributed to "left wing blogs" and such, since he sees it as political spin. (It's a common tactic in politics to try to reduce a story's notability by pointing out apparent or perceived biases in the story's sources - a logical extension of that is to imply that the story was made up by one party to hurt someone on the other, or that one side is putting undue weight on an issue.) While something like this may be true, content discussions should be kept as NPOV as well, if possible - in this case, I'd probably have said something more like "It was only reported via a handful of minor sources" or similar.
That said, I think your attempts to resolve the dispute have been good - just remember to keep your cool. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The "left-wing blog" remark reflected the fact that one of the Patrick Syring external links was to a left-wing blog. There was no pejorative intention behind the comment, it was purely descriptive. There perhaps exist better sources, but whoever created edited the article chose to use a left-wing blog. Of course, it doesn't matter how good the sources are under WP:BLP1E. Non-notability outside of a single scandal is non-notability. Thank you for your input, I hope that my conduct to date complied with WP:CIVIL. THF 00:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (corrected 07:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC))
Hi - I know this probably isn't the place to mention this, but I did want to clarify. I created the Patrick Syring article, but I didn't use any blogs as a source for this article. The only blog reference in the article was a link to a site that hosted the indictment - and this link was added by Pat1425! (Syring?) FWIW, I don't think there's any left-right angle to this story at all, unless it spawns a debate about hate crimes legislation. Popkultur 01:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind one of KieferSkunk (t c)'s remarks, which is that "left-wing blog" can be seen as a loaded term. While it is not, of itself, uncivil, many people see it as a POV term. Personally, I'd avoid using terms like "left-wing blog" in Wikipedia discussions. This may keep people who are offended by the term from blowing up at you. Just call it a "blog" - it doesn't matter if it's left-wing, right-wing, or pig-wing, a blog is usually not considered a reliable source anyway. --Darkwind (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fashion Icon

Resolved.

The Fashion Icon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Edit warring, bitching, accusations of trolling and personal attacks where no incident has taken place, constant deletion of critical comments from his/her usertalk page. User was notified here, rather brusquely since s/he has deleted all my comments on his/her talkpage for the last few days. Update: yup, it's been deleted!--Rambutan (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide any specific diffs? Melsaran (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. They are as follows (look at the edit and the summary): [335], [336], [337], [338], [339], this one particularly, [340], [341], [342], [343], [344] in response to [345], [346], [347], [348], [349], [350]. I can produce about 7 more if desired.--Rambutan (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not counting the last one, all diffs were on her own talk page. As I pointed out before, users are given a lot of freedom to do what they want in their own user space, and while these comments/reverts weren't exactly civil, it may be better just to leave the editor alone, forget about the whole thing and resume editing. It doesn't look like you two have a real dispute as long as you try to leave each other alone. Melsaran (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the deletions of critical comments are indicative of her disregard for the consequences of her actions on Wikipedia. Look through her contributions history - it's all very contraversial. And yet she's not stopped or discussed it civilly. It's poor Wikiquette, which is the purpose of this page?--Rambutan (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is poor Wikiquette, but I propose that you try to leave her alone for a while and resume editing, and when the problems continue, you report it here again. Alright? Melsaran (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Threats and Power abuse

Resolved.

On my talk page I asked User:Isotope23 why they would remove a valid link to a non spam non commercial site involving the person in the article Don Murphy. As you can see I politely asked for evidence and was threatened and told basically that they would do what ever they want. This is not appropriate. Muckrakerius 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor blocked as a sockpuppet of banned editor ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). If you need clarification, feel free to email me.--Isotope23 talk 18:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Attacks, incivility and aggressive behavior on Talk:Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event and associated pages

Stuck. Already being addressed at ANI. Don't tackle it in two forums at once. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A discussion has been ongoing between various editors (primarily User:Filll, User:Orangemarlin and User:ConfuciusOrnis), and myself, ostensibly about this article and its ongoing FA candidacy. This has repeatedly descended into incivility, personal attacks, and general aggression and hostility, in the course of which I've been accused variously of "mud slinging", displaying an "obnoxious attitude", being "unwilling to help" "unreasonable" "insulting" and "difficult", "flinging crap", "wasting our time", suggesting that the article is "crap" or "trash", and generally being treated to an uncalled for level of aggression, hostility, bullying, harassment, profanity, and general incivility. Some representative examples (not a complete list, and not in any order of severity) include: this , this, this, (especially) this, this, this, this , this, this, these, this, this, this, and this, and can be found in context on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, Talk:Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, and on the talk pages (or in associated page histories) of myself, User talk:Filll, User talk:Orangemarlin, and User talk:Firsfron. I don't understand how this has developed in this way or what exactly I've done to bring it upon myself, as I think all my edits have been constructive and any criticisms I may have raised where clearly directed against the article itself, not as ad homs. Their behaviour seems to me to be a violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc. Badgerpatrol 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well before you raised this alert, many of the statements you list had been simply removed. Some of the diffs you list are attempts by editors to talk with you about your concerns and explain their concerns in user space. Rather than try and talk with them you seem to have gone to the wikiquette alert and other processes a bit too quickly.
You should recognize other people trying to scale back, and/or talk to you. I can understand some of the frustration, on both sides here. But when lots of people are getting irritated with you, you need to think about how you can back off a bit yourself and try a different style. This alert is unnecessarily aggressive against Filll (talk · contribs) in particular, who has more than demonstrated a willingness to withdraw anything you found offensive and back off the whole thing. Actually, I think he might have had a point; but he's said he does not need the aggravation and would rather give up working on the article. In fact, this whole things seems to have resulted in you not wanting to continue with it, while having got into a fight that has made other people not want to continue either, if I read the matter right. Very unfortunate indeed.
I'm not saying you've got no point. I'm suggesting you might be able to put yourself in the other person's shoes a bit and see if you can't engage a little differently yourself. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed... Badgerpatrol has already brought this up at ANI. This WQA alert should be considered closed, and any further discussion should go over the existing and active discussion at ANI. The link takes you to the right section. Over and out. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between User:Groupthink and User:FrozenPurpleCube in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of government agencies in comics

Resolved. --Darkwind (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel User:FrozenPurpleCube is running roughshod over policy and engaging in ad hominem and baseless attacks against me instead of responding to my arguments about the subject under discussion. Groupthink 04:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that there is nothing here of any concern to Wikiquette, and that for the most part you are both engaging with admirable civility. You disagree on the substance, obviously, but there is no attack there. Or if the mild expressions of disagreement there are raised to the level of "attack", then you are just as guilty as FrozenPurpleCube; maybe even more so. At some point you will both have to accept that you represent two perspectives and neither one will persuade the other; so don't just continue indefinitely with that objective. Make a case for the benefit of a closing admin. Recognize that the other guy will do the same. Recognize that closing admins are smart enough not to worry too much about who has the last word.
But primarily, I think the way you have both managed the dispute without getting into personal attacks is quite praiseworthy. Well done. Please don't spoil that substantive engagement by trying to portray it as attacks. Assume good faith, and carry on. Best of luck... —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and fair enough. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones; this can be closed. Groupthink 05:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam reversing on Ilinden Uprising group of perpetrators

Stuck. Violation of WP:MULTI; there is already an RFC and a request for mediation noted on the talk page. --Darkwind (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I replaced the Ilinden Uprising blurb (less than 300 words), which was largely irrelevant to the topic, with a true encycopledic article (2000+ words), with well quoted sources, while paying attention to be neutral and objective, avoiding disputed issues, like the ethnicity of the participants.

Little did I know that the previous blurb was one of the long string of Bulgarian progapanda on the wikipedia, propagated by a well-connected group of people, who have been warring against me (alone) for days now, and completely deleting my article and replacing it with their own nationalistic blurb.

Now, I don't want any sort of recognition for myself, I only want wikipedia users to have the better article, but I cannot talk sense to these people, since they refuse to talk about anything, but unilaterally delete my content.

What can I do? Most of dispute resolutions on wikipedia involve voluntary involvement of all parties, which in this case is inapplicable.

Capricornis 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodness. There does seem to be quite a communication gap and content dispute on that article. However, there's already an RFC and a request for mediation noted on the article's talk page. Opening a WQA is hardly productive in this case, as it's quite redundant. If there's any wikiquette reminders needed to any of the parties involved, I'm quite sure they'll be issued as appropriate by the volunteers and/or admins involved in the other forums you've already brought this to. Marking stuck. --Darkwind (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Children of the Century

Stale.

Looking at a pretty nasty exchange currently happening between User:Dohanlon and User:Reginmund. Originally started as a question of guideline enforcement - which was also discussed at WP:FILMS, and consensus at the moment seems to be against Dohanlon. Dohanlon, however, refuses to accede to consensus, which is the first issue. This has already led to a temp block on his account and the article being full protected for 2 weeks. Reginmund has been discussing with him (and so did I for a time), but he refuses to cede ground. While I decided to walk away and let consensus speak for itself, Reginmund continued to discuss and now things have escalated to the point that both users are just shouting and violating NPA. Girolamo Savonarola 04:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I think the above statement is misleading. I was being asked to concede on this point on a concensus of three users. Two of which were Reginmund and Girolamo. I asked several times for clarification of the issue from Reginmund but he would not clarify his point. I provided verifiable sources to back up my claim. I agree that the discussion got heated, but in my defense if you read it I ask and ask for verfication and clarification and don't get it. Interestingly as more users have posted on the topic the concesus Girolamo talks about is no longer in favour of their POV. Dohanlon 14:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Read the discussion. I asked Dohanlon three times why he disregarded a reliable source and his excuse was spelling errors. I asked him for a better reason and he veered from my question. The user is also disposed to make personal attacks and is relatively uncivil. I won't go into details but I think that the discussion says it all. All of his points, I have clarified. Reginmund 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I have read the discussion and made some comments on the talk page. There is a need for some clarity in the different issues. One issue is the name of the page, and the other is a matter of content, concerning titles used in release in different countries. The content issue in particular is best handled within the talk page, asking all editors to keep a bit relaxed. The page is protected; take it as a chance to set out the content dispute as clearly and calmly as possible. You want precision as to precisely what you are claiming about release titles, as well as an indication of how various sources help verify that. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I never mentioned spelling errors as the reason that the Yahoo! source is incorrect. I have listed on the page why this source is not reliable. Reginmund made several personal attacks and refuses to clarify numerous questions. As I dealt with each of his innacuracies eg UK DVD, BBFC etc he steadfastly refused to concede relying on an incorrect Yahoo! page. Reginmund has not as he says above clarified all my points. But that speaks for itself on the talk page. Dohanlon 14:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I never once made a personal attack to Dohanlon. I asked him for a better reason as to why Yahoo! is a bad source and he never gave me one. He never showed me proof of a UK R2 DVD release. I clarified all of his questions, and yet Dohanlon still refused to accept my source as reliable. He is a very uncivil Wikipedian, is disposed to make presonal attacks, seemingly because he is taking the issue to personally. Reginmund 03:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is still an issue, please provide recent diffs of comments that you believe are wikiquette violations. Thanks. --Darkwind (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of sock-puppetry

Resolved. Warning template added to User talk:PalestineRemembered, user is also under consideration for admin mentoring. --Darkwind (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered has been using my talk page to accuse me of being a sock-puppet. Well, I'm not, lol. Isn't this a violation of WP:NPA? How can I get him or her to stop vandalizing my talk page? Dlabtot 18:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I've left a message on User:PalestineRemembered's talk page directing him or her to WP:SPP -- if the accusation is going to me made, that is where it should be done. Dlabtot 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but the very limited nature of this users contributions log (2 or 3 days of posting) strike me as highly suspicious. The edits of this user have defended the Palestinians (as I'm sometimes inclined to do) and are very welcome. But they're not welcome if this is a sock.
If this user was originally acting in good faith, and was handed out long and completely unwarranted blocks (as happened to me), and has retaliated by creating new accounts (as I refused to do), then I'd consider raising their case and getting the original block lifted. It's your call, User:Dlabtot. PalestineRemembered 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact is, my talk page is not the right place to accuse me of sock-puppetry. That is nothing but vandalism. The correct place to raise allegations of sock-puppetry is WP-SSP. Please stop vandalizing my talk page. Dlabtot 19:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
PalestineRemembered, I don't mean to sound harsh but it is most uncivil to repeatedly accuse someone of being a sock without a request for checkuser to prove it. The information which leads you to believe Dlabtot is a sock can be cited as reasons why the checkuser request should be granted. If the request is run, and confirmed, then you can call him/her a sock all you want. Anynobody 02:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I just would like to note the defiant response that User:PalestineRemembered has posted to the warning placed on User talk:PalestineRemembered. But if no more attacks are posted on my talk page... well that's all I want I guess. Dlabtot 19:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by Isaac Pankonin

Stale.

For some time I am having a discussion with this user. During that time he felt the need to refer to me as "troll", "POV-pusher,"[351] and more such compliments.

Nevertheless, I had the impression we were finding compromise. Then out of the blue he starts making ad hominems regarding my person and apparently has decided to invoke all kind of abusive editors to evade discussing his unsupported edits. For some reason he insist on mentioning those disruptive contributors in a totally unrelated RFC[352] to support his view that the UN charter can be ignored by the Bush administration. The relevancy of these other and different discussions he fails to explain.[353] Also, he conspicuously states those discussions were on the same subject, eventhough it was him who first voiced the opinion the US is not bound by the UN charter and I never had that discussion with anyone else. Then of course his need to start a RFC on my person without even contacting me to see if that is needed, while invoking abusive WP:SPA GATXER seems unusual.[354]

Aside from this behaviour I find the deletion of extensively sourced material troubling.[355]

At this point I would appreciate it if he was told to abide by the above mentioned policies. Respectfully Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:USER and WP:ATTACK on User:England's Rose

Resolved.

England's Rose has been making comments accusing Wikipedians who differ from him on political issues of being "bigots" and "barbarians". More seriously, he has made racist comments on his talk page, but I hope this can be resolved without taking it to the Admin's noticeboard. Lurker (said · done) 09:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He first seemed to show up here. His first edit was to "correct" articles based on that rejected policy. Also, the fact that he's so overwhelmingly pro-union and uses words like "bigots" mean that I can't help thinking it's a strawpuppet account. I could be completely wrong but the whole thing doesn't feel entirely genuine to me. Readro 14:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Diffs, please. WQA volunteers typically don't have the time to scour history listings to find substantiating evidence. --Darkwind (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

attacking content, possibly racist content Lurker (said · done) 11:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That helps. After seeing that, I went ahead and pulled some diffs from this user's contributions that make me wonder as well if this person is entirely serious. With regard to the matter brought up by the original poster, I'll leave a {{uw-defam2}} on their talk page and see what happens. --Darkwind (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely hilarious. I am not sure that any form of intervention would help here, though. ARe there any examples of tendentious editing in mainspace? Hornplease 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Nothing that exceeds 3RR, certainly. Most of this user's edits have been to various Talk: and User talk: pages. The worst it gets in mainspace is on Alex Salmond‎, in which the user adds some POV material, is reverted, and re-adds it twice more (although the 2nd time he did leave out the pejorative "separatist". --Darkwind (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
As I thought. This would indicate that there's a good chance that this is somebody's sockpuppet back on for laughs.Hornplease 04:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated WP:ATTACK from Shinealight2007

Resolved. User is on a temporary block, and has been reminded about AGF and NPA. --Darkwind (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Shinealight2007 accused another editor, User:Justanother, of being a "Scientology operative" who is under "orders from the COFS" (Church of Scientology) for no apparent other reason that that editor reverted Shinealight2007's excessive (imho) edits - see here and here.

When asked not to repeat those attacks, he responded by doing so again at User talk:Shinealight2007 (and then went on to say that I must be a "Scientology operative" as well because of my own comment!)

WP:ATTACK warns against "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme", and I don't see that this editor's wildly insulting accusations have any basis anyway. wikipediatrix 20:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


+=== Scientology operatives should not be allowed on Wikipedia === Scientologist, sure. But Scientology operatives like User:COFS, AKA User:Shutterbug, and the others, should NOT be allowed to edit on Wikipedia. That is why I brought up the original question. That the users refuse to answer it or explain their actions here, is testament to this. They are most likely reporting and just following out orders from on high, just like user:COFS. How long will this be permitted to go on on Wikipedia? Was all the press coverage not enough???????? Shinealight2007 20:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
+==== Scientology operatives outed on Wikipedia and still they are allowed to besmirch this site ====

+==== After all the press coverage, does anyone care??????? ====

+==== Why have the Scientology operatives not been blocked already? ====

Wow. Shinealight2007, stop. Wait. Your proposals are in total conflict with the principles of wikipedia. Your excessive use of section headings and formatting is ugly, and seven question marks in a row is consider poor punctuation style. This is more relevant than you might think. These kind of typographic conventions, I think, tend to cue third parties that you are on a strong POV campaign. As a matter of advice on working well with the community, you need to avoid giving this impression.
I have removed the inappropriate subheadings with a leading plus sign. Don't use subheadings for emphasis. In a small alert like this, don't use them at all.
I agree that there is a problem with scientology areas. But you need to forget the idea of banning a class of users because of their affiliations. Persist with that as a campaign and you are, I suggest, far more likely to be banned yourself. People get restricted for disruption of the project, not for having conflicts of interest, incorrect views, or membership in certain organizations outside wikipedia. Claims about what is "most likely" are also unwelcome ad hominem. Settle down. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I second Duae's comments, with an additional note: Please remember that one of Wikipedia's core guidelines is assume good faith. Rather than assuming that a certain editor's edits are prompted by outside affiliations of which you have no evidence, instead assume that they're just trying to improve the encyclopedia. If you don't like their edit, talk to them and ask why they made it, instead of accusing them of anything. You'll last a lot longer in the Wikipedia community if you do so. --Darkwind (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User: Anynobody

Resolved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This person is one of the regular editors on Barbara Schwarz. The other day he made a couple of comments on the talk page which seem to show hostility towards the person who is the subject of the article and to other editors. The tone of them, to me, seems almost to that of threats: One to report a person to INS and the other to reveal "secret" information to discredit the person. [360] [361] -Steve Dufour 02:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read Anynobody's comment in question three times now and still can't figure out how you arrived at that interpretation. wikipediatrix 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is what he said: "Since the SLT reported her nationality, as cited in my quotation earlier, we're gonna need more than your opinion as a valid reason to remove it. This almost looks like you're afraid ICE will deport her as an illegal alien, and are trying to cover her legal status up." To me that sounds like he is threatening to report Barbara to the authorities unless I stop working on the article. In the other case he listed a bunch of things he knew about Barbara. To me this seemed like he was threatening to add them to the article if Stan didn't back off from his criticisms of the article. I could be wrong however and Anynobody could just be a disinterested encyclopedist. (p.s. Please see your talk page where I gave some information on where I am coming from on this. Thanks.) Steve Dufour 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Almost no-one is disinterested. We all mostly edit topics in which we have an interest, and a perspective. And that's ok. The guidelines are there to help manage the end result. There is nothing whatever in that comment to suggest any kind of threat. It is a speculation about your motives, and that's all. We prefer editors to avoid speculating on motives, frankly. But give your own position and openly declared objectives, it's a bit hard to resist. There's nothing that needs to be done for this alert, that I can see. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Steve Dufour, I don't make threats. I find they are generally not helpful, and actually tend to make things worse. (Since on top of whatever the argument was there is the new issue of a threat to be dealt with.) I also didn't say you must stop editing there, just that you should perhaps stop mentioning that you think the article needs to be deleted since it's generally understood how you feel about it.
Duae Quartunciae I completely agree that editor motivations should generally be left out of the discussion. However in a case of conflict of interest it's regrettably necessary. Steve Dufour has said he's out to delete the article at her request, since neither are concerned with whether or not it would be the right thing for Wikipedia, a COI exists. Ordinarily I don't speculate about motives.
Also I'm sorry I didn't notice the post you made after my last post in the thread about Steve Dufour above. I totally understand why you might think I was insisting her nationality should be included in the first sentence simply because I think it's notable. The fact is regardless what I think; it's discussed in the sources because it forms a basis of her beliefs. I didn't mean to come off as arrogant about my opinion, I'm just pretty familiar with the sources so am confident in what I'm saying about them. Anynobody 08:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you don't make theats Anynobody. I still think that the article on Barbara is going to work against your own interests, as a critic of Scientology, in the end. Steve Dufour 11:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
OK then. I am going to mark this as resolved sometime fairly soon, after a short pause to see that things don't fall apart again. I think we might be able to agree that there have been no threats, that no-one is really "disinterested" entirely, and that second guessing motives or interests, though tempting, is not going to get us anywhere. There's no reason you can't continue to work with mutual civility even as you disagree and even as you have different motives. Over and out, I hope. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue is resolved, clarification

To clarify I'm not second guessing his motives, he's been honest about them. I do agree that in most cases discussing motivation is unhelpful, but in a WP:COI situation it has to be. (Just not here, on WP:COIN or the talk pages)

I don't mean to seem like I'm trying to get the last word in Duae Quartunciae, I just don't want to look like I agree it should NEVER be talked about though, because there are some times when it does come up as a valid concern, as it has it an arbcom case. I am kind of concerned observers there could try to cite it as an example of hypocrisy.

(P.S. Steve Dufour, I'm not editing Wikipedia as a Scientology critic. It just turns out that Scientologists can make it difficult to post information which contradicts theirs, so more edits are required as they tend to revert or rationalize to match their POV. You're involved too so I assumed you read the statistics I provided which show I have more edits than average on certain articles related to the CoS because the CoS spends almost all of their time here editing CoS articles.) Anynobody 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for a helpful clarification. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you Anynobody. I first came across fanatical anti-Scientologists on alt.religion.scientology and I tend to put anyone who contributes to Scientology related articles here in the same category. (p.s. Critics of Scientology have far outnumbered defenders here, although it seems that more church members have gotten involved in the last few weeks.) Steve Dufour 02:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
OSA is making a big push to whitewash scientology-related articles.--Fahrenheit451 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
How would you know anything about what the OSA is doing? Can you prove it? wikipediatrix 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep this off the WQA page, please. This isn't related to the original WQA. Thanks! --Darkwind (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's cool Steve Dufour, the pro-CoS editors tend to paint anyone who doesn't agree with them as the type of person it sounds like you thought I was so I understand how a misunderstanding can happen. Anynobody 02:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(PS Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you have a POV one way or the other. I've noticed that if people see an accusation made enough it might look true, which is what I meant.) Anynobody 05:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Violation by Spyke1077

Resolved. User has been reminded about WP:NPA. --Darkwind (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Spyke1077 has repeatedly made personal attacks on the Big Brother 8 Talk Page. Wanzhen 17:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this comment, mostly? I've given him a {{uw-npa2}} reminder. --Darkwind (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, thanks. The commments in that section were the ones in violation; however, now it seems this same user has just gone and commited another violation and deleted a large section of the talk page. current.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Brother_8_%28US%29&oldid=154664537

versus previous... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Brother_8_%28US%29&oldid=154546569 Wanzhen 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I've left a {{uw-tpv2}}. --Darkwind (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh

Stale.

The endless edit war between Irish Nationalists and others appears to be recommencing over at Lough Neagh. Since my attempts to try and make them behave always seem to result in one of the protagonists getting a sympathetic editor to simply ban *me* /rollseyes/ I thought I'd just raise the matter here. Cheers--feline1 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Am going to take it to the talk page. Mark Chovain 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I give up. Maybe someone else can take a shot. feline1 seems only interested in blaming others rather than solving the problem. Maybe this will need DR. Mark Chovain 15:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad feeling between User:Canadian Paul and Ryoung122

Resolved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The initial exchange in Wikiquette alerts
I am contemplating proposing an immediate three week ban for the next person who adds to this huge attempt to carry on the debate in the Wikiquette alerts. Fortunately, I am not an admin, so random thoughts like this don't have any real impact. :-)
Calm down, guys. At this point you both seem to be abusing the Wikiquette alerts page; which may not have been the wisest option. Someone will have a look at it, soon enough. Be a bit patient. I may try to reformat a bit to get rid of long lines with a leading space. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I have now cleared up the alert a bit. I have removed all subheadings by adding some kind of leading indent marker. I have done the same for lines with a leading space, which make this page too wide. I have boxed up the whole thing in a NavFrame so it does not distract from the rest of the page. The end result may not be optimal, but if anyone really wants to read through, they can do so. I suggest that nobody bother reading it at all, until the following points just below have been addressed first.
If anyone here would like this handled as a Wikiquette alert, then they should take a deep breath, and look carefully at the guidance information at the top of this page, especially the #Instructions for users posting alerts.
Having done so, then make a concise, clear, neutral, polite statement of the problem. Bear in mind that you are writing this for the benefit of the wikiquette editors, not the person with whom you are in dispute. Don't use a subheading. Just give a simple paragraph pointing out the main problem you see and that you think Wikiquette may be able to help with. One or three links that can be used as a starting point for finding where the problem arises is useful. Giving twenty links is likely to backfire when they are all ignored. Over to you again, my friends. Good luck, and may the coolest win. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Without being specific (the details are in the NavFrame), User:Ryoung122 has engaged in personal attacks, harassment and has an outstanding legal threat against me on my talk page. In order to drown out my complaints, he has further harassed me by inventing a conspiracy where I am supposedly committing "Supercentenarian Holocaust" by preparing to nominate "88 articles" for deletion. He has exaggerated and misrepresented facts and even made up some facts (for example, he quotes an exchange that is clearly on his talk page, claiming that I was hiding my intentions by not informing him) He has posted this conspiracy on his personal webpage and invited others to have their say by directing them to this page. He also claims that I caused "chaos" and "failed to respect the works of others" while refusing to cite any examples. The dispute erupted after I nominated Gladys Swetland for deletion and he accused me of a bad faith nomination after I pointed out his stealth canvassing. To this I was angered and responded uncivilly on his talk page, although I did not make any personal attacks. My most pressing concern in the outstanding legal threat, but the harassment I am getting regarding this "conspiracy" (which is simply untrue; I even wrote on his talk page that I have no desire to work on longevity articles anymore to which he replied "Good riddance!") is an issue too. I have made many important contributions to supercentenarian articles, including full references for List of living supercentenarians and Living national longevity recordholders. Other than a few comments on some user talk pages, where I discussed setting a standard for which supercentenarian articles should stay and which should go, there is no conspiracy here - especially since my explicit statement has always been that if the Gladys Swetland case did not get deleted in AfD (and it does not look like it will), I wouldn't bother nominating anything else. Cheers, CP 23:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been 24 hours since Canadian Paul added the clarification as requested. Ryoung's position can be seen reasonably as well also, so I'm ready to comment.
This is a very unfortunate bit of bad feeling, which sprung up at short notice between two editors who had previously been able to work together tolerably well. The mutual accusations have been quite over the top. The whole thing should be able to be dropped without further action beyond a bit of strong advice to both parties to settle down. On some specifics.
  • There is no credible legal threat that has been made; just mutual grandstanding about harassment.
  • The mutual claims of harassment are hard to sort out; and easily fixed by both sides just dropping the venom. I cannot access the personal web page without signing in.
  • We can't control what people do off-site; but off-site pages that continue disputes arising within Wikipedia reflect badly on the person who hosts them. They damage Wikipedia and they are likely to be regarded as aggravating factors if this dispute goes any further. (See Off-wiki personal attacks within the no personal attacks official policy.) I don't know what is on your off-site page, Ryoung122, and I don't want to know. I don't want anyone to repeat it here either. I advise you to consider carefully what you put up off-site, and to consider keeping all concerns you have with other Wikipedia editors strictly within Wikipedia itself, for the good of the community.
  • There have been mutual accusations of who started it, and neither individual has a good case. There has been a continual escalation. Ryoung112 made an explicit bad faith accusation early on, in the discussion surrounding a AfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys Swetland, and Canadian Paul reacted very angrily.
  • The total number of edits involved in the dispute is fairly small. The length of time it has been going has been fairly short. There's every hope it can die down as quickly as it erupted, if both sides are willing to avoid parting shots.
  • This is one case where I would suggest people consider archiving or even deleting stuff from their own talk page. A similar rather unfortunate exchange appears in the talk pages of both individuals. Consider getting if off your own main talk page somehow, as an indication of a desire to move past it; if you do want to move past it. Don't impose that on that other person; only make major changes to your own talk page, if you think it worthwhile.
—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolution Comment Have a day off of this has really cooled down. After a day, I see that the accusations on his web page do not seem to be effecting much (I'll admit I was as worried about the Gladys Swetland debate as I was my reputation as a Wiki editor), so that is not a particular concern to me anymore. I do, however, maintain that the personal attacks were begun by UserRyoung122 (I discovered this comment that is dated two days before his bad faith accusation, therefore before I had reacted uncivilly to him. What I have accomplished by my age has been a source of pride throughout much of my life and it is regrettable that he cannot judge me past my physical age) Nevertheless, I hereby and without condition fully apologize from my incivility after Ryoung122's bad faith accusation in the debate (there should be no excuse to react as I did) and although I maintain that I never personally attacked Ryoung122, I apologize if I somehow created that perception.

Having said that, I am still concerned about this "conspiracy" that seems to have formed up around me. Let me state for the record that there is none nor do I have any explicit plans to nominate any more articles for deletion (longevity-related or otherwise). Having said that, it needs to be acknowledged that I retain the right, as a Wikipedia editor, to point out WP:NOR violations or request direct citations for any material on Wikipedia (including longevity articles) without it being used against me as evidence of my "conspiracy." There are many violations that I would have preferred to work on myself (as I did on Living national longevity recordholders for example), but now it seems I will not be able to do that - that doesn't mean I am going to turn my back on things that are unreferenced or original research. I'm glad you have suggested cleaning up my talk page as well, because I do not want this to effect the way that other editors perceive me and my contributions and was going to ask you if I could just delete most of the vitrol and accusations. Cheers, CP 01:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


User:Cyberia23 - incivility and bad faith assumptions

Resolved.

I recently tagged Star Trek planet classifications with a copyvio tag because its content was blatanly ripped from a book (and despite plagiarism, the book wasn't even listed as a source). This user responded very rudely, including use of profane language, and assumed that my intetions were bad - that I was trying to get the article deleted out of some sort of spite that I apparently harbor. I asked him twice to discontinue his inappropriate behavior and to assume good faith, until he insisted that he was not violating policy, but rather "add[ing] more flavor" to the discussion. This is a relatively minor dispute, but this user's behavior seems to be in gross violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:GF, and possibly WP:NPA, and the user believes that it's fine to act like this. I was wondering if a third party could comment on this and hopefully help this user understand how/why to act appropriately on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Cheeser1 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser is blowing this way out of proportion. He/She is only doing this because he/she thinks I should kiss their ass, that I owe him/her respect because they're "enforcing the rules", and they apparently don't believe that if you accuse someone of something, like plagarism you'd get a negative reaction about it. But since the Ettiquite rules state that Wikipedians are to be emotionless and mindless robots and not allowed to voice an opinion ever, and I voiced one and made an argument and he/she is pissed off about it.

I must say that in regard to his first accusation of the article not being properly sourced, Cheeser must have been too busy adding the copyright violation tag, because had they actually took the time to read the article they would have seen that the material was sourced at the top part of the article in the header. Yes, I admit it was not the usual location at the bottom of the page where they would normally be, but this article was hit once before for violating copyright and I wanted to make it clear where the info was coming from. If it was in the wrong spot I apoligize for thinking that for once some people didn't have to be led by the hand around here. Anyway, if you look at the history it was referenced at the top.

All these other nonsense accusations are clearly because Cheeser needs to have the last word. I have no time for his/her stupid games. I cleaned up the article already, removed all questionable material, and moved on. Cheeser just wants to one up me because I "offended" him/her and this is how they get revenge. I'll be the first to admit that I can be a sarcastic bastard because I really don't take much in life seriously. I guess Cheeser wants a consensus to prove it. Cyberia23 18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've responded on User:Cyberia23's talk page, encouraging him to be more civil, but he seems to have pre-emptively rejected any such suggestion. If this is the case, I'm afraid that there's very little that a Wikiquette alert can do. Sarcasticidealist 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I consider the matter over since the original problem - the copyrighted material on the article - has been dealt with - (of course if anyone wants to verify that by all means go ahead.) The rest of what is going on is just utter lameness on Cheeser's part because he/she expects an apology that I'm not going to give. For the record - I'm not a suck up and I didn't come here to make friends, so if someone takes offense to how I handle things thats their problem not mine. Your all anonymous to me, this isn't a paying job and I'm not trying to win kudos for a higher position of authority like being an admin or whatever - so if there are a bunch of incidents stacked against me so be it. I really don't care. Therefore, when I'm accused of something I'll respond however I feel is necessary and if that includes smart ass comments and sarcasm then thats what happens. All I can say is that Cheeser needs to get over it because I really don't give a shit if he/she has an issue with me or not. Cheeser accuses me of saying "I own these articles" well I'd like to see where I said that. The copyright vio banner is something that can't be ignored unless you want to see the article annihilated. Yeah, I could have let the article go, but knowing full well no one else will lift a finger to fix it, it would of course get the admin "quick fix" and be deleted entirely. Because I spent time on it, I get pissed when I see work I did flushed down the drain because someone out there doesn't like it or thinks it violates something. I never said I owned the articles I work on nor did I say anyone else wasn't allowed to touch them. But whatever, this is the first time in the four years I been on Wikipedia where anyone's lodged a complaint against me - I think the record shows that I'm a civil person but I do have a short fuse for morons. Cyberia23 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Nowhere did I ask for an apology. The purpose of posting this alert is to (I'm quoting myself here) "hopefully help [you] understand how/why to act appropriately on Wikipedia." Please do not continue to assume that I was out to get the article deleted (or "annihilated"). It's not up to me to decide if we're allowed to plagiarize copyrighted material: we aren't. No one is asking you to "win kudos" or "make friends" - civility, however, is not optional. Feeling like after "spend[ing] time on it, [you] get pissed when ..." is covered by the policy I already pointed you to (which you refuse to acknowledge as applicable). It states prominently that if you do not want content to be mercilessly edited (possibly deleted), do not contribute it. And finally, if you read WP:CIVIL more closely, you'll find that you should be civil to anyone, even people who enforce perfectly valid policies or people you believe to be "morons." --Cheeser1 21:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, please note that concerns about your incivility and assumption of bad faith are not tied to the copyright violations. Removing the copyrighted material does not change the fact that your conduct was, and continues to be, inappropriate. --Cheeser1 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for referencing all those great policies and showing me the wickedness of my ways. But, in this case, regarding my attitude toward you, it's time to cite Wiki:IGNORE - so please "explode" now. Cyberia23 22:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that policy is not carte blanche for you for do whatever you want. In fact, ignoring all rules is only provided for if you are trying to "to improve or maintain Wikipedia" - being civil and assuming good faith in this (or virtually any) circumstance cannot possibly hinder you from doing so. I'm not going to "explode," but I will continue to point you to the policies that explain why you are mistaken in this matter. --Cheeser1 22:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It was a joke dude. Cyberia23 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Cheeser1 - I think we've taken it as far as this Wikiquette alert can go. Wikiquette alerts are really only useful when dealing with users who *want* to adhere to policy, and User:Cyberia23 seems quite happy not to. You can take it to higher levels if you want, and you could probably eventually get action, but I think it might be easier to just accept that some people are jerks, and that sometimes the onus is (unfairly) on non-jerks to put up with them. I'm marking as stuck. Sarcasticidealist 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I would agree that we can consider this alert to be done (though not resolved). This is one of the easier-to-deal-with conflicts I've been involved in - I think when someone so clearly refuses to follow the rules, it makes things simpler, albeit with a less satisfying resolution. I don't think it needs to go up the ladder, unless this situation becomes more of a problem, for myself or other users. Thanks for your input. --Cheeser1 00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
What's there to resolve? You seem to be assuming that just because I'm a problem for you Cheeser that I'm some sort of threat to this whole website and that I supposedly treat everyone I encounter with the same disrespect I've given you. You're wrong. I simply don't like you because you're an arrogant jerk who likes to fan the pages of policy in my face like I don't know them and from what I read in your little essay about how Wikipedia fails when it comes to enforcing it's policies, you seem all for running this place like a gestapo camp. Now that you caught me you just don't wanna let go because you want to make an example out of me. I have news for you — you aren't Wikipedia's guardian knight, you're not a policy superhero. I've wasted enough of my day on this stupidity so I am done with this discussion. As far as I can see there's nothing to resolve except your arrogance and "can do no wrong" attitude — and I can't help you with that. So, I'd appreciate if you got off my back. If you're on some sort of crusade to straighten me out then you're wasting your time. You have a lovely evening now. Cyberia23 02:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I left an apology on Cheeser1's talk page about this incident. I admit I violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL in a futile attempt at getting the upper hand in our disagreements. It was stupid of me to flip out and take my aggressions out on him and I hope he reconsiders filing a compliant to the higher echelon. It was a dumb argument and not worth how far it's gone. Hopefully now this is resolved but it's now his decision how he wants to pursue the matter. Cyberia23 19:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, Cyberia. It shows a good-faith effort on your part to restore civility to the discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I am glad this has come to a positive conclusion. I've left a more extensive response on my talk page (since the more extensive comment from Cyberia was there). I had begun to lose hope that this would come to a positive resolution, but since it has, there's no reason to continue this process to any sort of RFC/U or anything like that. I'm happy this worked itself out, and would like to thank Cyberia for being good enough to work towards a resolution - I can imagine how hard it is to make this apology, and I appreciate it. --Cheeser1 02:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ludovicapipa: Lots of NPA and CIVIL issues

Stuck. Recommended higher form of WP:DR or Admin Noticeboard. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been engaged in a protracted content dispute with Ludovica on a few pages, including Fernando Collor de Mello, João Goulart and 1964 Brazilian coup d'état. The disputes center around the application of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V, but what has concerned me is her attitude in this debate. She has accused me of acting in bad faith, and issued numerous personal attacks. She has also petitioned administrators directly to block me, outside of the WP:DR mechanism. I would just ignore normally, but considering this expanding to other peoples' talk pages I figure a check from third parties would be good. Here are a few examples:

  • Constant accusations of "acting in bad faith".
  • User talk:Dalillama#Fernando Collor de Mello: Ludovica threatens me with a block (somehow): "If you insist, I will ask and administrator to block you, so you can refresh yr mind."
  • [362] After I make a spelling mistake in Portuguese, she states: "Por aí nota-se que nível temos aqui", roughly translating to "that shows the level of person we have have here" (Google translate is similar), questioning what I'm assuming is my educational level.
  • Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello#Last reply - " I dont´know how old are you..." Is it really necessary to insult me by questioning my age?
  • Talk:Plano Collor - User tells me to go "find a doctor"

There are a few others but I have to go back and search through blanked pages.

Note: It's important to point out that this user has been blocked for one year in the Portuguese Wikipedia (here) for personal attacks. She opened her user account on the EN wikipedia a few hours after being blocked on the PT wikipedia on June 6, 2007. She consistently edits the same articles as the blocked PT username did, including adding the same sources and generally of the same POV (examples here and here).--Dali-Llama 18:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm not sure if there's really much we'll be able to do in this situation - it's quite clear that Ludovicapipa is acting uncivilly toward you (including a violation of WP:SKILL), and given her history of being blocked from the Portuguese WP, it may also be a case of open harassment at this point. If you feel it'll help, we can try to mediate with her. Otherwise, I'd probably recommend a higher form of dispute resolution and/or a report to the Admin Noticeboard. The fact that there is a block history for this user on another version of WP makes it less likely that you'll need to go through a lot of dispute resolution procedures before getting action.
Good job on staying civil, especially in the situation where Ludovicapipa questioned your age. It's remarkably difficult to stay calm when someone's deliberately trying to get you to respond to personal attacks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is by far the toughest dispute I've ever faced--aggravated by the fact that other users have refused to become involved and even third-opinion good samaritans (Coren and Carioca) have kind of given up. I doubt mediation would work, as she has consistently ignored others' opinions. Ideally I'd like to resolve this editorially (not administratively), but it's been hard (I've even been resisting putting up 3RR reports and just asking for page protection so it wouldn't be interpreted as me trying to administratively sanction her personally). But, to be honest, I'm at my wits' end. I'd be interested in posting something on WP:ANI, but I don't know if we should try to reason once more (and if so, how should we reason?), or go straight to an administrative position.--Dali-Llama 19:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay on responding to this - I've been busy with off-wiki stuff and have also been trying to field a barrage of edits to my own Talk page regarding this issue. It appears that Ludovicapipa does not understand WP:3RR and the reason why you warned her about it, among other things. I have been trying very hard to get her to separate the behavior and content issues, and I'm personally getting rather frustrated by the ongoing discussion there. One or two more exchanges like the ones we've been having, and I'm going to simply recuse myself from this Alert entirely. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If you do recuse yourself, I understand (you won't be the first nor the second). I will probably end up sending this to arbitration anyways, so I hope I can count on your support for my request for that if you do recuse yourself.--Dali-Llama 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. I've come to the conclusion that there is nothing more I can do in this case. The entire conversation on my Talk page is available to use as evidence that we tried to resolve this issue and could not, and I will happily endorse a MedCab or ArbCom request if the need arises. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Editions

One should click on the links where you see a personal attack I see a self defense against a constant persecution of my editions:
Why dont´also say that none of yr editions damaging Collor´s image and linking him to "Corruption and Downfall" (this one considered POV); why dont´you say you linked an image from "Veja Magazine" on which is said: "The year we got rid of him" (Collor)?
1. Why don´t you say you deleted the words "end of hyperinflation" and substituted for "hyperinflation" only? Collor Plan was not a failure --so many citations prove the following administrations still use his Plan Collor;
2. Also here, let´s see wht´s written abt yr editions: [363]
3. On Fernando Collor talk page you asked me to ask and discuss before revert or delete --that´s not wht you did on thsi same artcile --within few minutes you deleted and reverted without discussiong and even requested a page protection
4. The only full text you wrote so far concerns Collor´s "Corruption and downfall", trying to damage his image, you only talked abt corruption adn missed several issues --including his Senate ecletion. If it was not me, Collor would still be a convicted figure;
5. What abt "1964 Brazilian coup" artcile wto which you only used one source (Gaspari´s, a famous antiprivatization, antiCollor, procommunist?);
6. Now the lates blatantly happened on Plano Collor --you said Plan Collor is one thing and PND (Plano Nacional de Desetatização) is another thing --well the link I provided (since you neve provide sources) says PND is a part, one major step to move forward with Plan Collor.
There are many other examples of yr behaviour....

Ludovicapipa yes? 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think my point here is that it's not the content dispute which is at issue--these are all perfectly valid points which we're trying to discuss. My point is that the manner in which you've conducted yourself in this discussion, added with the fact that you've ignored third parties' opinions and recommendations and have previously been blocked for the same offense on another project, should raise serious issues about whether or not you fully understand Wikipedia and abide by the rules on civility and behavior. This was echoed to me on my PT Wikipedia talkpage (here) by another user, who clearly stated that the reason you were blocked there was not because of content disputes, but because of your personal conduct in those disputes.--Dali-Llama 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dali-Llama's assertions here, Ludovicapipa - he has consistently pointed out that your opinions and statements are valid, and that to the extent that you're participating in a content dispute, your content arguments are worth considering. Whether or not your opinions are correct or go along with consensus is another matter - they are valid, and nobody is trying to tell you that they're not. What is NOT okay is the fact that you are personally attacking Dali-Llama (DL), and have been shown to do so in the past. By criticizing DL's use of the English and/or Portuguese languages, questioning her age (both of which are WP:SKILL violations), telling him to "go see a doctor", and otherwise calling him out in the manner you have, you have been violating WP:NPA and other civility policies. This behavior tends to discredit your own arguments, but more importantly, it also inflames other users, usually causing knock-down-drag-out arguments that can span multiple pages and cause many hard feelings on all sides. At that point, the discussions stop being about the content, and often become "He said/She said" personal attack arguments, which are not welcome on Wikipedia.
Please make sure you read WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL, WP:NPA, WP:CON and WP:NPOV. These are important policies that discuss not only how to stay out of trouble, but also how to be more effective in arguing your points in content disputes. Also keep in mind that if your arguments are against current consensus, the onus is on you to sway the consensus through civilized discussion and official sources that back up your point of view. Also keep in mind WP:WEIGHT, which deals with the issue of putting undue weight on one particular point of view - in cases where POV statements are appropriate for an article (such as in movie reviews), it is important to keep the article balanced such that it accurately reflects all relevant points of view, not just a single one.
Hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Kiefer,
Iam sorry if looks like a personal attack. Iam ONLY worry abt editions --not abt attacks, not at all. Iam sorry if sounds stupid, really. I must reafirm that I am facing an enormous wrok everytime I try to edit an article, whihc she/he deletes, reverts, without ask nor discuss. My goal is edit, he/she call it POV. I don´t, since I FULLY provide citations, sources, as you could see above. Since I started talikgn to him/her I did the same, but seems to be a waste of time. Ludovicapipa yes? 20:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In cases like that, if you feel that an editor is unfairly reverting your changes and refusing to discuss the situation, please look into a Request For Comment on the article. That will attract the attention of more editors who can offer opinions on both sides of the dispute. The important thing, though, is to not resort to personal attacks on the editor with whom you're arguing - if you do that, people will be much less likely to take your opinions seriously. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
That's what's frustrated me in this case. She repeatedly threatened me with a "block", and I told her several times to contact an administrator or log a complaint in any of the DR forums, like RFC or AN/I and she refused to do so. And the recalcitrant nature of her actions in two projects now really make me question whether or not I should bump this up the ladder.--Dali-Llama 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn´t threaten you --I suggested to the adms you should be blocked. Ludovicapipa yes? 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony1 again

Stuck. Referred to WP:ANI

Tony1 (talk · contribs) Unfortunately, despite the thread above, his aggressive behavior continues unabated. [364]. >Radiant< 08:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary to start a second thread. Radiant! as others already stated above, I urge you to cool off and remove yourself from this situation. You've now threatened to use your admin tools to block me because I provided you with the diffs showing the past issues. I've summarized the conversation (with all diffs) at User:SandyGeorgia/RaToPm issue and started a thread at WP:AN/I asking uninvolved admins to step in. I suggest your personal involvement in this (including threats to use your admin tools) has escalated the conflict and taken this issue beyond the level of informal dispute mediation that can occur on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That's very much beside the point. I suggest you let a non-involved editor look at Tony's continuing incivility and childish behavior. It is unfortunate that you first ask for outside opinion (on PManderson, whom you are in conflict with yourself) and then attack the person giving that opinion when he turns out to disagree with you. >Radiant< 14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this right: "childish behaviour" is somehow not a personal attack. Now Radiant, please calm down. I've clearly upset you greatly by analysing your text at the Gender-neutral discussion; I can't resile from that—it was necessary. I'll be pleased when tempers go down five notches, because we need cool heads to negotiate the issues at hand at MOS etc. And PS, I'm kinda pleased you cite [82] above, coz I don't think people will see it as aggressive at all. Tony 15:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm closing this WQA for the same reasons as the first one - the entire issue has been escalated to the Admin Noticeboard. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kieferskunk, though the diff posted to start this thread doesn't rise to the level that it's made out to. --Rocksanddirt 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible incivility by User:Bakasuprman

Stuck.

I've been involved in some editing conflicts with User:Bakasuprman, and I find some of his contributions to our discussions a bit uncivil. Bakasuprman is upset with me, primarily because I endorsed his indefinite block on WP:ANI in April 2007; the discussion is here. The matter went to Arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2), which found no grounds for blocking Bakasuprman, and he remains an editor in good standing. Another reason for Bakasuprman to be upset with me is a discussion I initiated on ANI (here) in July 2007 that lead to him being briefly blocked for edit warring.

While it's understandable that he dislikes me, I find some of Bakasuprman's comments towards me vexing, and possibly in violation of WP:CIVIL. The latest examples can be found on my user talk page and User talk:FCYTravis; for instance this comment, accusing me of religious bias and being a "maladroit hack", following my restoration of a talk page comment at Talk:Romila Thapar, and this comment, where the link to Hanlon's Razor is apparently supposed to mean that I am idiotic, not malicious.

This is not an isolated occurrence; earlier Bakasuprman called me "uneducated, dishonest, and irrational", as well as apparently accusing me of anti-Hindu bias (full discussion here).

What I'm looking for here is primarily some outside perspective: is this kind of discourse the kind of thing I should expect on India-related pages, as Bakasuprman contends? (n.b, after his statement that "Editors of India related articles are always incivil" he later said that "its rhetoric", so that is not an acknowledgement of incivility.) If so, I should just suck this up, or remove the few India-related pages I edit from my watchlist? On the other hand, if, as I think, Bakasuprman's comments are outside the bounds of civility, I'd appreciate it if someone else would let him know; he doesn't seem too inclined to accept my input. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Its obvious you are on a witch-hunt since I obviously should have been banned. I dont deal with abuse nicely, and will refuse to interpret WP:CIVIL in a manner which allows facilitators of admin abuse to whine about incivility. I have not been legitimately blocked since september 2006, and the recent defecations on my block log are in no small part to akhilleus personal crusade against myself.Bakaman 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Is "defecations" actually the word you wanted, or is this a typo? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If so, it's a typo he makes with surprising regularity. Hornplease 04:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Its disturbing to note that Willy on Wheels (talk · contribs) is probably editing right now while Akhilleus, entrusted with the admin tools to serve the 'pedia is using a questions semantics to facilitate a witchhunt against users in good standing. Defecation, yes.Bakaman 04:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Bakasuprman routinely gets called names and abused all the time by one side (your side?) of a particular divide (see his userpage). And I havent seen you use your good offices to try and put an end to it. And on that page you were restoring a comment that was clearly in bad taste. And like you concede yourself, you supported an indef on him on the most bogus grounds(as the arbcom pointed out). So stop trying to appropriate the moral high ground for yourself. Sarvagnya 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has ever called Bakasuprman a name that remains an editor in good standing. People are routinely polite to him and requestful of civility, which he fails to return. Unless you can substantiate your justification of his abysmal behaviour with diffs, I suggest you withdraw that.Hornplease 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The amount of self-delusion required to make such a statement like that is amazing. Dbachmann seems to still be here, even after utilizing politically charged terms and racial slurs. Of course, dab is not incivil, because he is not a "Hindu nationalist communalist sockpuppeting troll". Hornplease has a big axe to grind here, so Bakaman 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Presenting past evidence of your incivility is hardly grinding an axe on this page. (Thank you for linking to that evidence, by the way.) Both dab's comments you've linked to indicate that you are considered a single purpose account; that in itself is not incivil. I still await substantiation of the claim that Baksuprman is exposed to incivility on a daily basis. He is not; judging by the comments on this page, he seems to labour under a delusion that he is being persecuted by a cabal of tendentious editors and racist admins. Such a delusion is not a basis for the abandonment of a core policy. Hornplease 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not incivil? Dab really does not need a wikilawyer. Incivility is something you create by misrepresneting statements made by myself and other users. Those who you are in agreement, such ads dab are not incivil. Those who you ideologically are opposed to are reoutinely dubbed "incivil" which has turned into a term of doublespeak. I am exposed to incivlity on a daily basis, an insight into my userpage history would establish this. The "core principle" is being misrepresented for ideological gain by users such as Hornplease, who have much to gain with the loss of constructive editors from the India pages.Bakaman 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I suppose this edit summary is just another example of the level of discourse we can expect in this area of Wikipedia, where WP:CIVIL does not apply. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sad, and true. Note that Bakasuprman has indicated nothing in the above statement except that he believes that these concerns about civility are the product of 'misrepresentation'. And as for being exposed to incivility, all of us face trolling regularly. As I pointed out earlier, trolling by anons or users subsequently banned is no excuse for incivility to users in good standing, none of whom are rude to Bakasuprman. Note, finally, his dismissal ofthis entire process here. Unless he is told sternly that random incivility and motive-questioning poisons the atmosphere here, he will continue in his ways. Hornplease 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It stands to note that the only two editors pressing the issue are editors that wish me banned and have broken Wiki rules multiple times to attempt to do so. Masquerading as a "concerned user" and presenting oneself as a victim really adds an emotional touch. "Bakasuprman is a demon that deals with everyone incivilly" is nothing short of misrepresentation and defamation. The policy on civility is not objective. Users trying to gain the upper hand in conflict take advantage of the subjectivity of the policy to stifle discussion and engage in ad hominem demonization. This case is nothing short of caprice, considering this "process" has been hijacked by partisans hoping to broadcast their opinions.Bakaman 04:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not aware of a single "wiki rule" I have broken to "attempt" to ban you. I am not even sure whether a reply is warranted here, as it should be obvious by now from this discussion alone that ad hominem attacks on you are not the rule; instead, you continue to be engaged by established editors with the patience and good faith that is mandated by our core policies. (Nobody, for example has called you a "demon".) Incidentally, wikilink to 'objective' aside, your complaint about the subjectivity of policy has completely mystified me. Hornplease 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Neutral editors reviewing this post may also like to comment on this revert by Akhilleus.nids(♂) 07:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman has announced on several occasions that "civility does not apply" in contentious areas of Wikipedia. (Contentious areas are anywhere he edits.) My last words on the subject - when he repeated this "defense" yesterday, which Sarvagna seems to share - are here: [365]. Please do read them. Hornplease 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If holders of virulent bigotry continue to be praised when editing, some mildly charged rhetoric is nothing to worry about.Bakaman 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This is great Hornplease. All Bakasuprman stated was "willfully making false statements" and there is a long line of commentary by you and Akhilleus. When we take a look at a larger diff around the same discussion [[366]] we Restating something in different words--how is this now uncivil? Kkm5848 11:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Civility is an official policy in Wikipedia. It is always something to worry about. It can be hard to remain civil in a highly charged atmosphere; but there is no excuse whatsoever for dismissing this as a minor consideration.
  • No personal attacks is an official policy in Wikipedia. You are not permitted to throw around accusations of virulent bigotry. If virulent bigotry is impacting upon articles, you must deal with that through appropriate channels, and not by just making personal attacks on the bigot. If a virulent bigot is making personal attacks themselves, then deal with that through appropriate channels, not by attacking in return. Otherwise, if the bigotry is not affecting articles and not leading to attacks, then I am afraid the official Wikipedia editing policy applies; anyone can edit.
  • Assume good faith is a behavioural guideline. It is not set in stone; there can be exceptions and common sense applies. But the idea is a fundamental principle, and exceptions are never a basis for disregarding the official policy on civility and no personal attacks.
—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I find it interesting that Hornplease brings up uncivility and violation of WP codes of conduct when he takes part in much the same. Hornplease has routinely pushed his pov on the Hindu Students Council page and posted citations in bad faith [[367]] and removed WP:RS sources w/o discussion [[368]]. I don't edit all that much on WP, but do notice improper behavior when I see it. Kkm5848 10:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This is about incivility. Your remarks about POV-pushing are not striclt relevant, like BAkasuprman's similar ones above. (Incidentally, if anyone's interested, those articles need massive cleanup.)Hornplease 17:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
My comment is in regards to the person bringing the charge of incivility on another editor of WP. And specifically, the person bringing the charge frequently violates WP policy and thus does not have a lot of credibility in bringing up charges against another user. Kkm5848 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Akhilleus has a lot of credibility. If you cannot point to these 'frequent violations' of WP policy, perhaps you should withdraw that. Hornplease 18:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
In the same vein that The Onion has credibility among the journalism community, so too does Akhilleus among this community.Bakaman 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This thread is making me wonder about this noticeboard's utility. Instead of getting outside comment about the issues at hand, this thread is simply offering Bakasuprman another venue to cast aspersions on my character, credibility, etc. If we're not going to get any comments from uninvolved parties, this "discussion" ought to be closed. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree. It's apparent by the ongoing argument here and the fact that Duae Quartunciae's comments above about civility policies were almost completely ignored, that continued discussion on this board will probably not accomplish much. We can only help mediate when all parties involved are interested in resolving the dispute. We cannot really help when one or more parties are still jabbing at each other throughout the process. I would recommend you move on to a higher form of dispute resolution, such as informal or formal mediation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the recommendation--but my understanding is that dispute resolution is for article content. This is an interpersonal issue that has almost nothing to do with any Wikipedia article. Do you still think mediation would be an appropriate way to deal with this? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The dispute resolution process also applies to interpersonal disputes. Check out WP:RFC/U. And the mediation processes are there mainly to help resolve issues between editors, so hopefully they can help you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't really think a WP:RFC/U is likely to attract univolved editors, but thank you for the advice. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Bakasuprman is one of what appears to be an affinity group of users with similar ideas and open contempt for wikipedian standards (read their talk pages and editing history), who often support each other. IMHO, it is a waste of time to consider mediation with such repeat, unrepentant users who share common values, one must try to go to arbitration where meaningful sanctions can be enforced. One of this group, Bharatveer, has been taken directly to arbitration for similar behavior, and of course "Baka" has taken his usual combative approach in supporting him there. I suggest reviewing the arbitration case [[369]] and initiating a similar approach with "Baka", documenting his plethora of offenses. --Dseer 01:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ben & Jerry's flavors

Resolved.

There has been a slight battle over at this page from Chunk Champion. He created and actively edits the article, but I stepped in to try to improve the page. Since then, he's fought me left and right on edits. The reason I bring this issue here is that we had a discussion over what to name the section that refers to the discontinue flavors. I went ahead and got a third opinion that seemed reasonable and went ahead and made the edits, and he reverted them and left a fairly inflammatory comment on the talk page. This whole thing seems to stem from his not understanding how Wiki ownership works, and it's starting to bug me. Where can I go from here? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I've read is the conversation on your talk page, in which he's perhaps slightly sarcastic, but not totally out of bounds. I suspect that the larger issue isn't any violation of WP:CIVIL, but rather of WP:OWN - and reading between the lines I can certainly see a possible ownership issue there. However, before I can comment on it, I'd need to see some diffs in which he reverted your edits for the sole apparent reason of protecting "his" version of the page (i.e. without making reference to policy or otherwise justifying his reversions). Once I see those, I may be able to discuss the issue with him. Sarcasticidealist 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, okay. Since we got the third opinion today, he twice reverted my edits ([370] and [371]); previously, he reverted an edit when I removed trademark symbols ([372]). Beyond that, I guess it's just the stubbornness against change. I spent a bunch of time putting everything into a wikitable, and his comment was "Maybe next time you could contribute some actual content." — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, one more addition. Even after the third opinion today, he twice reverted my edits. We're getting kind of close to 3RR, but I still think that the suggestion given in the third opinion should be made. Should I go back to third opinion, or take it to RfC? Seems like a big step for such a relatively minor issue... — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I've left a note on his talk page encouraging him to accept the change (which I personally think is clearly more in keeping with Wikipedia's policies than is "Flavor graveyard", although I'm not here to adjudicate content disputes). I've also asked him to confirm that, if an RFC results in a clear consensus in favour of "Discontinued flavors", he will honour it. I'd give him a chance to respond and, if he continues to insist on "Flavor graveyard", start an RFC.
I hope this is helpful. Sarcasticidealist 19:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing this from Resolved to In Progress. Chunk Champion continues to ignore the slight consensus that has been reached on this page (see the talk page) and has contacted Ben & Jerry's for their opinion. Two people (one here and one here) have told him that this action is irrelevant. If this continues, I'm considering starting an RfC. Does anyone have any other suggestions? It seems silly/excessive to apply for an RfC, but it seems there may be no other choice. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Issue is now resolved. Thanks to everyone for their help. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by User:TharkunColl

Resolved.

Editor TharkunColl (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) seems to have been causing undue disruption across a number of articles for some time now, including at English people, God Save the Queen, Passport, Commonwealth of Nations, Head of the Commonwealth, Monarchy in Canada, British monarchy, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Second city of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth realm, etc. There seems to be two main, though intertwined, issues with his overall actions:

  1. TharkunColl's main modus of operandi is seemingly tactless and irrational reverting; in the edit summary he either offers no explanation at all, claims to be removing POV, or claims to be reverting vandalism, of which only the second reason could possibly be seen as valid.
  2. Following on the above, when prompted to participate in discussion about that which he alleges is POV, TharkunColl simply dismisses presented evidence that contradicts his claims, and puts forward little to none in support of his view, thus making his edits original research. This obstinacy can, and has, resulted in ceaseless debate on talk pages, edit wars, page locks, and his being blocked from editing.

Overall, TharkunColl's moves show that he:

  • is tendentious; continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
  • cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopaedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
  • rejects community input; resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
  • has violated Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Hence, TharkunColl's general actions seem to place him squarely under WP:DISRUPT. His talk page and block log show some of the extensive evidence of his conduct.

WP:RFCC has been considered, however I wished to start this informal RfC first, and, perhaps, have others directly communicate with TharkunColl regarding his behaviour. --G2bambino 18:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - as User:TharkunColl's talk page is currently locked, I have not, as of yet, notified him of this posting. I will do so at the earliest possible opportunity. --G2bambino 18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to have an 'Administrator' notify him (or allow you to notify him). GoodDay 21:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, if the blocks and such haven't yet served as notice to him that his behavior is unacceptable, I'm not sure what additional good a WQA will do (i.e. a user who's already been blocked for disruptive editing isn't likely to respond positively to the kind of gentle reminders WQA volunteers typically leave). I'd refer this to RFC/U if it continues after the block expires. --Darkwind (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I considered RfC/U, however a minimum two people who have already previously contacted the user in question regarding his/her behaviour is required to file one. I currently have no such counterpart. Hence, I wanted to bring his actions to wider attention. Hopefully another editor discussing TharkunColl's attitude with him would be sufficient for him to take a second look at himself; yes, multiple warnings and blocks seem to have done little, but maybe - just maybe - a frank opinion expressed to him might work (?). If that does fail, then said other editor could thus be the second person required to file an RfC/U. --G2bambino 14:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is G2bambino's obsessive pushing of a certain POV across all pages relating to the British monarchy. This complaint here is part of a pattern of disruption that includes excessive arguing on talk pages, using all possible administrative processes (such as this one) to cause further annoyance, and general editing of articles to suit his POV. He calls for discussion on talk pages but often refuses to answer direct questions, hardly ever provides citations, and derides other people's citations as irrelevent or out of context. He instigates disruption on articles by inserting his POV, leading to edit wars and article locking. Almost every article he has altered in this way has been subject to disruption. TharkunColl 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you'll find that there are more than enough citations in the relevant articles themselves to support what's inserted, either at the same article or elsewhere - and you should be aware that I didn't create all that content myself (I'm never sure why you continue to convince yourself of the opposite). You have been directed to said articles time and time again; that you refuse to either look at or accept the cited content therein is nobody's issue but your own.
And here is where the root of your issue lies: it is your arguments that are mostly unsupported by actual evidence, and, indeed, your edits that contradict other Wikipedia content. Your refusal to accept this, along with your personal attacks, revert wars, talk page trolling, and the like, is why I've started this process - I want to see it cease so that editing can be more productive. I want to see less annoyance, not more.
The record stands: by all four criteria of WP:DISRUPT, put together with your block log and comments on your talk page, you seem to be a disruptive editor. That's not to say you can't change, but as it stands, things don't look good. --G2bambino 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I essentially concur with Thark's assessment. User G2bambino (aka Gbambino/Gbambino06) has a long history as the epitome of a tendentious editor, going back to his inaugural attempt to put "Canada is a kingdom" into the opening of the article on Canada. While I don't condone some aspects of Thark's behaviour, G. is much the more disruptive of the two.
-- Lonewolf BC 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I caused shit early on in my time here; mostly out of ignorance of the processes of Wikipedia combined with bouts of tempermentality. I never claimed to be perfect. But, let's let the records speak for whom is more disruptive than whom - yourself included, Loner. --G2bambino 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
In my observation you've never ceased to do so, but merely gotten craftier about it. However, let the full records say what they may to anyone else. -- Lonewolf BC 17:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
G2B is equal if not worse than tharkie, with his edit warring and downright bizarre views and changes to articles that would be misleading to readers. What tends to happen is G2B goes to an article and changes it according to his particular beliefs and obsessions. Then Tharkie comes across the article and changes it in line with his views/normal rather than convoluted views. These are in effect content disputes between these two editors in particular, over a range of articles with themes about the commonwealth etc. G2Bambino has been blocked for 3RR for this himself in the past over this. From what Lonewolf said above, as you can see I am not the only one with this opinion about the ongoing G2B vs tharkie issues. Call it a 'personality clash' or a clash of agendas/POVs.Merkinsmum 19:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It's frustrating: here we have 'two' editors G2B & Tharky (both who obviously care about the accurarcy of 'Commonwealth' related articles) ripping each other apart. They have more in common then they both care to admit- 'strong willed', 'intelligent', 'demanding accurary', in otherwords 'well meaning editors'. If only the All are equal VS UK, first among equals schism could be sorted out. Perhaps both should take a break from those articles & see how the 'rest' of the Wiki community edits them. GoodDay 20:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he and I obviously face off often. However, he's been riling people up at other pages and has been blocked for his actions there as well as where he and I cross paths. --G2bambino 06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The situaton can be assessed by G2B's own words "Yes, I considered RfC/U, however a minimum two people who have already previously contacted the user in question regarding his/her behaviour is required to file one. I currently have no such counterpart. Hence, I wanted to bring his actions to wider attention." i.e. No-one else objects to Tharkie's stance on this issue enough to upbrade him about it, and G2B has to go telling tales and canvassing in order to try and get someone to do so.Merkinsmum 21:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
So, you actually have no evidence that counters what presently speaks for Thark's behaviour. --G2bambino 06:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You've provided no evidence yourself, though, it's just wingeing. Please provide diffs of what you claim he has done wrong, and no doubt dozens could be provided as examples of your bizarre behaviour too. My point is that tharkie might be stendentious but you are too. I don't have to defend thark it's up to you to back up your claim in the first place. Thark would not be petty and buerocratic enough to go round pages like this trying to get people in trouble that's for sure.Merkinsmum 13:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
His talk page and block log are evidence enough, and both show he gets himself in trouble well enough without my help. I've already admitted that I'm no saint, but I think the main difference between he and I is that I can be reasoned with. I don't know if others have, but I've tried to reason with him, many, many times; unfortunately, to no avail. Thark continues with his anti-British paranoia, and to throw jabs at people even when they're generally being respectful in return; and those are just a couple of the things I know of him, editors who contribute to Second city of the United Kingdom or English people, or other articles would have other things to say. If he won't be reasoned with, what other options present themselves to bring a resolution to the ongoing problems? --G2bambino 13:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If I can offer an observation: I respect both TharkunColl and G2bambino as editors who do their research and offer useful comments. I have been in lengthy discussions with both of them. I have both agreed and disagreed with them on a number of points. From what I've observed G2bambino and TharkunColl clash frequently on many pages. They seem to argue most about the relationship of the UK monarchy with other Commonwealth monarchies: in particular, the Canadian one. In my opinion TharkunColl does seem to ignore some points and sometimes offers (in my opinion) irrational arguments. But on that score you could castigate many of not most editors at some point or another. On the other hand, if you stay with him long enough and patiently enough, he will address your points. G2Bambino, in his discussions with TharkunColl seems to assume motive and resorts sometimes to personal attacks. He also on occasion ignores valid points TharkunColl makes. They are both red rags to each other, as many talk pages show. I think this issue is more about a personal feud. Both parties are equally responsible for disruptions. I agree with GoodDay: if you read a lengthy exchange them, they actually agree on more than they argue about. And yes, following another good idea from GoodDay, why don't you (Tharky and G2) both retire temporarily from the UK vs equal monarchy thing and see how it plays out without you? You might be able to get some fresh perspective. --Gazzster 07:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this issue of Thark's behavious goes well beyond his interactions with me; as I keep saying, his talk page and block log show well enough the wide range of his offences, and where they take place. My opening this discussion here wasn't the start of some personal vendetta.
That said, it seems you, Gazzster, and GoodDay should know that I'm not unaware of what Thark and I agree and disagree on; I thought this comment I made on his talk page clarified my position on the entire UK first/all equal situation between he and I.
But what he and I agree on is of minor consequence here; the main issue is that the UK first/all equal subject already has been debated by a wider group of participants; the majority of people saw, in each case, that there were no grounds on which to give the UK primacy beyond certain specific occasions. Thark's reasons for elevating the UK in every and all instances – the non-UK countries are colonies, they are "non-kingdoms," they have vice-regals, and so on – certainly were not accepted. It's the fact that Thark refuses to recognise these decisions, and, of course, any of the provided evidence that supports them, combined with the aggressive reverting, and NPOV and NPA breaches, that makes Thark generally disruptive.
I have, however, taken seriously people's observations here regarding me. I certainly hope Thark has done the same. --G2bambino 20:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than being disruptive I would say Tharky pushes his point. You could call that a strength as long as his arguments are supported by evidence. And he does put evidence forward, no matter how much we may dispute its worth. And I agree, it can be annoying. But as I say, if you stay with him long enough, and treat him with respect, he will respond to your arguments. I'd suggest simply rely on the safeguards Wiki already has in place (the 3 revert block rule, etc)to deal with difficulties, and most importantly, don't respond in a personal manner. As youve read from my comments to Tharky, I get riled by him, but it is important to keep my cool. When I stopped feeling riled, I noticed he put forward some bloody good points that made me think. I will of course, continue to spar with him. It's all good fun, as long as noone gets hurt! Cheers!--Gazzster 02:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as Tharky keeps his arguments to the 'talk pages', doesn't get overly combative on the 'edit summaries' & restrains from Edit warring - I'm at peace. GoodDay 17:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin; Removal of maintenance tags, exhausting circular discussions

Stale. Eleland 14:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A long-simmering dispute at Battle of Jenin has seen much heat and little light over the past several weeks. A {{POV-check}} tag was added, belatedly, on 3 August, and I soon changed it to {{TotallyDisputed}}, which I thought was a more accurate characterization of the debate. (POV-check is generally for minor issues, such as when a new article is created by someone who doesn't feel they can be entirely neutral, and voluntarily asks for a "sanity check" by a second editor.) Anyway, the tag was reverted and unreverted a bunch of times over the next few days, without explanation, until User:Jaakobou argued on 6 Aug that we "did not open a talk page subsection explaining this dispute", and that "i see no reason for the orange tag except that one side is unhappy that they look bad with the material in the article". Myself and other editors discussed this and the tags seemed to stick.

Over the past 3 or 4 weeks the dispute has certainly not quited down; if anything, it's become more heated. Those who follow this board (and AN/I and even CSN) have probably cseen some fallout from it. Anyway, the point I'm making is that we seem to be getting further from consensus, rather than closer. This being said, User:Jaakobou removed the tags saying that "factuality has been established and there's no massive neutrality issues. feel free to open the issues on talk in separete subsections." (Actually, that's another issue here - Jaakobou has been aggressively trying to structure the discussion to his liking, moving around comments to "on" and "off" -topic sections, insisting that he won't comment in a section if he finds the title "NPOV", etc)

Anyway, I reverted the tag with the summary "re-add tags; the fact that some editors have been worn down or driven off by excessively circular talk page discussion does not mean that issues are "resolved"!", Jaakobou re-reverterd the tag with the summary "rv, i don't follow your commentary/edit summary - what factuality problems are you contesting exactly ?", and User:PalestineRemembered restored it saying "This is a hugely disputed article..Lead stuffed with inappropriate "context", written to the "minority view" eg over whether it was a massacre, lots evidence missing." I have given in and written an extensive summary of the POV problems with one paragraph, which I believe is very typical of the entire piece.

I'd like opinions on two issues:

1) Under what circumstances are maintenance tags removed? Whever I've done it, it's been by posting on the talk page and getting unanimous consent. I realize this may not be practically required in all cases, but I'd never dream of removing a tag when two or three editrs disagree, without having some overwhelming exceptional reason.

2) What do we do when a discussion simply goes on and on without any resolution? Is it just time for mediation? I'm worried that the extremely wearying nature of this discussion is driving people to leave, or at least seriously reduce their involvement - causing those editors who stay to jump in proclaiming that the dispute no longer exists.

Thanks, and I apologize for the length of the post, and for the summary which will necessarily exclude all kinds of details - this has been going on for 6 weeks at least, with at least 6 or 7 editors posting extensively, so I'm sure I've missed many things. Eleland 13:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Much of the discussion is based on who called it a massacre and when. This is not really relevant to an encyclopaedia article on a battle, which should focus on current knowledge of strategies used and casualties; as a method of defusing tension, I strongly suggest you all take a break and consider creating a sub-article on the earlier controversies about body count. That is certainly more in line with the expectations from the encyclopaedia; the media battle and the real-world battle were two different things. If nothing else, I find that focusing on too many things at once on a talkpage can lead to extra frustration. Hornplease 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, another reason we need some help. You're saying that we're focusing on too many different things, Jaakobou is saying that the disputes are only really narrow and minor. Eleland 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We might both be right if what the central foci of difference are (the polemics surrounding the use of the term 'massacre') are, in a sense, tangential to the real subject of the article. Hornplease 05:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Greg L's behavior on Kilogram

Resolved.

Kilogram is a class-B Vital article that Greg L has been doing an enormous amount of work on. Unfortunately, the user's behavior on the talk page shows signs of ownership. There was a fair amount of constructive, collaborative editing sparked by Greg L's contributions, but one exception was the response of other editors to the huge expansion of the "mass versus weight" section. I initiated a Request for Comments on the issue, but Greg L has stated the he is not interested in what other users on the page have to say, and he has been attacking other user's suitability to edit the page.

Involved parties:

User:Yath deleted the expansion very early

User:JimWae is engaged in editing and discussion on the talk page

User:Enuja I am engaged in discussion on the talk page

User:Greg L

I would like advice on how to make editing and discussion on this article constructive again. Enuja (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To the committee: I’m sorry you’ve been dragged into what I feel is a dispute over childish behavior. While I am quite interested in the consensus of reasonable people, by Enuja’s own admission no consensus had been reached on an issue of great interest to her (see record of dispute here). Nevertheless, in bad faith, she suggested that since no consensus had been reached, that this was evidence that one somehow had been reached and proposed action based on this false premise. In blunt terms, but ones that fall far short of a ‘prohibited’[1] “personal attack,” I told her what I thought of that stunt. It is a dispute over this issue that underlies her claim that I am “not interested in what other users on the page have to say.”
Please note that I’ve recently done to Kilogram article what I had previously done to the Specific heat capacity article: I completely re-wrote it. And in the case of Kilogram I also created the CG illustration for it. Both articles had degraded to the point that they were difficult to read and had significant factual errors. Please see this positive reaction on Specific heat capacity’s talk page regarding that rewrite. I also engaged in professional and good-faith debate with other editors during that rewrite (see example). Here’s what the Kilogram article looked like before I started on it 22 days ago. The authors over on the Specific heat capacity article behaved very maturely, welcomed the improvements, and sought to assist (one of them even solicited my efforts to merge a now-redundant article into it).
However, my experiences on the Kilogram article have been entirely the opposite. A small group of the people—those cited above by Enuja—have seemingly not ‘warmed’ to a newcomer. One of them seemingly sought out conflict by following me to Kelvin just to make a bad-faith edit by flat deleting a table that had been in the article for years. He deleted it only nine hours after I had edited the table (I had restored it to full size after someone truncated it). This was very suspicious timing given that his previous edit to Kelvin had been a year prior. Further, his post to the Kelvin talk page betrayed an underlying annoyance with recent events over on Kilogram (see that discussion).
As regards Enuja’s claim of seeking advise and guidance from you to make “editing and discussion on this article constructive again,” that strikes me as disingenuous posturing in an attempt to appear as a wise source of reason who seeks only to avoid conflict. The same applies to her claim that I am displaying “signs of ownership”; I believe the true facts to quite the opposite. I am particularly galled by her above statement of…
“I initiated a Request for Comments on the issue, but Greg L has stated the he is not interested in what other users on the page have to say…”
She withdrew (deleted) her own Request-for-Comments form after having receiving insufficient interest from others in her “issue” and obtained mixed results from those who commented (see discussion). Further, I said nothing about not being interested in what she and the others had to say before she withdrew the form; quite the opposite, for I posted my best case and waited for others to weigh in. My ‘don’t care’ reaction was only after she falsely claimed a consensus and solicited JimWae to start deleting recent additions to the article. Her above allegation to you seriously mischaracterizes the true facts and seems nothing more than another attempt to garner support for her cause. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for years and can assure you that all good-faith edits by others are treated in the proper Wikipedia manner and any good-faith disagreements with other editors that are discussed on talk pages are debated professionally.
Respectfully, Greg L (my talk) 04:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I took some time today to read Talk:Kilogram, and what I see there is slightly disturbing in the sense that you all started out so well, but then it quickly degraded. Greg L (t c), I agree with Enuja (t c) insofar as your responses to her and to JimWae (t c) do indeed have the ring of "I worked hard on this, don't touch my stuff." From there, your responses also start to lose the appearance of "assume good faith." I don't see that she performed any kind of "wholesale deletion," especially since information is very rarely permanently deleted on Wikipedia (and such requires the intervention of oversight and/or developers to effect.) Rather, I see she was trying to follow WP:SUMMARY.
Wikipedia would not be where it is today without contributors like you, Greg, who take the time and effort to improve our coverage of scientific topics. However, Wikipedia would also not be where it is without editors like Enuja, who take the time to ensure that each article covers what it should, and valuable but misplaced information is relocated. You compared the article on Kilogram to a Britannica article, and said "it's nowhere near as long" and "Britannica articles have some depth." The beauty of Wikipedia (and the World Wide Web and hypertext in general) is that you don't have to have all of the information on one page for the article (and the encyclopedia) to have depth. If the information is moved to, say, mass or weight, then a brief summary can be left in summary style, and the bulk of the information can be moved to the most appropriate article where someone who wants to find out about the relation between mass and weight will logically look first. Nothing is lost by doing this, since it's just a simple click away. Personally, I enjoy the aspect of being able to open linked articles in a new tab for additional information when I'm done perusing the first article. The exploration of additional linked articles is part of what makes Wikipedia fun to learn from!
That being said, I also think you were a bit quick to call a "vote" on the Mass vs. Weight section (on 12 August). Discussion is indeed the correct first step, as Yath (t c) pointed out. Someone has an idea, you respond, they rebut, you rebut, and by then or there abouts, if neither of you changes your mind, THEN perhaps ask for a third opinion, or perhaps consider RFC or a vote. I am also deeply concerned by your comment, regardless of the circumstances, that you "[weren't] interested in what ... regular editors feel." Regardless of the size of the group of editors expressing a concern, how often they contribute to the article in question or scientific subject matters, or how experienced they are at Wikipedia, you should always be interested in what your fellow editors have to say. That's the basis of consensus and the operation of Wikipedia and any wiki in general.
Your response here also indicates a lack of AGF. There was indeed a lack of consensus from the RFC on keeping the information on mass vs. weight directly in the article. A lack of consensus doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a lack of action. Enuja's attempt to move the detailed information to the specific subject article(s) was supported already by WP:SUMMARY, and no consensus was needed on that from the RFC. I suspect she opened the RFC to see if there was consensus to support YOUR view that the information should remain in Kilogram, since you seemed upset by the idea of moving it, and if such a consensus had formed, then I believe she'd have left the information intact in Kilogram.
Basically, Greg, I think you need to learn to let go a bit and allow the wiki process to take its course. Correct any obvious scientific errors that are introduced, but please acknowledge that others have valuable contributions they can make—if not to the scientific information, then to the formatting and layout of the article. --Darkwind (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Darkwind: Thank you for taking the time to respond to this issue. Volunteers such as youself serve a very valuable service since unresolvable disputes can really ruin the Wikipedia experience. A third party can be just what it takes to break logjams.
Most of what you’ve said above seems like good, common-sense dispute resolution advise. I take issue with one observation you made: A lack of “AGF” (assuming good faith). It is inescapable that humans often behave in ways that are clearly childish or not in good faith. People can do bad things. Wikipedia can experience its share of all of this; you can I both know this. Any reasonable interpretation of, for instance, Yath’s behavior in following me to the Kelvin article looking to create conflict, would lead to the conclusion that this wasn’t in good faith. As I explained above in the third paragraph of my statement, his motives are unprovable, known only to him and God. I’ve carefully studied the timing of the edits he made to the article and his posts to the talk page. He hadn’t edited that article in the previous year. So in that particular case, considering the totality of the history preceding that, a simple common-sense test shows he very probably went looking for conflict with a provocative deletion. This is not a court of law where the burden of proof must be “beyond a reasonable doubt” before society revokes life and liberty. This is not a civil trial where liability to the tune of millions of dollars is established based upon the “preponderance of evidence.” For the purposes of interacting with other editors on Wikipedia, only one common-sense test can apply: treat others as you would have them treat you and assume good faith until they demonstrate otherwise. Once someone has violated that trust and does childish stuff, the “presumption of good faith” is no longer deserved. Greg L (my talk) 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't take the time to examine Yath (t c)'s behavior outside of the comments that appeared from him on Talk:Kilogram. What you say in reference to him may very well be the case, that he had less than honorable motives in his edits to the various articles involved. However, what I was referring to you when I mentioned the concept of AGF was the portion of your response referring to Enuja's motives in opening a WQA. I don't see her behavior at all deserving of a re-examination of her motives; and to see it in that light would really require you to have dropped your good-faith assumption about her behavior a while ago. I'm not just tooting a policy horn, here—I really believe that AGF is what greases the wheels of Wikipedia's operations, so to speak. When we start seeing ulterior motives behind every editor, then we spend more time addressing our paranoia and less time improving the encyclopedia. --Darkwind (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Very well. Greg L (my talk) 03:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the tag on top to "resolved" as it seems to be so. Thanks for the help from Darkwind, and thanks to Greg L! Enuja (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony1

Stuck. Issue escalated to WP:ANI

Tony1 (talk · contribs) is posting silly personal attacks about me and other people he disagrees with, and disrupting discussion with ad hominems, as well as by alluding to conspiracies and "ploys" against him, and calling people Nazis. Could someone have a word with him and get him to calm down? [373] [374] [375] [376] >Radiant< 11:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just on the basis of that fourth diff you linked, I left Tony1 (t c) a message to remind him about NPA and the usage of ad hominem arguments, but I don't have time to go over the whole situation at the moment. I'll come back later on today and give it another look. --Darkwind (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I left a message on Tony1's talk page and on Wikipedia talk:Build the web as well, pointing him to several civility policies and advising him that there are better, more civil ways to discuss a policy dispute than the way he's currently doing it. I looked through all four of Radiant's diffs and read through the conversations, and for the most part I believe Radiant has been remaining calm and civil (though citing Godwin's Law was not a good move, in my opinion).
Radiant: Some advice for you as well: Please ensure you're up to date on WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL and WP:POINT. I think you're allowing Tony1 to get under your skin a little too much - I'm referring specifically to where you cited Godwin's Law and told him that he'd lost the argument. While I agree that his calling you a Nazi was way out of line and generally discredits his arguments, you allowed yourself to respond in kind, thus inflaming the situation more. (Telling someone that they're losing usually only prompts them to fight harder.) I think you'd be better served by refocusing the discussion only to the policies at hand, and politely asking the other editor to remove all personal attacks from his comments and focus on the content discussion.
I do thank you for bringing this issue here, though. For the most part, I think you're doing a good job in the dispute. Just a few rough edges to polish off, that's all. We're certainly willing to help mediate, though. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
While Tony does tend to be unusually aggressive, and believes that the MOS should be used to promote "modern" views on English, he also tend to cool down and consider arguments after a few days. I find this section particularly indicative on both tendencies. It happens to be political; but his idea that the MOS should simply mandate Socrates's is equally dismaying. (His habit of speaking of "MOS breaches" at FA suggests that he does not understand what a guideline is.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
That was an inaccurate summary of the apostrophe-s siuation; not only is Tony arguing for the MoS to recommend (a guideline cannot actually "mandate" anything) consistent possessive indicator usage, instead of mutually contraditory and incompatible rationales for dropping the final s sometimes, he is backed up in the matter by other editors (myself included, by way of disclaimer), with actually logically-defensible rationales for why to prefer one over the other, which fans of "Moses' " have yet to counter. I do agree with Tony can get a little hot around the collar, but that appears to be equally true of both you and I, and Radiant, and... So I wouldn't put too much store in that. I do agree that he also does calm down. So, I'm not sure why we are here. His over-the-top "like a Nazi" comment got him admonished by multiple parties, and I'm sure that's sufficient. Also, takes two to tango, and while I don't condone the incivility, it is sometimes not difficult to understand how someone can feel driven to it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
We're not "here". This alert was closed on this page two weeks ago. --Darkwind (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see a conflict erupt between Tony1 and Radiant, two good editors. IMO the problem actually originated with Pmanderson, and Radiant found himself in the middle of Tony1's exhausted patience after long-standing disruption to Wikipedia's manual of style by Pmanderson, while Tony has attempted to improve the MOS to common professional standards in use elsewhere. I have limited computer access for the remainder of this week and next, but I have left one small example of how difficult it has been to work on MOS because of Pmanderson's editing on Radiant's talk page. [377] I do wish someone would look into Pmanderson's behavior as part of this whole issue; I can't help but notice he's lodged what I consider to be a spurious issue two sections below this one, and suggest that someone might ask Pmanderson to consider his own editing style and the effect it has on others. I also note that someone actually left a template on Tony1's talk page, perhaps never having read WP:DTR. For someone who has worked as hard as Tony1 has to improve Wikipedia, that's just insulting and the whole point behind DTR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Have to strongly agre with SandyGeoria on eery word of he above.
Thanks for the update. It does look like a strong case of frayed nerves. A dispute between Tony1 and Radiant can be quickly resolved with a couple apologies in both directions if that's all it is, and then work can resume on the content issues at hand. My advice to both parties stands, though.

— KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the new section "Block" on my talk page (unfortunate coincidence in a whole-ISP block I've been caught up in). I hope this is the end of the matter here. Tony 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops, just discovered a bit of a conflict here, which I wasn't aware of before. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pmanderson 2 At any rate, I hope the analysis I left for Radiant of the issues that are occurring at MOS, and how difficult that editing environment has been, will still be useful. Perhaps it would be appropriate for Radiant to withdraw from this conflict? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why Radiant should withdraw; Tony attacked him for daring to disagree on GNL. Nor am I saying this out of gratitude for an unsuccessful RfA nomination nine months ago; Sandy is far more closely tied to Tony than I am to Radiant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Nor are you the only one who noticed this rather out-of-place accusation. I just didn't comment on it when I noticed it yesterday because I didn't want to reopen the discussion in this section. --Darkwind (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because this issue has now been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin Radiant!, I've marked it as Stuck here. I don't see that there's anything more we can do in this situation - the situation is apparently much more complex than we're equipped to deal with here on WQA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Epbr123

Stuck.

-- An RFC has been filed against User:Epbr123. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find Epbr123's part in this conversation gratingly condescending, particularly his idea that the FAC regulars are entitled to educate the rest of Wikipedia? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please try to avoid mischaracterizing someone else's comments as "educate the rest of Wikipedia". No FAC reviewer is obligated to make the changes to the article; some may choose to do so, but it's not generally wise, as some FAC nominators have ownership issues and editing "their" article is a good way to get your head bitten off. Epbr123's responses there were reasonable; perhaps you're being overly sensitive to other editors pointing out issues on the article you nominated. I assume you've notified Epbr123 of this alert? If not I shall do so now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I did think Epbr's responses were less than helpful, but perhaps that's to be expected since the discussion in question started with a severe critique of the FAC process. Ironically enough, Epbr's responses could easily be seen as a demonstration of one of PMAnderson's criticisms--that the FAC process focuses on formatting and copyediting, rather than addressing the substance of the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OT:That has been my interpretation of the FAC process, that the reviewers primarily were concerned with presentation clarity, not so much the content (though if it stinks, they point it out). But most articles should be close to not having content issues to be serious FAC contenders I would think. --Rocksanddirt 23:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No, Akhilleus. The fact that there were so many MOS problems with the article after it had been promoted shows that formatting was not heavily focused on during the FAC. Epbr123 23:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Epbr123's exact words are If reviewers fix articles themselves, the main authors don't learn anything. If you guys fix these things yourself, you'll be more likely to remember to do them with your future articles. If this is not the point of view of the country schoolmaster setting tasks to his pupils, it really needs recasting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, he has a valid point, even if it could have been stated more politely. It is a little condescending as written, and generally editors are encouraged to just fix obvious problems, as that is more efficient and helps promote the constructive and cooperative nature of a wiki. But I can see his point, that if he just goes and fixes the problems himself, the fixes may not necessarily gain the notice of the original editor, and thus the original editor may just go make the same mistakes later on, requiring more fixes. I believe his intentions were good in promoting the "fix it yourself" approach - wording could have been a little better, but I don't see any clear violations of civility here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
even if it could have been stated more politely. It is a little condescending as written - I find this a little bit condescending to be honest. I'm not complaining, but I just thought I'd point out the irony of a system where people are told off for telling people off. Epbr123 11:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if my analysis seems condescending - I assure you it wasn't meant to be. As I said, I didn't see any particular lack of civility there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No one else can make you wear a shoe if it doesn't fit; I don't see how Epbr123 can be responsible for you feeling like a pupil when issues that need to be corrected are pointed out. No reviewer is obligated to repair an article you bring to FAC, and the WP:FAC instructions encourage nominators to respond well to criticism. Epbr123's comments are not in the least uncivil; this alert looks unnecessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Gotta agree there with Sandy and Epbr, not that my word is worth much now. Tony 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've had several encounters with Epbr123, and will share some impressions, for what they're worth. His behavior in the English municipality and FA articles and discussions show him, by far, at his most constructive. Once he leaves these areas he is unceasingly arrogant, condescending and destructive to all other editors. He follows what he feels are Wikipedia rules with rigid literalism, usually as an excuse to mass-nominate articles in a subject area for deletion. These mass-deletions always follow his loss of an article through AfD. Once he has lost an article, he goes on a deletion-tagging rampage, invariably showing contempt for consensus and an inhumanely literalistic interpretation of the rules, apparently to prove a point. When his actions cause an outcry from editors with long experience in those subjects, and administrators offering him advice, he refuses to budge, and instead increases the rate of his nominations. My most recent such encounter with him was at the List of big-bust models and performers. Here, he instigated an edit-war by removing a large amount of entries without discussion. I never reverted him, though other editors did, and he engaged in edit-war like behavior with them. Attempting to find good faith, prevent an escalation of the edit-war, and improve the article, I attempted to engage him in discussion. Instead of taking this opportunity to improve the article, he instead nominated the article for deletion, on the pretexts that inclusion criteria (which I was attempting to discuss with him) were poorly defined, and that this had caused an edit-war (which he had started). I realize he has done some good in the work on English municipalities, but even here it seems that he is taking advantage of the rules-- articles on towns cannot be deleted as non-notable-- in order to spin out hundreds of stub articles. I have serious doubts about the validity of his purposes in editing here. Dekkappai 04:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The fact that the vast majority of AfD I make end with a deletion show that the Wikipedia community backs my "destructive" actions. Epbr123 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, actually, the vast majority of all AfD's end with a deletion, so that doesn't show much. See Bayesian statistics for more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • No need; I have a degree in statistics. It doesn't matter if my "win" rate is lower than average (although I think it's way above average), my supported AfDs still vastly outweigh my rejected ones. Epbr123 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
            • If you had a degree in statistics, you'd realize that what you just said is nonsense. I'm really good at getting wet when I swim. I get we 100% of the time I swim. Is that at all remarkable? No. Everybody gets wet 100% of the time when they swim. --Cheeser1 05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I would point everyone below, where he actually filed a frivolous WQA complaint against an administrator who warned him that his deletion rampage was disruptive. --Cheeser1 05:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • This guy seems to be stalking me. He's just a schoolkid, though, so I'll make allowances. Epbr123 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • This is an inflammatory personal attack, which has no place on Wikipedia, especially not on the WQA. Your behavior is inappropriate and you should seriously reconsider how you are approaching this issue (and for the record, I am a 22-year-old graduate student pursuing a Ph.D. in mathematics). --Cheeser1 10:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree with Cheeser1's statement here. Epbr123, the comment above is definitely a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - please refrain from making such remarks. It is okay to say that you feel as though you're being stalked (though I doubt that's what's happening in this case), but when you start judging other people's character like you did above ("He's just a schoolkid, though"), it can be quite insulting to other users, and it only tends to inflame the situation further, rather than helping. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry, Cheeser1. I misread the part of your userpage which mentioned graduate school. You are stalking me though. Epbr123 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In my recent conversations with Epbr123, in addition to his recent remarks on Talk:List of big-bust models and performers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (5th nomination), he seems to be violating civility, no personal attacks, and, in an odd sort of way, even taking ownership of the aforementioned article in a deletionist sort of way. His behavior has me concerned, particularly his sniping of people on the linked AFD and I feel that it requires mediation, which may even result in a request for comment on this user sometime in the near future. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. He has made a dozen bad-faith AfDs this week, and among other things, has personally attacked several users (including the frivolous complaint here at the WQA against an admin), and has sniped at almost every "keep" vote in these AfDs. He claims that he is being "abused" when people point out his bad-faith nominations, and seems to believe that accusations of bad faith are themselves bad faith (when in fact, WP:AGF only goes so far). --Cheeser1 18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like more people's input (from an outsider's point of view) regarding this before we proceed with a possible RFC. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Are there any specific diff's you'd like an unbiased observer to look at? The whole big-bust thing went on for a little too long for me to entirely follow. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed it did. However, as I tried to diffuse the situation myself near the climax/end of it all, I'll get the attention of the users who could probably best help you (and other outside observers) out. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
In addition to engaging in mass deletions (and refusing to explain why), edit warring, refusing to try to discuss things out, mass related AfD creation without grouping them together (in order to increase their chances of succeeding), and then calling an AfD in bad faith as he was clearly losing an argument -- as has all been pointed out -- he is now adding bulk bogus entries to the List of big-bust models and performers page. Assuming good faith is not really an option here; he is clearly attempting to be disruptive for whatever reason. In my opinion, this has escalated far past a mere etiquette violation and constitutes abuse. Xihr 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
And now he's proposed renaming the page -- before the AfD he's started on it is even complete. This is beyond silly now. Xihr 23:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to add too much exposition to these points right. Well, we'll see how much I crank out. On this very WQA, Epbr took it upon himself to accuse an intervening administrator of etiquette violations just because the admin told him to stop disruptively nominating articles for deletion. He also made a personal attack against me, just a few paragraphs above, calling me a "stalker" and a "schoolkid" in order to discredit my complaints against him. Interesting that his condescending "schoolmaster" approach was the initial reason this WQA was opened (although it's widened quite a bit in its scope since then). He nominated 11 articles for deletion in a single day, from Notable Usenet personalities, but instead of grouping them, he nominated them all at once (this is why the admin warned him). He justified it using an (invalid) citation of WP:SNOW, here. He has been extraordinarily uncivil [378] for example. He constantly marks people's comments as "ILIKEIT" and makes other unfounded remarks in order to antagonize and discredit them.

Unsubstantiated accusations of "bad faith" or frivolous accusations of "ILIKEIT":

  1. [379]
  2. [380]
  3. [381]
  4. [382]
  5. [383]
  6. [384]

Personally insulting responses:

  1. [385]
  2. [386]
  3. [387]

Other non-constructive responses to keep votes:

  1. [388]
  2. [389]
  3. [390]
  4. [391]
  5. [392]
  6. [393]
  7. [394]

Other non-constructive comments:

  1. [395]
  2. [396]
  3. [397]

Sorry, I know that's alot of links. If you only click one, click this one instead (note: this one is not included on the list). All these antagonisitc, non-constructive comments, the result is undeniably to sour the AfD process and make it impossible to work together to discuss policy and work to form consensus on the issue. Instead, these bad-faith AfD nomimations are marked with continued acts of unreasonable and uncivil behavior. It seems entirely inappropriate to respond condescendingly, or at least non-constructively, to every single "keep" vote. He even admits that his AfD was an attempt to prove a point about the subjectivity of the criteria - a point he could have made on the article's talk page, something to be discussed and resolved with other editors. Instead, he jumped ship on the discussion, because he has decided unilaterally that the article wasn't worth keeping. He's made it a point to drag irrelevant topics into the AfD by asking pedantic leading questions, as pointed out here by Xhir. He believes that the AfD page is the place to discuss content issues (see here). It appears that he believes that he is in charge of clean up, and that when edit wars ensue, he is in charge of fixing it by AfD'ing the whole thing (see here). He also seems to like to accuse people of the violations that they are accusing him of (when accused of bad faith, he accuses bad faith, and the same with POINT and CIVIL). He seems to believe that he is the only one in charge of deciding whether an article can be properly sourced. He seems to think he is appointed by Wikipedia to delete bad articles - he thinks he speaks for the entire Wikipedia community (despite the fact that many of his currently-running AfDs have snowballed-keep). He seems to be very proud of it, in fact. And yet he would accuse an admin of an abuse of power with no evidence whatsoever. His behavior has, from the start, been entirely out of line. I first encountered him here on the WQA, where he had accused User:georgewilliamherbert of abusing administrator power by warning him about his AfDs. I looked and was immediately surprised to see him going on what can only be described as a deletion spree. I can't speculate as to why, but User:Dekkappai has some ideas. Regardless, this is way out of hand. I believe something needs to be done. I may have more to add later, but I am fairly busy and may not be able to find the time. But this is what I've come up with now, in a bit of spare time I had this evening. Of course, there are also plenty of other users making points that I have not covered here (like Xhir's point about Epbr trying to move a page in the middle of an AfD he started for that page). Oh, and one more point: he lists every single one of his edits as "minor." Many people filter out minor edits, and he would effectively be able to edit without being noticed by these people. He could respond to their points, appropriately or not, and they'd never even see it. The "This is a minor edit" button is not supposed to be abused in this fashion. --Cheeser1 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I'd say that's being more than a little point-y, except that I'm not sure what the point of the behavior would be. (I'd like to AGF, but it's a bit of a stretch). Is there an RfC up somewhere, or has this gone to AN/I? --Bfigura (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There's no RFC yet... Given that there is growing consensus that one is necessary now, it's in the process of being established. Unless anyone else beats me to it, I plan on working on it sometime tomorrow afternoon. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably not a bad idea, given that he just put another few dozen articles up for Deletion. (I haven't read through them all, so I can't comment on whether it was appropriate or not, but at the very least, WP:BUNDLE should have been used. --Bfigura (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree; an RfC or mention to AN/I is wholly appropriate now, given his track record. Xihr 04:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to point everyone here. Another user is deleting people's "votes" in Epbr's AfDs, and Epbr is helping that user out by telling him/her that his removals (which I would consider serious vandalism) are being reverted. See [398] [399] [400] [401]. He seems to be supporting these absurd claims of "trolling" (probably because that's one less keep vote) however, even if a poorly justified vote on an AfD isn't great, but it is not trolling. --Cheeser1 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've notified the administrator (yes, Picaroon is an administrator, much to my surprise) to justify his actions. I've also reverted his changes on the AFDs I've found so far, with additional comments as needed. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 14:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting, User:Cheeser1. User:Picaroon brought up the uncommented deletions on my talk page, where I pointed out why I thought his actions were inappropriate and what a more appropriate solution would be (he replied, dismissing my objections, not surprisingly). I was unaware that User:Epbr123 had alerted him to my (completely appropriate, I still believe) reversions to his deletions on his talk page, but obviously I'm not surprised. (And yes, I gathered that Picaroon was an admin, which is why I let it be without engaging in further efforts. Why bother trying to do the right thing when the deck is stacked against you?) Xihr 21:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've begun breaking ground on the RfC on Epbr123. For those of us directly involved with this, please feel free to modify my work, since it's been a long while since I've ever had to file an RfC against anyone. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've contributed a bit, and while I don't think I have more to contribute, I might come up with something later. --Cheeser1 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for all the work that you've done. I've officially launched the RfC against Epbr and will be notifying users involved with the dispute shortly. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I notified the user about the RfC against him; he has since blanked the notification. I wish to restore it, however I did not read anything in RFC guidelines regarding the removal of notification messages one way or the other, so have held off for now. Regardless, the user knows about the RfC, so I guess it has served its purpose. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

According to WP Talk Page policies, Epbr is allowed to remove the notice from his Talk page, and putting it back on there could then be considered vandalism or harassment of a sort. You can safely assume that he is aware of the RFC/U now that he has deleted the notice, so if he chooses not to respond to the RFC, you should add a link to the diff of your original notice to the RFC so that other users are specifically aware of his refusal to participate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Right, I just remembered that, and another user let me know of the same as well. ;-) As it has been already said, he knows about the RfC and his refusal to participate only makes things more likely to go against him, sadly. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


User:Johnpacklambert

Resolved.

This user is a prolific contributor, adding and editing facts on a wide variety of pages, but seldom leaves edit summaries or cites sources. Most of the added facts appear credible, but some are nearly impossible to verify (and of doubtful validity). His talk page has accumulated many polite requests for sources and/or summaries, but without results.--orlady 12:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a personal message on his talk page (not a template) with a request for him to cite and use edit summaries. We'll see what happens. --Darkwind (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I left a quick edit summary request to that respect earlier today. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 21:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but I think he needed a little more than the template. :) Hopefully he'll check out the edit summary prompt preference, and it's just absent-minded forgetfulness. --Darkwind (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Johnpacklambert has taken heed of the message from Darkwind and is leaving edit summaries and adding citations. Thanks for facilitating the communication. --orlady 17:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Georgewilliamherbert

Stuck. All involved users seem to agree that WQA is not the proper place for this dispute. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been marked as stuck because there is no violation of etiquette here. The comments on Epbr's talk page are entirely appropriate for the matter at hand, and are a response to his (arguably) disruptive editing, by an administrator no less. Epbr, please note that removal of this {stuck} template without discussion would be inappropriate. If you would like to lodge a complaint based on violations of etiquette, please do so. Until then, this matter belongs somewhere else, like in one of your 11 AfDs. Discussing reliable sources is not an etiquette matter; it should be happening on those AfD pages. --Cheeser1 02:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Motion seconded. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Template removed. This has not been referred elsewhere. Epbr123 11:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I mark it resolved then? There is nothing here to do. I hope the explanations have helped; but basically there was no violation of any etiquette issue. You got a legitimate caution from an admin. You are, of course, free to ignore it or to take it into account. But there's nothing for wikiquette to consider further. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
No. I do not accept a warning for AfDing articles an administrator is interested in as legitimate. Epbr123 12:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
OK then. You brought this alert; here is a ruling some feedback. I am 100% certain this will be consensus shared with any reasonable person looking at the events.
You are way out of line. If you want to ignore a warning, that is of course your right, but there was no violation of etiquette by Georgewilliamherbert. His warning was apt, mildly given, and you would be well advised to consider it seriously. It is not one isolated person's perspective.
On the other hand, this wikiquette alert was frivolous and unfounded. It just wastes time. You've not got any shred of a case here. You have been advised to take any issues you have elsewhere. That is what is meant by being referred elsewhere. But actually, my own suggestion is that you are much better just to drop it entirely.
The great pity of this is that you seem to be for the most part a hard working and very productive editor. Disagreements over the some issues are par for the course, and you need to accept them as being given in good faith. The advice about how to manage large numbers of delete nominations is also good advice, which you can keep in mind for the future as a better way to proceed.
My advice; let it go. Pursuing this can only get ugly and backfire on you. And you deserve better. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I find it bizarre that you find my AfDs disruptive. All the AfDs I made have recieved at least some support and it seems like the majority of articles will be deleted. I have resolved the issue with Georgewilliamherbert now, but I find your judgement totally unfair. Epbr123 12:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not expressed any personal view on the deletions, and I have said nothing about being disruptive. I said only that the the warnings you were given were mildly stated, and reflect more than just one person's opinion. In that case, you are well advised to take this into account. There is already some formal guideline on bundled deletions (WP:BUNDLE). It's only a guideline; there's no hard and fast rule. You have to pick the means you think best; and I'd like you to weigh in the balance the effect bundling or not bundling will have on other editors and on the general atmosphere of wikipedia.
What I advise (not being an expert on the deletion process myself) is that you should look over the guidelines and try and pick the approach that will contribute best to smooth running of the process and community good feeling. If a lot of people think that bundling would have been a good idea, then I think you should consider it seriously. But the main feedback I am giving you is that the warnings you received were not abusive and involved no violation of etiquette. Even if you disagree with the admin in question, which is entirely your right, you've got no basis for calling it an etiquette violation. Dispute and disagreement is normal, even with admins. It takes more than that to be an etiquette violation. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This is my final word on the matter. I don't find it mild to be called disruptive for making AfDs someone disagrees with. As stated in the AfDs, I did conider WP:BUNDLE but each article was to dissimilar. Some were about professors and others were about spammers. Epbr123 13:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This was referred elsewhere: If you want to argue about reliable sources, do it in the AfD or the talk page of the article(s) in question. If you want to make a point, do it somewhere else. This is a frivolous and unsubstantiated accusation launched at an administrator who warned Epbr that his AfD spree violates AfD conventions and was highly disruptive. This entire discussion has no place on the WQA and should be closed.
It has not been reffered. Epbr123 12:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
This WQA post was the first contact I had with this AfD-spree issue. It was immediate and obvious that there was no breach of etiquette here, and I have repeatedly directed you elsewhere. Rather than do so, you've continued to the point of personally attacking me above. This has no place on the WQA, and I'm not the only one saying so. You can't start making frivolous accusations (nor personal attacks) whenever an administrator tells you to follow policy. --Cheeser1 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Left this message on my talk page after I made these good faith AfD nominations: 1, 2, 3, 4. Epbr123 00:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive AFD nominations have been discussed elsewhere including the wikien-l mailing list over the last day. Attempts to remove whole categories of articles are at best likely to engender disruptive debate; the specifics here make me question good faith. The concept that categories of historical stuff aren't relevant or notable all of a sudden is highly suspicious. I am not the only administrator who is looking at recent AFD events with an eye towards pushing back on irrationally enthusiastic deletionism. This is not the only case, and I don't want to be rude to you Epbr123, but there's a real substantiative bigger issue here and specific problem with your nominations. Georgewilliamherbert 05:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with Georgewilliamherbert. I suspect that this is either a sorely misguided attempt to remove Usenet-related content from Wikipedia as if it were some random internet forum (of course, notability isn't inherited, but the notability of many ), or it's some other sort of attempt to prove a point. I've also made the following point in one of the AfD pages: This user is being very underhanded in this deletion spree - when a set of related articles is nominated for deletion in this fashion, their AfD is supposed to be combined. Instead, we're dealing with a slew of AfDs (which mostly appear to be going leaning towards keep), and if a few slip through the cracks and get deleted, it will be because of this senseless barrage of new AfDs. See: here. It makes me wonder what kind of person creates eleven different AfD debates about the exact same issue - was it some desire to do unnecessary and redundant work? I doubt it. Was it a good faith effort to delete all those articles at once? It seems doubtful. This user didn't put alot of thought into it - "Non-notable Usenet personality." is his exact rationale for every one - not that it's not valid, but you see what I mean. It already appears that this user is trying to make a point, and by forgoing the multiple-pages-for-deletion process, his deletions become disruptive and have the potential do delete a few articles that shouldn't be deleted, due only to the sheer volume of related article's he's put up for deletion. This behavior is disruptive and detrimental to Wikipedia; while I would like to assume good faith, I find it difficult at this point. He should have nominated them together, and I think he should have given more consideration for this - perhaps asking on the relevant talk pages about this before simply presuming that these articles (some of which are sourced pretty darn well) are automatically non-notable because Usenet isn't as well-known now as it was a decade or two ago. --Cheeser1 06:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
To address the issue here more clearly: While this is, apparently, a complaint against GWH, I believe that Epbr123 is totally overreacting to the concerns of two editors, expressed on his talk page. One clearly delineated the fact that his nominations of all these articles is a huge barrage of stuff for people to deal with. The other (the user against whom this complaint is lodged) simply pointed out that this kind of thing is disruptive. There's nothing wrong with saying so (even if GWH were mistaken, if it were not disruptive). If anything, these AfDs are more of a problem than the harmless comment to that effect left on Epbr123's talkpage. --Cheeser1 06:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Further abuse has been left on my talk page by Georgewilliamherbert. Epbr123 00:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think this is abuse, but I'm an administrator, and part of our job is to express concerns and take action to end or mitigate disruption when we see it. There's a wide consensus that you're being disruptive. You're currently under the threshold for blockable disruption, but another round of AFDs with this type of behavior would exceed it. Feel free to report this to WP:ANI if you feel like I'm abusing you. Georgewilliamherbert 00:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel it abusive that you're threatening to block me for calling this an unreliable source. Epbr123 00:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not made any statement to you or any other Wikipedia user regarding that website, which I have never seen before nor seen mentioned in any debate on Wikipedia. My recent comments are primarily focused on your insistence that the Jargon File is not a reliable source. I fail to see what elsewhere.org has to do with the Jargon File. What does Joshua Laros have to do with any of this? Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That is the site you referred to at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B1FF. Epbr123 00:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I referred to the Jargon file generically. There are copies of it hosted in umpteen million places, plus it's been published in print in at least three editions as The Hackers' Dictionary. Did you not even look at the Wikipedia article on it or the comments that it's been published as a book? That something also appears in a blog or web archive somewhere doesn't make a canonical version, particularly a multi-edition printed book source, unreliable. Georgewilliamherbert 01:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
EPBR - THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR A WP:RS DISPUTE. TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. You've brought a complaint to this board that cites no breach of etiquette and have now dragged an argument about reliable sources into this page. Stop it immediately. I am marking this as stuck because it does NOT belong here. No wikiquette violations have occurred - the only thing close to "abuse" is a set of comments on Epbr's user page explaining to him why a particular source is reliable. He has dragged that argument into here. This is not appropriate for this alert board. --Cheeser1 02:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
As my (hopefully) final word in this "complaint," I would like to say that it appears Epbr has disrupted not only the AfD process by running-around it's guidelines, but now he has disrupted this noticeboard, all as a part of his deletion-spree. This is a seriously bad situation that only seems to be getting worse, and I am trying to put a stop to it, at least as far as this alert page is concerned, by ending this discussion. I would implore the involved editors to stop posting here. It is out of place and inappropriate to bring this discussion here. --Cheeser1 02:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The second comment that Epbr says is "abuse" is nothing but an explanation of the reliablity of a source that Epbr claimed was not reliable (when it is, in fact, a published book). Epbr seems to think that someone who strongly disagrees with him is automatically abusing him. There have been no breaches of Wikiquette by anyone, except perhaps Epbr himself when he ran-around the customary deletion procedure in an attempt to get as many of those articles deleted as possible. --Cheeser1 01:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(Housekeeping) I've re-opened this WQA as "In progress" because, according to the conversation above, the issue has not been resolved. (This overrides Duae Quartunciae's earlier marking as "Resolved" - I didn't see anything in Epbr's statements that the issue was resolved - only that he feels it doesn't belong in WQA.) The issue should either be closed as Stuck or more work should be done to bring it to resolution. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If we all agree that it doesn't belong here, what will keeping it open accomplish? I consider "we all agree this discussion should be going on elsewhere" to be resolution, and it appears that everyone else felt that way too. --Cheeser1 13:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Point taken - changed to "Stuck" and a note added saying that WQA isn't the place for this dispute. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I had marked it resolved because Epbr123 specifically said: I have resolved the issue with Georgewilliamherbert now.[402]

Sandbox vandalized

Resolved.

I have no clue as to what is going on or how it happened. I have posted to my mentor about this but thought it should be brought here for attentions. My sandbox originally stated [[403]] and now says [[404]] I haven't a clue how this got changed nor do I understand most of the items posted to my sandbox. Would someone please explain this to me. I am disabled and use my sandbox for reminders and how to learn how to do things. I appreciate your attention, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what happened, but you're actually linking to two different pages above: your sandbox and your sandbox's talk page. So your sandbox still seems to look the way you want it to. Sarcasticidealist 14:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be a wikiquette violation here, I'm marking it as resolved. I'd be happy to help you more with this, though - just drop me a line at my talk page. Sarcasticidealist 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Disparagement and insult

Resolved.

A user recently made a personal attack at Talk:Point Isabel Regional Shoreline stating that another editors' comment(s) was "shitting all over" [the page?, the comment section?] ([405]), This most uncivil remark is a personal attack according to WP:PA (No Personal Attacks) which states, "disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" I believe this editor should be warned and temporarily blocked for this disruptive editing.CholgatalK! 22:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the comments made by ILike2BeAnonymous (t c) were definitely un-WP:CIVIL, I don't really see that they constituted an attack (although I am similarly confused as to what "courtesy" your comment was "[defecating on]"). Also, this page is run by volunteer editors, not all of whom are administrators, and this is not part of the official dispute resolution process, so we do not have the ability to block or make any other binding actions.
Just remember to stay cool when discussing matters with your fellow editors, and things should calm down. I'll leave a note on that user's talk page as well. Also, when opening a WQA, it's helpful if you refer to the editor you're bringing to our attention by name in the visible text of your alert rather than "hiding" it behind a link. --Darkwind (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

user:Grant65

Resolved.

The above users appalling behaviour is ultimately why I'm making this complaint. On the Hans-Joachim Marseille page ([[406]]) he has made insulting and slanderous remarks about me personally inferring at one point that I was a Nazi, and the sources I have provided were written by "Nazi-lovers". I regard these comments as personal attacks - whilst he is claiming the thinly veiled excuse of "hypothetically".. He has also consistently accused me of reverting/removing sourced material. I have done no such thing, and its clear from the articles history this is untrue. I have been civil, I believe, in-spite of his behaviour. The only text of I have reverted relates to his changing of "kills" to "claims". Kills has been the word used to describe that particular section and many editors that edited the article havn't had an issuee with. He know claims that I have violated the 3RR whilst "defending unsourced material" which is ludicrous. The irony of all this is that I supported his contention and input questioning the validity of this individuals claims.I have also defended his source from unjust attacks from another editor. Having suffered personal abuse, insults and having tried my best I have had enough. I would appreciate it if some other authoritiative editor could step in and have a word with him about his conduct. RegardsDapi89 11:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Best advice I have is to relax a little. He has never inferred you were a Nazi, and he did not infer anyone was a Nazi-lover. The phrase showed up in a remark as follows:
I could as easily dismiss Kurowski and Wubbe on a similar basis, as "Nazi-lovers" who have swallowed a whole lot of propaganda and have totally ignored the records of individual Allied squadrons. But that would be unfair, wouldn't it? Especially since the Allied squadron records were not even available until recent years.
Grant is explicitly noting that this would be unfair. Its a poor argument; a kind of tu quoque fallacy; but it is certainly expressed as a clear hypothetical. You've been a bit rough with Grant yourself; I think this is a case where taking a day off to do something else might help restore a bit of perspective. I'm hoping that with a bit of good will and a willingness to assume good faith even when disagreeing with the conclusions, that this can resolve itself. Good luck with it —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your mistaken- A comment he made:

No ingenuous and/or intelligent reader would have read me as accusing Kurowski and Wübbe of being Nazi sympathisers. Of course, they could be — who knows? It's also possible that you are. I haven't actually said either thing. But such subtleties appear to be lost on you, so I will wait for further sprays of mock outrage.Dapi89 14:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I would have to agree with Dapi, Grant has threatened to ban him for disagreeing with him (wtf? how is this man an administrator?), he has referred to those disagreeing with him as either "Nazi lovers" or "Nazi sympathisers that focus on Nazi propaganda", discredited noted historians as "just accepting Nazi propaganda" and seems to instead be solely interested in noting the "theory" of one retired schoolteacher that was made in the appendix of a book on an "unrelated" subject, trying to incorporate it into the opening paragraph of the article and claiming it "smacks of censorship" when people pointed out that he was giving undue weight to the claims and should limit the section to a sentence or two. On top of all that, he doesn't even seem terribly knowledgable or academic on the subject, referring to "the Nazi airforce" instead of the Luftwaffe, "allies" instead of the RAF or Desert Air Force, and any attempt made to show him that all sides in the war were accused of "overstating" their own kills and "understating" their losses, he claims that we have turned Naziism into "hero worship" - so I'd have to disagree with Duae...Dapi is entirely justified in bringing up this incident as being conduct unbefitting of an established editor...muchless an administrator. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 14:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The additional remark you have quoted is still not saying that anyone is a Nazi-lover. It was made in response to some rather blistering comments by Dapi89. Reading the whole sequence, it still looks to me like you are as much at fault for assuming the worst where it was not warranted. I read the whole exchange, and my advice remains as given originally.
Grant did not use the term "hero worship". Don't put it in quotes if it is not quoted; it is better to supply a link to a diff where you feel there is a problem. The one occasion where Grant does speak of heroes [407] does not say a thing about Naziism. Similarly, there is no threat to ban anyone. If Grant bans people with whom he is in a serious dispute, then he'd be in a world of trouble, but all he has done is to say Dapi, I'm considering how to bring home to you the consequences of your blatant disregard for and violation of Wikipedia writing style and policy, for which there is ample evidence.
He also, like you guys, is making a mountain out of a molehill and escalating conflict rather than trying to calm it down. But he has a point. Your original reactions did fail to assume good faith, and continue to do so. You can disagree with him; and consider his scholarship poor and his arguments invalid. But at every point you are taking what is said and putting a spin on it well beyond what is warranted. This doesn't help.
That being said, I would like to see another editor look at this one and give an independent view. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have also added a warning to the talk page advising that both Dapi89 and Grant65 have recently made more than three reverts within 24 hours. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have followed these discussions on the Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille page at a "safe" distance since I had recently seen the Talk:Amelia Earhart page become embroiled in a similar emotional and heated discourse. One of the first things to realize is that everyone is acting in "good faith" in this "flap," regardless of personal interpretations of the issue. A good "rule of thumb" may be to gain a perspective by looking at things from a distance in time and taking a "breather" from the over-charged atmosphere of claims and counter-claims. Some people can react and work well in a "pressure cooker" situtation while others, myself included, tend to find the tension isn't condusive to my rational thinking. Regardless of the actual contentious topics, a resolution that can be reached by consensus on the discussion page is the most practical means of resolving a dispute. Thank you for asking my opinion, besides the cat, that isn't usually the norm. [:¬∆ FWIW, I will "tag" the discussion page with an appropriate disclaimer. Bzuk 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure how to respond to the request to comment on this dispute and I feel a bit uneasy about this too.

Please allow me to elaborate on my personal historical view of this controversial issue. The top scoring German Luftwaffe pilots claimed about 10 times as many aircraft shot down than their western counterparts and about 5 times as many as their Russian adversaries (plus or minus a few percent). Ever since the end of hostilities this (the magnitude of the German numbers) has been questioned and doubted. The most trivial and lopsided explanation for this is German or Nazi propaganda and the more thorough historians compare the actual losses against what was claimed by the other side. Both numbers naturally do not match up because both sides may use different accounting schemes or the pilot claims a victory because the plane goes down in flames and after losing sight of the victim the plane might be landed safely and restored again. Nevertheless, historians who have thoroughly studied the topic have accepted these figures to be true. Some authors point to these discrepancies and make us believe that the numbers are exaggerated. These effects happened to both sides and these effects are also independent of the individual pilot. Both sides made errors in the score keeping. This seems natural because in combat you have other concerns than keeping exact score. Personally I feel that linking this "over claiming effect" to individual pilots (like Marseille in this instance) lets me assume that he exaggerated his figures and discredits him as an individual. On the other hand if sufficient substantial evidence can be provided to show that this particular pilot abused the system significantly I would want to add this to the article. With respect to Marseille and his individual style of aerial combat (fast attacks in tight maneuvers with low consumption of ammunition) I can imagine that a number of his claimed victims might have landed safely with a different degree of damage. The Germans counted this as a kill while the Allies repaired the plane. However, I cannot assess if Marseille deliberately lied about his claims. My feeling says no, he made his claims in good faith. Thus, my personal choice here would be to introduce a new article on "over claiming" and unlink this topic from the individual pilots. Innocent until proven guilty!

The style of the conflict between Dapi89 and Grant escalated in this setting. I feel both sides took a black and white position where the truth is probably grayish. Stepping back for some time is probably a wise idea. Thus I concur in Bzuk point of view.MisterBee1966 21:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to add. I think Bzuk and Duae Quartunciae have assessed the situation well. Grant | Talk 03:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fernando Caldeiro

Resolved.

User:68.4.54.209 is using the Edit summary in a creative way to insult me in Spanish after I have reverted unsourced edits about the nationality of Fernando Caldeiro, who, being a NASA astronaut, is obviously a US citizen. Hektor 05:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's not much point to opening a WQA on an anonymous user. Due to bug 9213, they may not even see the alert telling them about the message we might leave in response to the WQA. I'd just advise you to let it go, and if it keeps up, report them to WP:AIV or WP:ANI. --Darkwind (talk) 10:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User: 69.123.66.156

Resolved.

I will be leaving Wikipedia after this because I have been rather angered by comments made by this user. I followed up his history, and found that my run in was not the only instance of problem:

2:19, 9 September 2007 (hist) (diff) 1983-84 United States network television schedule‎ (If it should be a note, rather than in the time block, fine, EDIT. Don't delete. The title is 1983-84. NOT fall-83.Look at Cagney and Lacey above, bold despite not a new FALL series. Get a life.) (top)

3:00, 1 April 2007 (hist) (diff) List of Americans in the Venona papers‎ (fuckface. Define "many" and "a few". It is COMPLETELY non POV as it is. You have no right to revert to POV)

04:17, 10 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Stephen Harper‎ (removed obnoxious POV adjectives)

1:21, 13 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Glyconutrient‎ (if a citation is needed, then show the dictionary definition proving the fabricated MLM term is correct. You can't so bugger off.)

Talk: 20-20-20 Club is the page where I encountered this user. Despite my attempts to apolgize for what may have been a miscommunication, the tone and language continued.TeganX7 04:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A warning for WP:AGF and WP:NPA has been left on the anonymous user's page. I'd suggest that you not let one anonymous user with a blatant disregard for Wikipedia policies discourage you from contributing. However, if you choose to leave, you have that right. --Darkwind (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User BenB4 on Ron Paul

Resolved. That was quick! Good work all. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been going on for awhile, and this user even complained about another user previously, in a situation which is still going on and for which I had made a comment. The editor BenB4 has repeatedly accused me of editing with a partisan bias, despite the fact that other users (whether they think they agree with me politically or not) have more than once asked him to knock it off and that I'm a good editor for this article. Other editors have agreed that my edits are not biased; Ben doesn't like Ron Paul's positions and that's fine if he acted in a civil manner and edited neutrally, but other editors have asserted that his edits are not neutral, and his talk page comments speak for themselves. Some of the discussion can be seen here and the latest here. I can provide more examples if they are needed. Thank you for any help you can provide with this situation.--Gloriamarie 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have called Gloriamarie's edits biased. I have not made any personal attacks against her. The issues involved are fundamentally a series of content disputes. My first suspicions of bias were that she has edited and advocated in a manner which always puts Paul in the best possible light, without regard to the sources. For example, she has recently suggested that she thinks Paul is accurately described as the "standard bearer" of the Libertarian Party, even though the only article we have on the legislation he has introduced, the We the People Act, shows his preferences are quite distant from the ideal of individual liberties. Moreover, Gloriamarie states on her user page, "Ron Paul 2008! How could a guy THIS GOOD actually be running for president??? http://www.ronpaul2008.com." Jimbo has stated, "using userpages to ... campaign for ... anyone is a bad idea."[408] Contrary to her assumption, I do like many of Paul's positions, but there are many that I do not like. This is a content dispute with a large contingent of editors, most of them IPs, who would like to have a hagiography. I am proud that I have refrained from personal attacks while calling bias as I see it, as we must be allowed to do if we expect to counter it at all. I do not intend to alter my behavior in this situation. ←BenB4 01:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with User:BenB4 that the links provided by User:Gloriamarie are devoid of personal attacks. I do think that it would be more productive for User:BenB4 to refrain from commenting on User:Gloriamarie's motivations for her edits, and to stick to crticizing the edits themselves (among other things, I don't think the accusation that she was violating WP:COI was helpful). Ultimately, though, User:BenB4 is right: this is a series of content disputes, and I'd encourage making use of WP:RFC (and possibly eventually WP:MEDIATION). In the meantime, try to avoid accusing each other of policy violations, except those accusations that are absolutely necessary in discussing edits. Sarcasticidealist 01:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
BenB4 does not attack just my edits, he attacks me when he says, as he did above, that I make non-neutral edits or that I edit "without regard to the sources." I consider that a personal attack because I take Wikipedia's policies seriously and I work hard to edit neutrally and improve the articles I come across. I "called" Ron Paul the "standard bearer" because I added references calling him that from The Economist and The Dallas Morning News dating from 1988, and I mentioned these when BenB4 said that Ron Paul wasn't libertarian on the talk page. I wasn't necessarily calling him that, I said that he had been called that by multiple sources. Contrary to BenB4's assumptions, I don't agree with Ron Paul on many things, including things I have put in the article myself. When he says that I edit to put Ron Paul in the best possible light, I consider that an attack because it is not true, other editors have refuted it on the talk page, and I can cite specific examples where I have fought to leave certain things in the article, for instance the Newsletter section, which many have tried to take out.--Gloriamarie 03:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You say that he attacks you, and not just your edits, by saying that you make "non-neutral edits". I'm sorry, but if that is a personal attack then it's impossible to discuss edits on Wikipedia without making personal attacks. Think about it: how should somebody respond to non-neutral edits if not by calling them non-neutral (and, by extension, the editor who made them an editor who makes non-neutral edits)?
I'm not saying you're wrong to include the descriptor "libertarian standard-bearer" int he article. I'm not saying that your edits put Ron Paul in the best possible light, either by design or otherwise. All I'm saying is that User:BenB4 has remained well within the bounds of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF in his discussions with you. He's said your edits are no good, but editors need to be free to say that, or they have no way of discussing edits. I can see why it upsets you, since you obviously take pride in your edits, but it's not a personal attack.
This is a content dispute, and I wish you the best of luck in resolving it. But all I can do is comment on breaches of Wikiquette, and I haven't seen any on either side. If you have new evidence to bring, or if any other WQA volunteers want to provide a perspective different than my own, then by all means go for it. Otherwise, I think this has been quite properly marked as resolved. Sarcasticidealist 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. I was of the opinion that saying that someone's edits were not neutral, unless it was blatant, was a personal attack, and I considered it to be in my case because it's not backed by the evidence of my edits and refuted by other editors, but I can see your point and I guess it's a bit of a loophole in the system (that since editors must be allowed to call edits biased, they can do so even when they are not.) I will keep this in mind. Thanks for your help. I'm glad that BenB4 has agreed not to question my motivations in the future, and I'm very pleased with this service.--Gloriamarie 03:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
There is an {{RFCpol}} pending, and the issues it concerns have been pretty unstable over the past month, but I think there is hope. I will take your advice and stop commenting on motivations. Thank you. ←BenB4 02:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dogru144

Resolved.

Hi. I've had an interesting day. I was new page patrolling, and flagged this The_REAL_Rudy for deletion via speedy under WP:WEB. The user then responded with [409] this on my talk page, which lead to me autoresponding (in error) with this. I did some reading, and confirmed that I had made a mistake, and notified him on his talk page.

Since then, Dogru144 has extensively cross-posted personal attacks on other talk pages ([410], [411], [412], [413]), and accused me of key logging, among other things (see this diff: [414], [415]).

At this point, I'm not sure what to do. I feel I've made every reasonable effort to explain my actions, but I'd prefer that this user not continue to make cross-posted attacks against me.--Bfigura (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved without recourse to this venue. Yay! --Bfigura (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ronz - bullying and baiting

Stale.

Ronz has been identified by many, many editors as a Wiki-bully. He is consistently rude with those whom he disagrees with. I know that I am only one of many who have complained about his blunt rudeness. Today, he started this exchange on my Talk page. And while this isn't the worst example of his bullying, it is one which ended with me telling him not to continue or I will report him. So here I am to report this. And though - as I mentioned - this certainly isn't the worse example of Ronz's bullying, I am reporting it to show that I will not stand for this rudeness anymore. This particular discussion/harassment on my talk page stems from a policy discussion found here. I know it is a little lengthy, but you will see how once a good policy argument is made counter to Ronz, he descends into name-calling and personal attacks. I will not suggest a remedy for this particular instance, as just looking at this one wouldn't seem to suggest the need for one. However, I would ask that you remember the user name "Ronz". Put it on your list on user names to look out for. See how many times other users complain about him. Hopefully, his poor behavior will end with this post here, but I know in reality either he (or one of his usual gang) will retaliate against me for posting this. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Without commenting on the editorial content problems, I will just state that this particular complaint is wholly unjustified. Ronz was questioning Levine2112's provocative and baiting response (a reply to Ronz that pretended and implied that Ronz was in agreement with Levine2112, when nothing could have been further from the truth. That's baiting and very provocative. Ronz took the matter to Levine2112's talk page (as is quite proper to do) and confronted him with it. Levine2112 will not admit to his use of a distasteful debating technique and has now brought it here.
While this has happened before as a common debating tactic he uses (and used by others I mention), this incident started in this section - Journal of Scientific Exploration and Joel M. Kauffman (just start reading it and it will immediately become evident what happened) - with this edit. I called him out on it, and Ronz took it to his talk page. Levine2112 would not admit he had used a very unfair and baiting debate tactic and has now complained here. He is definitely in no position to complain about baiting. POT! -- Fyslee/talk 18:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee is one on Ronz usual gang which likes to gang up on people. Quite frankly his lack of good faith here is appalling. When I questioned Ronz, it wasn't a baiting technique as Fyslee states. Rather, I was just trying to get Ronz to clarify his position on the application of the policies to the material at hand. That's all. But because Ronz and Fyslee assume bad faith in me, I can't even ask a simple question without them jumping on me, telling me what my motivations are. Please help rectify their behavior either proactively or just by monitoring the situation. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
After examining the facts, I have to say that I agree more or less entirely with User:Fyslee. It's even a little difficult to see this as a good faith alert, but because I am such a seasoned editor I'm able to. User:Levine2112, did you want to shed some additional light on how User:Ronz's questions for you constitute "bullying"? Sarcasticidealist 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, coming to my page to complain about something where there is nothing to complain about has become a tactic of Ronz's. He likes to get on my nerves and bait me into incivility. This time I am just reporting it to Wikiquette. That's all. By the way, Fyslee is now leaving posts on my talk page contiinuing to assume bad faith, even after I attested that my motivations at Talk:Quackwatch are just an inquiry and not something sinister. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I welcome anyone to examine my comments on Levine2112's talk page. Trying to calmly and civilly explain the situation is certainly proper. -- Fyslee/talk 19:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
How is your initial comment - "The question mark doesn't save you. QuackGuru uses this distasteful, provoking, and baiting trick all the time" - supposed to be and example of your calm and civil explanation? To me it demonstrates that you assumed bad faith right from the start. I said it once and I will say it again: I was merely trying to get Ronz to clarify his position. I was not trying to bait him or provoke him. That you assumed that was my motivation shows a lack of good faith on your part, Fyslee. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"So you agree" that I acted in good faith? "I'm just trying to get you to clarify your position." -- Fyslee/talk 20:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
My comment above (struck out) is an obvious illustration of precisely the situation that started this debacle. If Levine had responded negatively to my (now struck out) comment, it would be very understandable, and if anyone else objected, that too would be understandable. That's precisely what happened, and I used some of his exact words, which I will now show by placing them in quotation marks. I hope this illustration makes the point quite clearly, because if anyone read my comment and got irritated at me, then I have succeeded in recreating the original situation and have succeeded in stimulating the feelings that it created. -- Fyslee/talk 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the main thing to note is that I didn't respond negatively to your comment because I assumed good faith and knew exactly what you meant. However, if you feel that this type of dialogue is innapropriate, I wish you have pointed it out to QuackGuru, who you say does this regularly as a means of antagonizing. It would demonstrate a lot of goodwill to know that you come down on people on both sides of the debate. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical Information: This is now the third time I've seen a dispute between any combination of User:Levine2112, User:Fyslee, User:Ronz and User:Shot info. The first was another WQA between Levine and Fyslee, which later involved Shot info. The second was a post at WP:ANI by Levine against one of these editors. (It was quickly closed without action by an administrator.) All of these cases have arisen from disputes in Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch, and related articles.

While the situation might turn out to be different in this particular case (I have not researched it yet), Levine2112 has been shown in both of the previous two cases as engaging in troll-like behavior, mainly by provoking other users into acting uncivilly and then reporting them for uncivil behavior. I also chastised Levine2112 for abusing the WP:NPA warning templates and threatening blocks when they apparently were not warranted. I just wanted to point out to other WQA volunteers what I've seen regarding this group of individuals. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that infomation, but KieferSkunk I urge you to look at the situation at hand. If you are going to ask people to assume bad faith based on your past experiences, then how can I ever look good in your eyes? Ronz and Fylee are accusing me of baiting when all I was doing was trying to get Ronz to clarify his position. Please read the entire threads on these posts (on my page and on theTalk:Quackwatch page). I really am making a concerted effort to be civil. If you can show me specifically where I am not, I will stand corrected. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that I have taken time to review this, I'll respond more specifically. Levine, I believe that the way you began the discussion (the quote that Fyslee mentioned and you responded to) was very leading, appears to have misrepresented Ronz, and seems to have confused the matter in general. When Ronz said that there was no consensus, you then, in essence, said "Then you agree with me?", which to my eye he had very clearly said he did not before you asked. While I haven't seen examples of QuackGuru's tactics, I agree with Fyslee's comment that it looked more like baiting than a good-faith attempt to discuss the matter. You had gone into the discussion simply stating your point of view as fact and then apparently expecting others to agree with you without providing arguments to back up your point of view.
Additionally, I do not believe that either Ronz or Fyslee were acting uncivil toward you when they questioned you. Ronz took the discussion to your talk page, which was appropriate when the discussion appeared to be heading toward a personal argument and away from the article content. He simply asked you to clarify your statements. I think that your response to him, and later to Fyslee, was unnecessarily defensive, though I cannot say that it was in bad faith. I think you would have been better served by keeping the discussion focused on the content - if you had explained why you felt the author in question was a reliable source, rather than trying to defend your statement on syntactical grounds, things would probably have gone more smoothly.
To everyone involved: Please do not try to make judgements about a person's motivation when getting into a content dispute, as it's all too easy to make bad-faith statements, act uncivilly and make personal attacks while doing so. Nobody can read minds. We can only go on what we see, so if you keep your observations to simply what was typed, and avoid trying to figure out why they were typed, you'll probably avoid a lot of unnecessary drama. :)
Hope this helps get you guys back on track. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It does help. I thank you for your insight. Again, appearances are deceiving. I was first confused by what Ronz wrote and thought that he may be conceding that Kauffman was a RS, but clearly I was wrong in assuming that. Then when I asked for clarification, Ronz was wrong for assuming that I was baiting him. When he took it to my talk page, I believe that I had clarified the issue, but in my eyes he was continuing to harass me. Fyslee's involvement there (likening my behavior to QuackGuru's) was not helpful either and just seems to enflame the issue more. After I explained that I was merely inquiring and trying to gain clarity, I wish Ronz and Fyslee could have assumed good faith rather than assume I was lying. Anyhow, this whole debacle stems from a misunderstanding. Isn't that usually the way? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
KieferSkunk (or anyone else), I would like your take on this exchage too. Is this a misunderstanding, baiting/bullying, or something else? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, in that conversation I do see you acting in good faith and asking the right kinds of questions at the start. Telling Ronz that he is "baiting" you was probably not the best approach, as it does step into WP:POT and WP:NPA just a little, though it's certainly not nearly as bad as stuff I've seen from you before. Ronz did step over the line himself in that conversation.
If it's true that you were edit-warring on this issue before that conversation, though (which would have occurred outside of that conversation), then the initial poster probably had reason to believe that your motivations weren't sound. Plus, as I mentioned above, your track history can help to warrant accusations of bad faith - they're less likely to believe that you're acting in good faith now when you've shown a tendency not to do so in the past. It takes time to build that trust back with the community. Ronz in particular has interacted with you before, so I can see how he may have been frustrated. Nonetheless, as I said, I believe he stepped over the line a couple of times as well, so nobody in the situation is completely blameless.
This is another case where avoiding any statements that try to say what a person's motivation is or may be would be helpful. The original poster accused you of removing that category because of your own beliefs and opinions (indirectly accusing you of going against consensus). That's over the line I'm referring to, and led to a situation where you apparently felt you needed to defend yourself (not just your actions). Your telling him, and/or Ronz, that they're "baiting" you is also a step over the line. These are just examples, and I hope they'll help keep things in check for future discussions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: My personal take is that Levine is trolling purely and simply. Unfortunately in Wikipedia, WP:DENY only takes one so far, because silence is consent. So one needs to step into the ever escalating fray. I note that when Levine was recently blocked, the edits and tone improved considerably in all affected articles. Rather than laying the blame at "all parties" how about we try laying the blame at the actual troll (unconventional yes I know but worth a try) :-). Even recently Levine was making off-discussion remakes, countered on them, and escalated them when countered, then said "it's all off-discussion" and attempted to lay the blame on everybody else except the person who started it...him. I do believe this is called "baiting" something that he is wont to call everybody else. Don't forget what the Cabal says "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." Shot info 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point.
Also, I'd like to add a response to something I missed in Levine's comment further above: If you are going to ask people to assume bad faith based on your past experiences, then how can I ever look good in your eyes?
My reply to this is that I'm not encouraging people to assume that you're acting in bad faith. What I'm pointing out is that this is the second WQA and the third incident overall that I've seen you involved in, and related to the same exact set of articles as what occurred two months ago. Therefore, some context would definitely be useful. My later comments on this topic were to tell you that BECAUSE you've previously made complaints about other people and have been found to be a large part of the cause of those problems, you're on shaky ground when you make further complaints, especially about the same people.
It's a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" thing (classic Mother Goose parable), where if you've given people reason to believe they can't trust you, then they probably won't trust you in the future even if you suddenly do everything perfectly and with the best of intentions. You need to work harder to build that trust back. I pointed out the historical significance to this discussion because I saw the same pattern in the ensuing argument as I saw in both of the previous incidents, and among other things, I wanted to save everyone some time, before we ended up rehashing all the same old stuff as before. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I've worked with Ronz on a few issues. He has been courteous, cooperative, mindful of policies and guidelines, and very, very far from being “a bully.” — Athaenara ✉ 05:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Users João Felipe C.S and Dalillama

Stale.

João Felipe C.S and Dalillama are united to manipulate the article Brazil. Both users do not leave other users make contributions to this article. For months nobody is able to post anything in the article Brazil. This article is totally stopped.

My last try I posted a picture of Brazilians of different races to represent the Demographics session of the article, and I was reverted with no justification. Other users were trying to post there before me, and were also reverted.

João Felipe C.S and Dalillama have an obsession with including the Brazil article between the best ones of Wikipedia. But, in spite of that, they are destroyng the article, diminishing the informations and reverting other users' good faith contributions.

The main thing is that both users have never written anything in the article and feel free to manipulate it. User João Felipe C.S cannot even speak or write in English, but is there reverting everyone.

By the way, both users are writing in Portuguese in talk pages, to avoid English-speaking users to be able to understand their plans of manipulation. In this page they make a plan (in Portuguese) to make me be blocked. [416]

You people must do something about it. Opinoso 04:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article is under GA Status, and needs stability. The alterations intervene with the stability, because aren't accepted for all users. For months, many discussions had been opened by Opinoso, but didn't have success. One of these discussions was this. Look at… Beyond everything, you also write in Portuguese, including the articles. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 04:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why you feel free to manipulate the Brazil article, since you cannot speak or write in English and ask for somebody's help (as you did above) to write for you.

The pic I included in the article was nothing even discussed by you or any other user in the talk page. It was just reverted by you and Dalillama, who are trying to manipulate the article.

You should learn some English and make good faith contributions to the article, but you have never written anything there. In spite of that, you prefer to cause fights with other users, reverting pics and written things that you cannot even understand. Opinoso 05:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Opinoso: Felipe didn't do anything at Wikipedia except help Brazil become a Good Article. Where were you when that happened, since you're so concerned about this page? Felipe may have his faults (sorry Felipe), but he does act in good faith.--Dali-Llama 05:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But I digress. First of all, let's get some background on Opinoso. Take his most recent 3RR incident report:

  • This user was reverted by two separate editors, and was warned before breaking the rule.
  • User has also labeled legitimate content dispute reverts as "rvv" and "Vandal user erased it", violating WP:AGF.
  • Opinoso launched WP:SKILL personal attacks against one of the other reverting editors (here) immediately after havign broken the 3RR.
  • Has been blocked before for violation of the 3RR and stopped short of breaking again after being warned several times in the recent past: here, here and here.

But wait, there's more!

  • He previously made legal threats to Felipe C.S. (here), which led to administrator (Carioca) involvement, with Opinoso eventually backing down. The legal threats, were, ironically enough, written in Portuguese.
  • Opinoso has previously accused Felipe C.S. of "manipulation". The first brouhaha is here for all to see. It was satisfactoraly dealt with through consensus with the other editors of the Brazil page and Opinoso was admonished for WP:NPA and WP:OWN violations.
  • Same thing a few weeks later: here
  • And here, which resulted in the page being fully protected.

But if you call now:

  • Right around the time Opinoso wrote this WQA, he "cleaned" his talk page, removing previous warnings from other users, such as A.Z., and for editing other pages, such as Nelly Furtado. Fortunately for us, there's no memory hole in Wikipedia.

Dali-Llama 05:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As an update, Opinoso has received a 72hr block resulting from his 3RR violation. I've pinged him to see if he'd still like to pursue this WQA further, and I'm waiting for his reply.--Dali-Llama 20:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

tension myositis syndrome

Stale.

There is a user, Pacula, who has been rampantly vandalizing anything to do with the article, "tension myositis syndrome". This began on Sept 9, 2007. First he posted it for rapid deletion, even though it has been around since January, 2004, then he has gone to the many references to it and deleted all references to it, making it totally unusable. Tension myositis syndrome is a diagnosis for chronic back and other pain, which has been in use since the early 80's and which has been very successful in curing chronic pain. Many other doctors now use this diagnosis to heal many chronic pain disorders. Please help. Ralphyde 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Removal of blatant advertising is not vandalism. Wikipedia is not the place to make a personal link farm, doc. - Pacula 19:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There was and is no advertising on this site. Ralphyde 23:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • True, I'm not sure that 'blatant advertising' would be the best description, but it does seem to fail WP:SOAPBOX, as discussed in this AfD. (Full disclosure: I voted to delete in said AfD). --Bfigura (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam doesn't just refer to external links, but can in aggravated cases apply to wikilinks used as advertising. Wikilinks and external links should be used very precisely, and in context should add to the articles they appear in. Notable sources end up appearing on many articles because of their notability or because they are exceptionally good or valuable resources. Sources that haven't achieved such notability risk being considered linkspam when they get scattered all over the place. Such placement is often a disguised attempt to achieve (not increase already established) notability. That is misuse of Wikipedia and can even get the one so doing chastised or even blocked. I too have voted delete. -- Fyslee/talk 04:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Pacula continues to delete all the links and cited references which were related to the article Tension Myositis Syndrome. I have attempted to repair the damage he has done between the articles, but he continues to revert my repairs to the damage he has created, and he accuses me of spamming, when it is his vandalism that I am attempting to repair by putting the articles back to the way they were before his destructive edits. I am adding nothing new. He knows nothing about the topic, is simply engaging in rampant censorship and vandalism and calling me a spammer for attempting to put things back to the way they were before. He marked the topic for deletion, and on the very same day, deleted all the links between it and any other article, as well as deleting cited references. Then he has threatened me with blocking for trying to repair his damages. This is very wrong. Ralphyde 20:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Nominating articles for deletion by following the deletion policy is most assuredly not vandalism. Also, excessive links to an article can be considered a form of spam, especially when the article in question has links to amazon.com book sale pages at the bottom (which this article did until recently) and removing those excessive links is also not vandalism. Regarding excessive reversions, we need links to those diffs so we can see what's going on; none of the volunteers here have time to go through your contribs and Pacula (t c)'s to find the correlations.
On the article itself, its nomination for deletion is perfectly valid, and I personally intend to comment Delete in the AfD linked above (and have done so. --Darkwind (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)), as I feel the article violates WP:FRINGE, that is, the diagnosis is not mainstream enough to have its own article. While this is my own opinion, this does help me see how someone can perceive excessive links to this article as spam. Also, please note that this opinion on the subject matter doesn't affect my interpretation of policy in my response here.
Regarding your own behavior, Ralphyde (t c), I feel compelled to point out that you seem to have some feelings of ownership about this article. This is based on your comments in the AfD, and here in this WQA. I'd advise you to let go of that before you start taking this more personally than you are already. --Darkwind (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad bin Qasim

Resolved.

We have a newbie, but really much a newbie either in User:Intothefire. Have tried not to bite the newbie to educate him and try to get him to learn to make good contributions etc. however he seems to always see a conspiracy around him and resorts to questions of bad faith. Can someone step in and see if they can make a difference before the mood changes and things get ugly. I am not quite sure how to deal with this further--Tigeroo 15:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Its amazing to see this post ....Tigeroo has been hounding my posts with deletions after deletions spanning various articles ...inspite of my engaging in discussion ...the discussion page of Muhammad bin Qasim is a good record of whats been going on . The tone of his message is telling !
cheers Intothefire 15:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh my. You're clearly having a huge content dispute, and you're almost certainly going to need to involve other editors in that. In the meantime, User:Intothefire needs to be clear on a few things:
  • The deletion of sections of material qualifies as "vandalism" only if the intent is something other than to improve that article. Looking over this article, I think it is ludicrous to accuse User:Tigeroo of vandalism on it.
  • Your accusation that User:Tigeroo is thwarting you by pulling out "obscure Wikipedia policies" is misplaced. While Wikilawyering is certainly discouraged, it is very important - especially in content disputes - to make sure that you are acting in accordance with policy. This also means that people arguing their cases on the talk pages should, wherever possible, use policy to explain why their preferred edits are desirable.
  • Much of what you write is, in my opinion, in violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. These two policies are extraordinarily important, as it is no exagerration to say that the project would collapse if everybody showed the disregard for them that you have.
  • When you are disputing edits made to an article other than Muhammad bin Qasim, your comments should be left on the talk page of the article in question, rather than on the bin Qasim talk page.
  • Not everybody always gets their way on Wikipedia. The tool that is used to determine who gets their way is WP:CONSENSUS. On the article's talk page, three separate users other than User:Tigeroo (User:Ugen64, User:IP198, and User:Bless sins) express their support for Tigeroo's edits. This means that on this question, Tigeroo has consensus behind him, and it is inappropriate to attempt to overcome this consensus simply by re-inserting your own edits.
User:Intothefire, I think you have the potential to have a long and enjoyable career as a Wikipedia editor, but I can promise you that that will not happen if you continue along the road you're currently travelling. Instead, you will either find yourself banned or you will quit in disgust after concluding (falsely) that experienced editors have formed some sort of a cabal to block your edits. Please accept my advice in the spirit in which it is intended: suggestions for a relatively new editor to make his Wikipedia experience as pleasant as possible.
All of that said: User:Tigeroo, if this behaviour persists, you will have no choice but to bring it to the mediation and arbitration levels. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. Sarcasticidealist 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to argue with you on the conclusions you have arrived ....!

but be aware that through the use of placing highly selective content from sources
then aggregration of such informations ,
of sources
, secondary sources
, construction
, deletion
and presentation
on this article as is being thrust by Tigeroo has generated a contorted comentry that provides a false depection of the subject .

I did not see an objection from you on the sources of the content I have provided which I would like to have seen ....since that is really at the crux of the debate ...do the informations , sources ,secondary sources provided by me stand the wikipedia test or not ?

I see an important pont here and that is the importance of form ....which can be improved !!, as to the rule on WP:CONSENSUS ...well when the spirit of consensus is being held hostage to the mob I dont see how this is going to be overcome on this article .

I think I see the way forward then is a bit by bit approach , hope you will be attentive through the debate then

My congratulations to you for the speed of response on this complaint by Tigeroo and the quick conclusions you arrived at.

Cheers
Intothefire 01:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me be very clear: I'm not taking a side on the content dispute. I haven't followed the content dispute closely enough to have formulated a position, and that's not the purpose of WP:WQA anyway. I'm here only to discuss editors' conduct, and I am concerned that you
  • have been making unfounded accusations of vandalism,
  • are frequently violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF,
  • are disregarding Wikipedia policy when it is cited to you, and not countering with citations of your own, and
  • are disregarding WP:CONSENSUS.
The last item is the most troubling, because consensus is the basis of all decision-making at Wikipedia, and if an editor is unwilling to adhere to it, he is essentially refusing to participate in the Wikipedia community. Your suggestion that you are justified in ignoring consensus because it is "being held hostage to the mob" does not hold water; it is easy for any of us to attribute consensus going against us as being the fault of some cabal or mob, but that does not justify disregard of a core Wikipedia policy.
There is no point to arguing this. My perspective was requested, I provided it, and you are free to take or ignore my advice. I sincerely hope you will opt for the former, because it will prevent this dispute from being escalated to a messier level and because I think it will help you have a much more enjoyable career as an editor. But I don't pretend to be able to direct you to do anything. The decision is yours. Sarcasticidealist 00:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
OK thanks for feedback ,considering your strong response to me , would now appreciate your continued interest in the debate on the discussion page of the article as it is going to determine the going ons on the article and the questions of civilised debate you have pointed to me .
Cheers
Intothefire 10:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As is my habit, I'll continue monitoring the issue for a little while to see if my suggestions were helpful. I won't participate much in the talk page, and I certainly won't get involved in the content dispute (I'd be in well over my head in any event), but I will monitor the behaviour. So far, there does seem to be some small progress towards building consensus, so I'm hopeful. Sarcasticidealist 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Need your help .

I am surprised to find a huge big edit ...the last one on the Muhammad bin Qasim page ...which I have not made but the page is showing my username .There was a small edit that I did ....but most of what is appearing is not by me ..what does this mean ?? has someone got my password and used it or is it a technical problem ??
Please advise
Cheers
Intothefire 17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the relevant diff? That will help us determine what's going on. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist -Hope you have been following up with the going ons on the article ..and the talk page ...!
KieferSkunk just saw your comment whats the "relevant diff" please explain and I will revert .
Cheers
Intothefire 18:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have, and I think you've been commendably civil. You folks don't seem to be making a lot of progress on resolving the content dispute (which, to be honest, I'm having trouble following on account of being totally ignorant of the article's subject), but I haven't seen any Wikiquette violations. Sarcasticidealist 20:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist- Regret my contributions are being vandal edited ...deleted by tigeroo ...in my earlier avatar I took a lighter view ...of continuous deletions I recorded on the talk page ....the sarcasm of my tone was noted but not my problem ....subsequent to your strong note I have been meticulously careful ...however its back to square 1 ...continuous deletions vandals of my posts..Please either intervene or advise next steps. Please also see the record of other editors who have noted these unfair deletions and restored in the articles edit record .
Intothefire 14:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Cheers

John Orman's page

Stuck.

Since Susan Henshaw has chosen to make an issue of her deaffiliation with the Connecticut for Lieberman party, here are the facts:

On June 12, 2007, Susan Henshaw changed her party affiliation with the Trumbull Registrar of Voters.

I received written confirmation of Sue Henshaw's deaffiliation with Connecticut for Lieberman from the Trumbull Registrar of Voters. Upon learning that I had discovered this, she went back and reaffiliated on June 22.

Sue tried to cover up the facts, and that coverup apparently included not telling John Orman the truth about what she did. The information on Sue Henshaw's affiliation shuttle is readily available to anyone. Contact Kathleen Mironti at Trumbull Town Hall.

Since Susan Henshaw is mentioned prominently in the article, information on her disaffilation with the party is relevant as well as factual and should be included.

In addition, Susan Henshaw's repeated vandalization of the Wikipedia articles on Connecticut for Lieberman and John Orman should not be tolerated by NPOV. Facts are facts, and are not malleable.Skorchin 00:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


There has been repetitive, unsourced information that has nothing to do with John Orman's biography added to his page. It originated on 7/3/07 with SKorchin, where information about Susan Henshaw was added. Susan Henshaw has emailed Wikipedia to dispute this information - she has never disaffected from the CFL Party, and has the paperwork to prove it. Skorchin cannot back up these posts.

This has not stopped SKorchin. He added the Henshaw information again on 7/8/07, 7/9/07, 7/10/07 and 7/11/07. He/she was warned on 7/12/07. The same change came again on 7/30/07 from an unidentified IP address, and twice more after that. The last Henshaw post was done on Sept. 7th by Bluedawg1.

One of the Henshaw posts (by 71.252.64.8) made "The Most Shameful Wikipedia Spin Jobs" Top Rated list on Wired.com.

This persistent vandalism of Prof. Orman's page has to stop.

Seraphim55 01:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WQA is not the right place to bring up a content dispute. If you feel the biography of living persons policy has been violated, then bring it up at WP:AN/I, although I feel confident that you can let OTRS handle it if the issue has been e-mailed to an official contact address for the Foundation. --User:Darkwind (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's a BLP problem because neither side of this tempest in a teapot can present any information that complies with WP:V and WP:RS. Mr. Korchin says, "The information on Sue Henshaw's affiliation shuttle is readily available to anyone. Contact Kathleen Mironti at Trumbull Town Hall." That doesn't constitute a published source. Similarly, on Talk:Connecticut for Lieberman, Ms. Henshaw has claimed to possess a document signed by Ms. Miranti that supports her version of events. That also doesn't constitute a published source. Accordingly, I have removed all assertions about the Henshaw registration wherever I've seen them. I agree with Darkwind that the matter doesn't belong here. Both of these editors have WP:COI issues on the Connecticut for Lieberman article, so both have been strongly advised to bring suggested changes to the talk page in lieu of editing the article themselves. That includes, but is not limited to, any assertions about who registered with what party when. JamesMLane t c 02:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Anyeverybody

Stuck. Unproductive discussion. --Darkwind (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He called me anal!! Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#How_about_a_consensual_introduction.3F Wah! Not only do I need my mommy, I can't engage in consensus building with this guy. He has also made several unilateral edits to the page. We need marriage counseling. Bsharvy 14:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is indeed an earnest alert, please post some diffs to the behaviour you consider to be a violation of Wikiquette. Sarcasticidealist 17:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess this diff must be what they are talking about. He/She left a WP:NPA warning asking me not to call him/her anal and to further not edit controversial pages without a WP:CONSENSUS. I mean no offense to Bsharvy, but I don't think he/she is having much success understanding how Wikipedia works and may have misconceptions about the processes here.
If this has a beginning it would be when I made a WP:BOLD edit on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I created a WP:SS article for the large section dealing with debate over the bombings to their consternation. I found everyone else to be supportive of the action during a WP:RFC Bsharvy created about it on Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Request for Comment 2. I tried a few times to explain why it was a fair edit, and how consensus had actually favored the change when he/she reverted it, diff.
In the interest of full disclosure, just over a month ago when Bsharvy was blocked for his behavior on the same page, I made an outreach attempt which was rejected. Anynobody 21:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't see much in the way of Wikiquette violation in what you've posted, but I'll hold off until I hear from User:Bsharvy first. Sarcasticidealist 22:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Bsharvy seems quite upset about this so I agree, that's the best way to handle it. I want him/her to feel that he/she has been given an opportunity for an unbiased forum. Anynobody 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to his comment to me beginning "If you're just being anal...." in the referenced Talk page, but also to the increasingly personal drift of his recent comments, and to his editing of a controversial subject without prior discussion. Unproductive sarcasm (mostly from frustration) has come from both of us, but he is now escalating in a way that makes collaboration impossible, and his unilateral edits make discussion seem pointless. Bsharvy 01:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing personal, Bsharvy, you're simply focusing on what I believe to be misperceptions of concepts and rules. I've honestly tried very hard to explain these issues to you...Controversy vs Contention - WP:BOLD - Short, short version. Yet you continue to insist that I did something wrong ...He has also made several unilateral edits to the page... despite both my and other's explanations. Which led me to point out your possible obstinate nature. Anynobody 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, User:Bsharvy. I have not yet seen anything that constitutes a violation of WP:CIVIL. While possibly he could have said "if you're insisting on treating the words 'disease' and 'infection' differently..." or something to that effect rather than using the word "anal", but using the word "anal" to suggest that you're perceiving a figmentary difference is not uncivil (I emphasize here that I'm not taking any position on whether the use of the word "anal" was accurate, just as to whether it was civil). As for the suggestion that he is making consensus-violating edits, I'd appreciate it if you could point me to some specific diffs, at which time I'd be happy to comment. Sarcasticidealist 03:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think obstinate would have probably been the better way to describe what I was saying, it's harder to confuse that with anal related insults. Anynobody 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I didn't request a ruling on whether he had violated Wikiquette (it's obvious that he did, however). Bsharvy 08:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is for editors to get help dealing with Wikiquette violations. Before we can help you deal with such a violation, we need to confirm that such a violation has occurred or is occurring. In this case, I cannot see any evidence of a Wikiquette violation. Without such evidence, there's really nothing I can do to help you. Sarcasticidealist 08:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest citing an example you've seen of a recent Wikiquette violation, Sarcasticidealist? I would honestly cite some myself but given the nature of this disagreement I'm not sure there is anything I can say that will serve to change Bsharvy's opinion. Anynobody 09:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Please review the stated purpose of this page: "This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite or uncivil behavior or other stressful situations to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." (emphasis added). I already know he is being rude; I don't need a ruling about it. I requested "marriage counseling" i.e. mediation, a moderator not a judge.
But, it never occurred to me that anyone would consider "If you're just being anal" as civil. Please review examples from your source (WP:CIVIL):
  • Judgmental tone
  • Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
...and...
If starting a comment with "Not to make this personal, but..." is uncivil, then so is "If you're just being anal...." Do you believe it is non-judgemental? The policy overview: "personally targeted behaviour that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." Calling (or "suggesting") somebody is anal will increase conflict and stress. My first impulse was to tell him to quit being such a patronizing snot (I supressed the impulse). I don't know what your social circle is like, but in most civil conversations people don't call each other anal (or "suggest" it). Bsharvy 10:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know what to say. I think you seem to find the descriptor "anal" much more insulting than it actually is. By suggesting that you were "being anal" (not that you were an "anal person"), he was suggesting that the the words "disease" and "infection" could be used interchangeably. As I said, it probably would have been helpful if he hadn't used the word "anal", and he's agreed with me on that point.
You're quite right that this forum is to seek perspective. My perspective is that no Wikiquette violation has occurred.
In any event, it's clear that I'm not helping matters, so I'm going to remove myself from this alert. Hopefully another volunteer will step in and prove more satisfactory. Sarcasticidealist 18:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Bsharvy, I honestly didn't mean anything overly personal by saying you were being obstinate about the disease/infection issue.
Let's be clear, there is personal information like one's religion, race, sexuality, etc. that is almost always unacceptable to mention in a dispute and then there is information about one's behavior in regard to others. My point is/was that bickering over a word choice which has no wrong answer either way is irrelevant, but since you have been prickly on other such minor issues; we'll call it what you want. That's not personal in the same sense as race, etc., it's about your behavior. Furthermore, I honestly don't think comment on content not editors means don't point out bad behavior. If it did, everyone who posts a {{NPA}}, or other warning template would be violating that idea.
Sarcasticidealist I appreciate the effort you made here, and I completely agree that my word choice was rather poor especially in hindsight, so please don't feel your effort was wasted. Anynobody 06:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I came to this dispute entirely randomly when I ran into the article Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki which shouts out "edit war!" True enough, the talk page has reams of back and forth. I didn't bother reading through the entire bickering, but I think Bsharvy is way out of line here, bordering on bad wikiquette himself. Anynobody has committed no real incivility but was instead working to introduce a compromise wording which was met with nitpicking, weaseling and POV-pushing. Perhaps the word choice could have been better: I would suggest obdurate, rigid or refractory as the mot juste. Eusebeus 13:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Third opinion" (so to speak): As a somewhat active WQA volunteer, let me give my take on this alert. Bsharvy (t c), you opened this alert because you felt insulted by the term "anal [retentive]." However, you later posted that you weren't looking for a judgment on Anynobody (t c)'s Wikiquette. In that case, may I ask what you were hoping to accomplish by opening this alert?

In regards to the term that started this whole mess, "anal [retentive]", I personally feel that term has a rather negative connotation. I'm fairly certain that if the Quality department overheard me using that term in a discussion with one of my customers on the phone, I'd be written up; I'm also fairly certain that none of my college professors would have appreciated me using the term in reference to one of my fellow students. To me, that makes it inappropriate for use in Wikipedia discussions as well, which should at least have the dignity of a college-level debate. I have no problems at all seeing why Bsharvy would be insulted by the use of the term (even if he knew, as I do, exactly what was meant by its use) as I would have felt similarly insulted. I do seriously doubt I would have opened a WQA on it, never mind posting to the editor's open Editor Review in violation of WP:MULTI.

Sarcasticidealist (t c) was correct in stating that no violation of WP:CIVIL has occurred, because Anynobody wasn't trying to provoke you or escalate the discussion. Since you were insulted by the term, it became a de facto violation of WP:CIVIL, but there's nothing to be accomplished by berating Anynobody about it now. Anynobody has admitted that the use of that term was ill-considered, and has apologized for it in so far as explaining that nothing personal was intended. I'd accept that apology and move on, Bsharvy. --Darkwind (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake people: READ. "...you later posted that you weren't looking for a judgment on Anynobody (t c)'s Wikiquette. In that case, may I ask what you were hoping to accomplish by opening this alert?" Already answered, in my post before yours.

  • Judgmental tone
  • Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
...and...

Maybe most of you are just being anal. I dunno. It takes some serious anality to insist that "If you're just being anal..." is non-judgemental, and isn't a comment on personality. Nothing in the policy says that bad ettiquette is only a violation if the person is trying to provoke or escalate--rightly so, as that would require telepathy.

  • READ. The purpose of this page isn't limited to reporting violations. I said I wasn't interested in a ruling about whose sense of rudeness was "correct." I said I was interested moderation.
  • READ.Nothing started with the "anal" comment. Rather, something ended with it. I didn't say that was the main problem. I said "I can't work with this guy." And if that wasn't evident at first, it should have been obvious after I said it explicitly. I didn't say he made edits in violation of consensus. I said there was no consensus.
  • Remind me not to come here again. Nobody involved in the so-called dispute resolution processes ever bothers to READ. If you are going to moderate (or judge, which seems to be the bent of most of you), you need to exhibit attention to detail. Bsharvy 04:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
???Bsharvy I've avoided pointing out two facts since there is a good chance of them angering you by their very basic nature but 1) WP:EQ is a guideline, and while it should usually be followed to the letter it also makes clear that common sense type exceptions exist:
Seriously, if one editor's personality has become disruptive to the point of affecting the ability of others to edit an article, common sense dictates that it should be dealt with somehow. Pointing out the behavior to such an editor is the logical first step. :::2) You may or may not have noticed, but nobody has criticized the point I was making, only the word choice. Insisting that other editors who are trying to moderate here re-read the guidelines and policies they already had in mind when answering here is only serving to prove a tendency toward being obdurate. Anynobody 05:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Bsharvy, if you want people's opinions, take them. If you want people to always agree with you, this may not be the place. There is a clear difference of opinion - you perceived something as a personal attack. Nobody else seems to think so. Maybe you're overreacting. I suggest you cool down, instead of berating people who are volunteering their time to try to help you resolve the issue. We did "READ" it. If someone called you pedantic instead of anal, how would you feel? How about too meticulous? The point was about your side of the discussion - it was too focused on details, or some such. "Anal retentive" is a common way to say this. "Pedantic" is another. Both of these can be taken as insults (as could virtually anything said in a disagreement), but they shouldn't be. --Cheeser1 06:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The only response to that is to point out for the third time that the term "anal" was not the point. I didn't characterize it as a personal attack. I argued it was uncivil only in response to another commentor here. I didn't say it was the reason for coming here. I have now said three times that my reason for posting on the page was not to claim any violation. READ Nobody was asked to be a judge of civility, so stop acting like judges of civility. As for volunteering time, do you think I am paid? Bsharvy 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This argument is starting to show signs that something else is contributing to the misunderstanding. I mean no offense by this question, honestly I wouldn't do that on the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts board; Is English not your first language? I've had discussions both online and in real life with people who spoke English as a second or third language better than most natives but tended to be susceptible to taking comments/words out of context or fixate on one word being more "right" as in the disease/infection issue. Or the edits which prompted a neutral editor to ask ...you opened this alert because you felt insulted by the term "anal [retentive]." However, you later posted that you weren't looking for a judgment on Anynobody (t c)'s Wikiquette. In that case, may I ask what you were hoping to accomplish by opening this alert?
I just came from the WP:RFC thread opened at Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#RFC Improving Consensus Process that wasn't meant to actually improve the process itself.
  • Note* I honestly feel it is a good faith assumption that there must be a language barrier between us, otherwise you're really starting to sound like a menace. Anynobody 08:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, I ask, if you didn't ask anybody to be a judge of civility, and you didn't feel you were attacked, and being called "anal" wasn't the point (which is all you brought up in your first post here, by the way), then again, why did you open this alert? What were you trying to get done here? You say you answered that in the post above mine, but all I see is that you bolded the words "informal mediation." That's accomplished here at WQA by determining if there has been a wikiquette breach and speaking to the party who committed that breach to remind them of proper wiki behavior. We do not mediate content disputes as a rule.
As it stands now, my personal opinion is that you, Bsharvy, need to grow a wikishell, and you need to do it soon; as I'm having a wikiprophecy that you will soon grow disgruntled with the WP community and depart, well, wikiwiki. As for myself, I recuse, as did Sarcasticidealist. The input of WQA volunteers is obviously not what you were seeking, and I'm starting to take it personally. --Darkwind (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
"Image:Gtk-dialog-info.svg
(for the second time) "This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite or uncivil behavior or other stressful situations to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." That is the input I was seeking, which I have now stated, what, four times? What I got instead was editors who think the only purpose of this page is to pass judgement on whether a WP:CIVIL violation has occurred (and who think "If you're just being anal" doesn't violate policies against judgemental tone or personal remarks). But, hey, thanks for all the personal remarks. It showed good style. Bsharvy 11:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Against my better judgement, I'm responding because there seem to be some things that need clarification. WQA exists for situations when you feel another editor is behaving inappropriately according to established community standards. I've changed the text at the top of the page you had quoted from in order to make that clearer (hopefully), and discourage the apparent wikilawyering you seem to have resorted to (judging by the constant quotations from the page text). Such 'lawyering will not change the way WQA operates or the type of situations we currently handle.
If you wanted help with your content dispute, another informal process like third opinion would have been a better choice. I'm sorry you didn't get what you were expecting by posting here. I'm sorry the de jure text at the top of the page didn't 100% accurately reflect what the de facto process of WQA is today. I truly am. However, just because you didn't get what you were expecting doesn't mean you get the right to insult the WQA volunteers or our efforts to help. In doing that, your behavior is no better than what you were complaining about from Anynobody. See WP:KETTLE.
I'd strongly suggest at this point that you let this go. There is a consensus of at least three regular WQA volunteers (myself, Sarcastic, and Cheeser) that you were trying to get something from WQA that we don't provide (at this time. Whether we did in the past, judging by the old version of the text at the top, is largely irrelevant.) Continuing to push the issue is rather pointless at this point, since you've already made it clear you don't have any interest in what WQA provides today. --Darkwind (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I do wonder why you keep posting here, since you don't seem to listen to anything I say. You wanted to know why I came here, if not to accuse someone of a violation, so I told you. Then you asked again, so I told you again, and pointed out it is consistent with the purpose of the page. Then you accused me of "lawyering" for quoting the purpose of the page. I wanted aid in working with the individual in question; I wasn't interested in accusing him of anything because that isn't productive. (I've said this 4 or 5 times now.) But, you have decided you already know what I wanted, so why keep asking? Bsharvy 04:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Redacted comment. --Darkwind (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean retracted? In case anybody's confused, I thought I'd point that out. --Cheeser1 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh, not quite, though redacted isn't exactly it either. My comment is still in the history if anyone wants to read it. I meant every word, I just don't think it's appropriate for the main WQA page -- it might scare off potential visitors by implying that we always conduct our discussions this way. I removed it for that reason only. --Darkwind (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It ought to "scare off potential visitors" by implying you think its appropriate to conduct any discussion this way.
  • To what "alternate forum" was this referred? Bsharvy 07:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's be clear here. Although I have never run into him before, it is clear from a mile away that Bsharvy is a highly problematic editor. The edit-warring that spawned this in the first place is largely due to his recalcitrance, which is troubling enough. His tendency to picayune wikilawyering is rather worse, topped off with doses of self-righteous conviction, the pointless repetition of his (non-)case in the face of good faith comments and the passive-aggressive badgering. Bsharvy accept some advice: you need to change the way you interact with other editors forthwith; you will find yourself the subject of an RFC if you keep this up. And please don't bother with some aggrieved response which throws out lots of policy this way and that. You behaviour at the moment is childish and intolerable and you need to cut it out. Eusebeus 07:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Of course I'm problematic: I insist on accuracy.
  • Whose sounds "aggrieved" here? Hm? Bsharvy 08:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I will add this in, again, since User:Bsharvy deleted it here [417]

"I want to point out for the volunteers who took this posting seriously...I think this post (as well as others on RFC, admin notices, etc.) are simply a tactic to run off editors that disagree with User:Bsharvy as several have already left the single page the dispute is centered on (Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki)."

Not only does deleting it prove a point, but adds another...perhaps this users' issues could be addressed...elsewhere? Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 21:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything. Bsharvy 05:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Ooops, it looks like I did. Such a loss (it was an accident). Bsharvy 05:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Darkwind I agree the discussion has proven fruitless as far as satisfying the editor who posted this thread. I'm not really interested in taking this further, but if Bsharvy wants to, do you think a WP:RFC/U would be more appropriate since he/she has had very similar difficulty with other editors? Anynobody 05:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish to assist in this noble effort. User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken is your man: User_talk:Eusebeus#Bsharvy Bsharvy 13:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean you want to help write a RFC on yourself Bsharvy? How appropriate. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


users meateater and madchester

Stuck. I've marked this as stuck - this is not a WQA issue, there has been no breach of etiquette. The complaining user has demanded an apology for an NPA warning that was clearly justified. I've referred the complaining user to the relevant policies, and expressed the fact that if an NPA warning seems to be inapprorpiate, it should be discussed civilly and without personal attacks. Responding with another personal attack will elicit further warnings. Cheeser1 14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I had been publicly accused of making a personal attack in a talk page for Colin McRae by user:madchester, i have done no such thing as was upset and being accused in public talk page about a person who had only just been killed. I told madchester what i thought and gave him an opportunity to apologise and he accused me a second time of a personal attack. I have asked him for an apology and some evidence of my personal attack and the evidence he gave does not come anywhere near a personal attack.

But then, to top it all off user: meateater has stuck his nose in matters and decided to give me a final warning before i get blocked for making a personal attack!!!! I am raging and demand an apology on the talk page where i have been accused.

See my talk page, meateater talk page and madchester talk page for details and someone please help me out.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that you are being warned with due cause. Your talk page clearly has both incidents listed, and while the first is a minor personal attack directed at other people in general ("anyone with any brain size"), the second one is vulgar and directed quite pointedly at another user (the "stick out of your ass" one). If you were unaware, you should be now - personal attacks like this are not allowed on Wikipedia. You actually can be banned for such behavior. He may have been a bit too assertive about it, but he's right - your conduct was perhaps out of line. When asked to not make such attacks, you responded with a worse attack. That is inappropriate. You should cool down and contribute constructively from this point on. --Cheeser1 13:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Is not an attack on anyone, let alone a personal attack. It is a common phrase that means something is so obvious. It was not used in a reply to any other user, it was not directed at any or all previous posters on the talk page. So how can you agree that was a personal attack when it was not. I was accused publicly of making a personal attack on the talk page of someone who had just been killed in an accident - do you expect me to be happy about that? Of course i told my accuser to get the stick from his ass - a perfectly reasonable response to be honest in the circumstances.
Please remember to sign your posts by placing four ~'s after your post. DurinsBane87 13:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I made a post that included a common phrase, my post was not directed at anyone in particular, my post was not a response to a previous post, you tell me where in the wiki guidlines it says that i should be publicly warned? In fact the guidlines clearly state that the best course of action would have been to ignore my comment, nobody can ever claim to know the intentions meant behind a sentance - a friendly question would have been enough - but a public accusation on the talk page of someone who had only been dead a few hours????? So i cannot accept your response to this at all i am afraid. 58.167.213.128 13:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That was not a reasonable response. Please read the policy about personal attacks. The death of this person seems to be unduly affecting your judgment in this matter - I suggest you take a break from all this. There should be no question that "pull the stick out of your ass" is a personal attack. Such vulgar language is not appropriate either. --Cheeser1 13:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
We are not discussing the "pull the stick out your ass" line, we are discussing the reason why the user first accused me of making a personal attack. And even if we were where do you get off saying that Ass is vulgar language? you cannot be serious? What is clearly happening here is a simple case of phrases are fine and innocent in some cultures being deemed unacceptable by someone from another culture.
And no, i have no vested interst in the subject death and certainly not enough to affect my judgement, again you seem to be jumping to conclusions. The following is how user:madchester should have dealt with his miguided thoughts that i had made any kind of personal attack...

Responding to personal attacks Initial options Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all. Wikipedia and its debates can become stressful for some editors, who may occasionally overreact. Additionally, Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding. While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia. If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. Although templates have been used at times for this purpose, a customized message relating to the specific situation is often better received. When possible, try to find compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior. Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack.

It also clearly states...

Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack

58.167.213.128 14:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if the accusation was incorrect, it was still justified - there was a clear reason given, and that reason was arguably valid. Please keep in mind that people are trying to help you contribute constructively. Turning around and accusing them of something is not going to help. Take people's criticism as constructive criticism and move on. Learn not to be so brash in your tone - comments like that might not seem like personal attacks to you, and maybe you feel a bit bothered when someone asks you to stop talking like that, but you should seriously consider what people are telling you. Asking you to stop talking like that does not breach Wikipedia etiquette. If you want to discuss it with the complaining party, do so civilly and peacefully. Saying things like "pull the stick out of your ass" will not get you very far, and makes you filing a complaint about him a sham, at best. Nobody's going to take seriously the claim that "pull the stick out of your ass" is not a personal attack, and that saying that it is becomes a personal attack against you. Accept the fact that your language was brash and insulting. Take it as a lesson. That is the point. You started this complaint by insisting that you are "raging." I suggest you cool down, and take this as a lesson about personal conduct - how to behave appropriately and nicely on Wikipedia. Nobody's "sticking [their] nose" anywhere. Try to remember that we're all here to try to contribute constructively, and we're trying to make sure you do so effectively. --Cheeser1 14:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that is fine, at least i know where things stand on Wikipedia now, i am allowed to write on publicly viewed talk pages accusing people of anything i want with no recourse and no need to apologise for anything - what a fantastic site this is - i shall have fun. Thanks for your help. 58.167.213.128 14:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Please be civil. Responding to perceived persecution by lashing out (sarcastically as you just have, or with comments involving "pull that stick out of your ass") is hardly appropriate. You made personal attacks on the talk page - a reasonable response was also made there. However, the warnings, in strict accordance with the guidelines, were made on your talk page. You ignored them, or rather, used them as an opportunity to make more personal attacks. When that failed to satisfy you, you brought a complaint here, in which you have insisted that your vulgar personal attacks are appropriate. Now your behavior is growing uncivil again. I suggest you stop it at once. --Cheeser1 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As an administrator, I need to warn editors (especially new ones) about breaches in Wiki-policy. Going around on a talk page with comments like "anyone with any brain size" belittles the intelligence on the editors working on that article. The point of the warning is to make an editor aware of his/her actions and to prevent future inappropriate behaviour. Not understanding or agreeing with that particular policy doesn't mean an editor should escalate the situation by making further personal attacks. Please, please don't take warning messages personally; they are meant to improve your Wikipedia contributions. --Madchester 14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So then as an administrator you should be aware that the guildines ask you to warn editors by way of a "friendly note on their talk page, not on the talk page of the article in question" Had you followed these simple guidlines you could of saved all of this fuss, and you would not have needed to get someone else to threaten me with being blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.213.128 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The block warning was left on your talk page, as would have been appropriate. The one dragging this out and making a fuss is you, by filing this complaint. --Cheeser1 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues with an admin

Stuck.

First, I was going to ask User:FCYTravis about something, but his user and discussion pages are locked. He did two things I other things I think were qestionable: he censored a comment from Talk:Star_Wars_kid, with this left: "I have removed your absolutely inappropriate and disgusting comparisons from this page, BlueLotas. Do not replace them. Despicable." I think an administrator (especailly) shouldn't edit another user's comment on a discussion page, provided it was written in good faith. Second, but minor, FCYTravis removed content from a comment after signing it (also in the same page). I just want to see if anyone else thinks he might be out of line. 69.12.143.197 06:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Could you provide some diffs to the incidents you're talking about (the deletion of your comment from the talk page and his removal of his comments post-signature)? In the first case, there is a narrow range of circumstances in which it's acceptable to edit another user's comments. In the second, it's generally acceptable to edit your own comments provided that there haven't been any responses and only a small amount of time has elapsed. Still, I'll be able to provide more specific comments after I see some diffs. Sarcasticidealist 06:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Wait - is this what you're talking about? If so, I have to say that I fully agree with you. I think the comparison was perhaps slightly over the top (and not all together relevant, since Hitler isn't subject to WP:BLP), but that certainly doesn't justify its removal under any policy of which I am aware. I'll drop him a note on his talk page asking for an explanation. Sarcasticidealist 06:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The removed content wasn't mine, its removal just bothered me. Yes, that was it, and I commented from a different IP (I'm not always on the same computer or in the same place) that BLP wouldn't apply. I agree, the comment was the best, but that doesn't warrant its removal. Here's the edit he made to his comment: Edited comment 69.12.143.197 06:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I would say that's essentially not an issue. The revision was made seven minutes after his original comment. While there was a response in between his original comment and his revision, it's quite possible that he decided to revise his comment before the response and just copied and pasted when the edit conflict screen came up. While it's possible that he edited his comment to remove the "four years ago" bit after somebody provided a more recent news story, I think given the short time differences WP:AGF requires that we assume otherwise in this case. Sarcasticidealist 07:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course BLP applies. The BLP policy applies to Wikipedia as a whole, anywhere. There are no exceptions to it. FCYTravis 17:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
BLP obviously applies to the Star Wars Kid, and I didn't say otherwise (I said BLP doesn't apply to Hitler, on account of he's dead). But I don't see anything in BLP that prohibits the kind of comments that the user made. He didn't compare the article's subject to Hitler, he invoked Hitler (improperly, because BLP doesn't apply to Hitler) to illustrate why he felt it was appropriate to use the subject's name. All he was saying was that the article on Hitler demonstrated that Wikipedia articles are not always written with the interests of the subject in mind.
It really wasn't a compelling argument. But it wasn't a BLP violation. Sarcasticidealist 17:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Correction: Your opinion is that it's not a BLP violation. I say otherwise. Feel free to bring it up on the BLP noticeboard if you wish. FCYTravis 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Everything I write is my opinion, obviously. I'm just following the old high school essay rule that preceding your statements with "I think" makes your argument seem less compelling. But I certainly accept that, when I'm engaged in an argument or other dispute, everything I write is my opinion.
We may have to go the BLP noticeboard route at some point. As a first step, I've requested the involvement of some other WQA regulars in the hopes that we can establish some kind of consensus. Sarcasticidealist 18:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - I removed the comment in question because it was wildly inappropriate, disgusting and maligned a living person - namely, the subject of the article. "Good faith" does not excuse potential libel, and comparing anyone's actions to Hitler's is surely completely out of bounds for any commentary on Wikipedia talk pages. You want to talk about Wikiquette? Maybe go "alert" the person who made the talk page post. Article talk pages are not free-fire zones for attacks on living persons, and if you have to make a Nazi comparison, then you've already lost the debate. FCYTravis 17:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It isn't about the validity of the point, it's about whether or not a user (or admin) should censor points out of discussions. Also, why are your talk and user pages locked? 69.12.143.197 18:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
On the broader question of whether users should remove points from discussions, I must say that there are clearly some occasions in which that is warranted. For example, if I said "I heard that Living Person A was under suspicion of murder" or something to that effect, that should clearly be removed. WP:BLP makes fairly clear provision for this sort of thing. That's why I needed to see exactly what comments were removed.
Additionally and as an aside, I think that User:FCYTravis's status as an admin is entirely immaterial, here - he's not being accused of abusing his admin powers. Sarcasticidealist 18:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, potential libel should be removed, as should content violating copyrights, but the removed text was neither. As far as the admin part, true, it didn't involve abuse of admin powers, I think I just expected a little more restraint from an admin. (I'm still not sure why I can't edit his talk page, though. That might be an abuse.) 69.12.143.197 18:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No, semiprotection of my talk page is not an abuse. You want to post there, register an account. Free, easy and anonymous. My userpage is fully protected because... it's my userpage and nobody else has any business editing it. FCYTravis 18:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yours is the first semiprotected talk page I've seen. How are unregistered users supposed to contact you? As far as your user page, it isn't really yours (see Wikipedia:User_page), and again, I've never seen a protected user page before. User:Jimbo Wales is more than happy to let others edit his page, but that might just be a personal preference. 69.12.143.197 19:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion: I would have to say that editing other people's comments in that fashion is contrary to the way Wikipedia works. There was nothing, as far as I can tell, wrong with what the other user said. Or, to be more clear, nothing that was so bad that it warranted removal. Furthermore, I believe that User:FCYTravis was removing the content not just as an act of random editing, but as an administrative act. Regardless, he removed this comparison based on the fact that it was "despicable". I see nothing despicable here - I see an apt analogy. We do not remove content from articles just because the subject of the article might get upset. Sure, we follow BLP guidelines (wherever applicable), but the user was clearly trying to make an (arguably) valid point about the article content. It was not a comparison of the Star Wars kid to Hitler, even though FCYTravis thinks it is (going so far as to cite Godwin's Law). It could not reasonably be considered uncivil, anti-Semitic, or anything of that sort. What gives FCYTravis the right to remove other people's comments? It appears that this claim is based on his adminship - which he seems to have decided also allows him to protect his userspace. I'm all for keeping vandalism off my talk page and user page, but is this appropriate? It seems dubious, and makes me wonder if FYCTravis thinks he owns his userpage. Talk pages are for talk, from anyone. A user's talk page should be open for anyone - especially that of an administrator. Registration is not required. Refusing to acknowledge or address people because they choose not to register is totally inappropriate for an admin. So, to conclude, I believe that by removing the comment in question, FYCTravis was overstepping his bounds (as a regular editor and/or as an admin). I think his reasons were invalid, and even if they were, they did not merit such a removal. I believe that he, or at least others, wind up believing that he is allowed to do this due to his adminiship, and I believe his protection of his talk page reflects a certain dismissive and callous tone that is mirrored by this comment-editing. Surely, one need not be an admin to do such a thing, but to do so as an admin could still be abuse of administrative powers, since any action taken to chastise or punish others in this fashion can be (and probably is) interpreted as an administrative action. --Cheeser1 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The removal was completely innapropriate and a vioaltion of policy. It is almost never appropriate to remove another person's comment from Talk page.
  • User:FCYTravis is bordering on violations of civility policies in his comments here.
  • User:FCYTravis also seems to be missing the point of the comment. There was no comparison between Hitler and a living person. Bsharvy 05:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
FCYTravis and I have been discussing this a little on our respective talk pages here and here. In light of the fairly clear consensus on this page that his actions were inappropriate, I've asked if he's prepared to accept restoration of the material. If he isn't, I suggest we do him the courtesy of taking this to WP:BLPN as he originally suggested, if only in the interests of avoiding the sort of jurisdictional dispute that would see us arguing over whether a consensus on this page was binding on a BLP issue. Sarcasticidealist 05:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Seeing how FYCTravis is responding, I'd support taking it to WP:BLPN, but I honestly can't see how a statement that didn't assert anything about Star Wars Kid could possibly be in violation of BLP with regards to him. I expect the issue to come back to this page. 69.12.143.197 05:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the IP - there's no BLP issues here. BLPN wouldn't be the place for it. I'd suggest maybe the ANI or something. --Cheeser1 06:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm supporting going to BLPN only because User:FCYTravis justifies his actions under WP:BLP. That means there is a BLP issue here, since the question of whether there's a BLP issue itself becomes a BLP issue. Or something. If we don't take it there, I think the alternative is to decide that we've reached consensus here and restore the material. Unfortunately, that likely results in an edit war. But let's wait to see how he responds to my latest message first. Sarcasticidealist 06:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
He has responded to my message on my talk page and, in light of his response, I've taken the liberty of listing this issue here. May consensus have mercy on us all. Sarcasticidealist 10:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Eusebeus

Resolved.

I left a comment asking the user to not be vulgar and to avoid petty violations of WP:CIVIL. --Cheeser1 20:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Made this comment: "I am not going to bother wading through all the shit going on above because I don't give a crap..." on Talk:Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#CLEANUP_THE_LEAD.

Did he violate WP:CIVIL ? Bsharvy 05:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behaviour that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress

He said:

I am not going to bother wading through all the shit going on above because I don't give a crap, but let me tell you...(for a decent sized paragraph)

To say one doesn't care, then proceed to (least importantly) disprove yourself and (importantly) fan the flames is certainly uncivil. While Eusebeus probably had the best of intentions (I think paragraph 2 of the article should be moved to another part of the article), his actions served no constructive purpose. 69.12.143.197 05:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Who was Eusebeus targeting? (To me targeting is focusing one person for behavior all have committed. I took the comment to mean he/she found much of the contentious disputing unnecessary in general on all sides.) Anynobody 06:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anyeverybody (talk • contribs)
He was targeting any and all editors who contributed to "the shit going on above ." It was a disparaging comment, which is the defintion of a personal attack. Bsharvy 07:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would comment, but you've made it clear that you do not appreciate the advice and input of contributors on the WP:WQA. Actually, it's obviously petty incivility, and I'll leave a comment on the talk page. However, it seems to me that you may be doing this to make a point about your recent complaint here, and if this is the case, I'd ask you not to do so. --Cheeser1 15:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur. --Darkwind (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you have transferred the making of personal remarks from one incident to another, I will return the favor. What you've made clear is that you think it is appropriate to make personal remarks about editors, in the name of guiding people toward not making personal remarks about editors. Avoding personal remarks is the gist of all the ettiquette policy and guidelines here.
I intend to edit this page on a regular basis: it needs me. In the future, I suggest you not jump to (personal) conclusions about people based on a single incident, and not because they have disagreed with you in that incident. Also, do not carry over disputes from one topic into another. Your assistance was requested in one matter: a possible breach of civility by Eusebeus. You were not invited to make personal remarks. So, now you know exactly what kind of contributions from editors here I don't welcome. Bsharvy 04:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you aren't in charge of who's allowed or invited to contribute to the WQA or any other page. See WP:OWN. Also keep in mind that I said "if this is the case" - you filed two complaints in relatively rapid succession, and one of them has concerns that clearly relate to the other. The fact that I suggested that they might be related is understandable. WP:CIVIL does not ban any discussion of anyone ever ("personal remarks"). It bands incivility. I suggest you give thought to the difference there. And try to assume good faith. I was simply making a suggestion, if it turned out that your two posts were related, in order to help you contribute more productively instead. --Cheeser1 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say anything about allowing or inviting anyone here. You asserted I do not "appreciate the advice or input of contributors," so I clarfied for you exactly what kind of contribution I don't appreciate: personal remarks. I didn't say anything that had anything to do with WP:OWN. There is, in fact, a general guideline against making personal remarks, and you should understand it to contribute here.
  • Argue facts, not personalities. (Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette).
This very dicussion is a model. If you make personal remarks, the result is : 1) people feel a need (and a right) to defend themselves, and 2) they feel entitled to make pesonal remarks about you. End result: there is a lot of off-topic bickering about personalities, and this very discussion should serve to illustrate that to you. Argue facts, not personalities. Bsharvy 05:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
See WP:KETTLE. I made a statement that assumed good faith but presented my appropriate and understandable concern that you were filing two related disputes. In case you didn't notice, this is the WQA, where we discuss people's conduct. How can we do that without making "personal remarks"???? I challenge you to find a way to do so. Instead of coming here and insulting the regular WQA editors and accusing us of "making personal remarks" (when doing so is itself a personal remark), you settle down and let it go. I'm not going to respond anymore if you continue to fling accusations at me - it's not a productive or reasonable line of discussion. --Cheeser1 06:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
"this is the WQA, where we discuss people's conduct. How can we do that without making "personal remarks"????" ...you discuss the conduct, not the person. Bsharvy 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
And that's exactly what I did. I made a relevant and valid point about your conduct here (that you have filed to quite possibly related concerns in rapid succession). You appear to be looking for things to make a fuss over. I've asked you repeatedly to cool down, assume good faith, and to stop insulting the regulars here, who were trying to help. I'm done discussing this with you, because it's become completely unproductive and pedantic (yes, that's a comment about your conduct, not about you, so don't file any more frivolous accusations, 'kay?). --Cheeser1 18:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You just don't get it. However, this is not the place for this discussion. If are actually interested in the opinion of the person whom you attack, start a Talk page discussion. Bsharvy 19:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

217.43.78.244

Stuck.

At the list of light heavyweight boxing champions 217.43.78.244/86.134.241.52 continue to revert edits I make. When I attempt to discuss these edits on the talk page I get no response, just more reversions. Of course, I did get this response on one of his/her user talk pages: "MKil, you're a fucking idiot."[418]

I figured I'd bring it here instead of continuing the revert war game. MKil 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)MKil

Now it appears this same person is using 81.156.68.208 and continuing with the profanity.MKil 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)MKil
The List of light heavyweight boxing champions that was the victim of the improper edits has apparently been semi-protected until 22 September. EdJohnston 00:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid we can't help you here - it's pretty obvious that there's no good faith coming from this user. If the problem persists once the semi-protection is lifted, you should take it to WP:ANI and look for a block of the IP. Marking as stuck. Sarcasticidealist 01:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz - AGF and baiting

Resolved.

This user has assumed bad faith and uses sarcasm and baiting against me. From his talk page it's apparent that he's conducted himself this way with many other editors. At this point I'm so frustrated that I don't even feeling like participating in the project anymore. Popkultur 21:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any specific diff's that we should look at? --Bfigura (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter now. Thanks for your help though. Popkultur 00:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry to hear it, but best of luck outside Wikipedia :) --Bfigura (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann hari

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereBLP issue referred to WP:BLP/N --Cheeser1 04:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is concerning allegations inserted by the user Felix-Felix into the entry for British journalist Johann Hari.

To give some context, as reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described the British journalist Johann Hari (recently named as journalist of the year by Amnesty International) as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" , inserted into his entry fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced and legally disputed claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about. This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me.

Felix-Felix is currently arguing that he can insert a new section into the entry, designed by his own admission to suggest Hari's journalistic standards have been seriously impugned. He does not have BLP or NOTE standard sources for these claims, as three wiki administrators have said (you can find these in the archive).

There are four 'sources' felix claims to have.

(1) Private Eye. This is a British scandal magazine, which Hari was attacked by literally a week after he criticised its editor in print. One wiki administrator has said on this page it should be viewed with "a very jaundiced eye", another has said it is "at best 50 percent accurate", yet Felix is insisting on using it as a source. This fails both BLP and NOTE, since Private Eye attacks virtually all prominent journalists sooner or later.

(2) A website called Counterpunch,. which meets BLP standards, but has an extraordinarily trivial charge against Hari. They complain that he repeated in an op-ed column a story that had been reported in hundreds of newspapers. Even they concede that once it became clear the story was fake, he published a correction. This fails NOTE.

(3) A journalist called Nick Cohen, who was responding to a very critical review of his book by Hari. This is (rightly) included in the entry already, since it passes both BLP and NOTE.

(4) An obscure pro-war website, which is written by friends of Cohen, who simply repeated his charge. This fails NOTE.

I believe this is an inadequate basis on which to build a section suggesting Hari's journalistic standards have been seriously questioned by wiki-standard sources. Felix-Felix disagrees. We are deadlocked in our disagreement. Any outside comment would be very welcome. David r from meth productions 23:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you move this posting to the biographies of living people noticeboard, where experienced editors can respond. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This is a BLP issue - it's better addressed at that noticeboard. --Cheeser1 04:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave, as I've requested you do before, please stop these personal attacks which range from grossly misrepresenting my edits to outright falsehoods. Please provide links to my edits if you disagree.FelixFelix talk 08:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not frivolously accuse others of making personal attacks (which is itself uncivil). It is clear and obvious that the two users filing this complaint are commenting on the content you've contributed to the article. This is absolutely, by definition, not a personal attack. --Cheeser1 08:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

AussieLegend

Work in Progress Work in Progress - comments welcome

I'm having trouble editing the page Exetel with AussieLegend. The incivility, rude tone, and personal attacks are rife in his posts on the Exetel talk page and my own talk page. His approach to editing seems overly confrontational and defensive. I've tried to be civil and helpful, but this tends to aggravate him more. He's had trouble with other users on the page before, to the point of a conflict mediation. I'm not sure what else to do? Thanks for all the help! Sсοττ5834talk 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott - could you provide some diffs in which you think this user's behaviour has been problematic? Thanks, Sarcasticidealist 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing! They're right below in roughly chronological order:

There's more (especially toward other users), but that's a sample. Sсοττ5834talk 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott - thanks for the diffs. This case appears to have some context that I'd need in order to fully understand it, so I'm going to ask User:AussieLegend to provide a statement about his perspective on this before I take it any further. Hopefully, once that's done, we can get both of you on the same page and working constructively together. Sarcasticidealist 01:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
A glance at Talk:Exetel appears to show a content dispute raging since 2006 about how critical the article should be about Exetel's policies, notability of Exetel's doings, and adequate referencing for statements about Exetel. The requirement that well-sourced content should not be removed except due to a Talk page consensus might have some value. Since this is a rather short article, and even in confusing situations it should be possible to neutrally state the various opinions, it's not clear why a compromise version can't be agreed upon. EdJohnston 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've experienced this "user" before. It's almost impossible to get anything done to the Exetel article, any good faith edits (with newspaper articles) are reverted because of "vandalism" (with the people who write the articles on the news sites being called hack/fake journalists), you get posted up on administrative/talk page areas as being a bad user, and then his squad of sock-puppets/extremely close "friends" then come in to back him up with page after page of rules-lawyering (and despite them being very new users with few edits, they have a in-depth knowledge of wiki-rules/guidelines) as soon as you leave for more than a few days they attempt to claim "consensus" (I've had to argue consensus with him and his "friends" who come out and say they don't think it deserves to be in an article.. how can someone argue consensus with people who don't want anything? Impossible) and move to have the page locked. His account is basically a single use account (as it was when I was trying to make the exetel article accurate) posing as an active user, all to prevent truth being posted on the exetel wikipedia article. Very sad. Macktheknifeau 06:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to apologise in advance about the length of this but I'm trying to provide the full context of what has happened. Because this current issue involves a previous consensus and because Macktheknifeau has decided to weigh in on the issue it is probably appropriate to address Macktheknifeau's actions on the page since they were the catalyst for the mediation, administrator intervention, full protection of the page and the path to consensus. It's all documented at Talk:Exetel but there is a fair bit to read through there and you need to check out the full page history to get the complete story so I'll try to summarise here.
Macktheknifeau is an ex-customer of Exetel. While he was a customer he was banned from the Exetel help forums. Immediately after that event, apparently as a bit of pay-back, he edited the Exetel page and added unverified and false claims.[419] An unregistered IP address then added more unverified and false claims[420] which I reverted, explaining my reasons for doing so on the talk page.[421] Macktheknifeau restored the edits and made some minor edits that corrected one error but none of the rest. Nor did he provide citations for anything. After some minor vandalism by an unregistered IP I cleaned up the edits to make them more factual.[422] Macktheknifeau reverted those edits. He did not "correct" anything, not that anything needed correcting because what I wrote was true, he simply reverted every change including grammatical corrections. It should be pointed out that Macktheknifeau and I were both Exetel customers and active participants in the same threads in the forums on the Whirlpool website so we both knew exactly the same information meaning he must have known that what I wrote was correct so, while it may not have been obvious under the Wikipedia definition, I knew what he did was vandalism and tagged it as such when I restored the correct information.
After this other editors joined in. Macktheknifeau immediately accused these editors of being sockpuppets and reverted their edits[423] every time they attempted to edit the page. He also made same other ridiculous claims on the talk page such as claiming that I was an Exetel employee despite knowing full quite well that I am not. (I actually live over 160 km (99 mi) from Exetel's offices) He then suddenly appeared to change his attitude and made an offer to allow the other editors the chance to edit the page without him simply reverting, or so we thought. In reality the offer turned out to be less than genuine as he continued to revert the edits of the other editors despite his offer not to.
Somewhere in all this (the timeline is a bit murky) I opened a mediation case. A few days later Macktheknifeau opened his own case (attempting to hijack mine immediately after doing so) but not before formally accusing all editors who opposed him of being sockpuppets and me of being the puppetmaster. He later withdrew the allegations.
I also approached an Administrator for advice. He protected the page and posted some guidance on the talk page.[424] Eventually consensus was reached by all active editors.[425] It can be seen that all editors except Macktheknifeau agreed that the "Controversy" section, which included discussion of the traffic shaping issue, should not be included in the article. It is clear in the discussion that the active editors at the time consensus was reached all had opposed inclusion of what Scott5834 has tried to include as the "Traffic Shaping section"
We now move to June 2007. Scott5834 edits the article adding information regarding a two year old policy that some writer on an obscure US blog site has just discovered. My thoughts, in a nutshell, were "It's a two year old policy that nobody has ever complained about or even commented on so it's really not worth including in the article". As an Exetel customer I received the original email announcing implementation of the policy. Since then, despite being a member and regular participant/reader of both the Exetel and Whirlpool forums I have never seen anyone even comment on it in either forum except for one instance that I'll get to shortly. The lack of comment at Whirlpool is especially significant. Whirlpool is often called "Whingepool" because so many people there, especially in the Exetel forums, seem to like a good whinge even if there is really nothing to whinge about which, not unexpectedly, is what happened with P2P depriortisation. (I'll address this in more detail later) In short, if people haven't complained about it on Whirlpool nobody really cares about it. With that in mind, if the customers of the ISP really don't care about that policy, why should anyone else especially someone from Texas who will probably never have any association with the ISP. However, this is not my only reason for opposing inclusion of this policy in the article. Another is that realistically you can't put everything in an article. There are lots of ISPs in Australia and none of the articles on Wikipedia detail individual policies. In fact, they're not really mentioned. (As an aside I should point out that Exetel isn't even one of the bigger ISPs. It's small compared to several others. Currently it has around 50,000 customers. Compare that to BigPond with over two million) This doesn't mean that policies shouldn't be included but you need to draw a line somewhere. Exetel has policies that all customers are billed on the first of the month, that users get static IPs (unusual in Australia) and that from 1 October 2007 users will have 200MB of webspace. Should these be included? I'd argue that they shouldn't because they really aren't important enough for inclusion. They might be interesting features to somebody thinking of joining Exetel but they're really just filler material. The same is true for the multimedia policy. If the policy is important enough for inclusion then why wasn't it discovered by the US two years ago when it was first announced?
Even when it was finally "discovered" the coverage was insignificant. The post at boing boing, which is somewhat misleading both in title and content, has had zero comments. Scott5834 will argue that comments were only instituted a month ago but I don't know if that's true. Regardless, there have been no comments. He will also argue that it was mentioned at techdirt but that's not actually true. Techdirt mentions the policy as an example of what happens without safe harbour provisions but the policy isn't the focus of the article. Exetel isn't even mentioned. This article is also misleading but that's another issue. Ars technica mentioned it too but apparently that's the extent of the coverage at the time. There was an article in The Age, a Melbourne newspaper, three weeks later but that wasn't related to the boing boing revelation. According to the article the relative of an informant found out one of their multimedia files had gone missing. To put this in the appropriate context you have to understand that the setup information on a user webspace very clearly explains the policy and the simple procedure necessary to avoid deletion. It is reproduced below:

IMPORTANT REQUIREMENT OF USING THIS FACILITY

Exetel has since it began offering ADSL services taken a hard approach to copyright issues; where we believe there is a clear violation of copyright content has been deleted, and in a few cases, directories blocked and 'frozen' pending further investigation by the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Based on the MIPI's actions in March 2005 aganst another ISP (People Telecom) and the actual finding guilty of a second ISP in July 2005 (ComCen), Exetel now believe there is a need to take more direct and pro-active action to monitor content stored on publicly accessible servers under its control.

Effective from 1st April 2005 scripts will be run nightly that will examine all disk content and delete any multimedia content with the extensions mp3, mpg, mpeg, avi, wma and any other multi media file type. Customers wishing to host files with these extensions need to do the following:

1. Email copyright-request@exetel.com.au and request to be excluded from the scan script.

2. State that you agree you are the copyright owner, have permission of the copyright owner or that there is no copyright on the material you want to store.

You can use this text as a template:

To: copyright-request@exetel.com.au
Subject: Please Allow directory for media storage
ADSL line number:
Webspace name:
I advise that I am the copyright owner, have permission of the copyright owner or that there is no copyright on the files I will place in the above directories, and therefore request they be exempt from automatic deletion.

Obviously, the either user didn't read or didn't follow the instructions. Had they done so their files would have been safe and there would probably have been no article. Earlier I mentioned one instance in two years where somebody mentioned the policy. The circumstances of that instance were similar to what happened in the Age article. Somebody didn't follow instructions. People don't follow instructions all the time. Should that be included in Wikipedia articles? I'd argue no because not only is it common it's also too trivial for inclusion.
These are the reasons that I opposed inclusion of the information on the multimedia policy. It simply is too trivial an issue.
Earlier I mentioned that people at Whirlpool like to whinge even when there is nothing to whinge about and I cited P2P deprioritisation or, as Scott5834 has called it, "Traffic Shaping". This is yet another example of how something insignificant can be blown out of proportion. This was an issue that was fairly widely reported but that was because people misinterpreted the announcement. The evidence can be seen in the thread at Whirlpool (I don't have a link at the moment) which reached a length of 102 pages simply on the basis of the announcement. The thread was full of doom and gloom before implementation. After implementation it was a far different matter. The thread virtually stopped dead. Only a few comments were added and they were basicly along the lines of "I haven't noticed anything". A separate thread was created asking people to make comment on the issue post-implementation but it too only attracted a few posts. Why? Because it was a big non-event. That alone probably does make it worthy of inclusion but the problem is that we reached consensus and WP:CCC#Consensus can change recommends discussion before changing consensus. I'm not adding it without discussion because WP:CCC#Consensus can change states:

No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed

I simply don't have the right to arbitrarily declare that consensus has changed. Nor does anyone else.
It's important now to look at the actions of Scott5834 since he is questioning mine.
After his initial attempts to add the information failed, and with three editors opposing him, Scott5834 decided that, rather than follow policy[426] he would submit a request for mediation. This was naturally rejected. He then made some rather puzzling claims as well as clearly unjust accusations that reminded me of Macktheknifeau. Since this is already rather long I won't detail them here. I think the relevant section on the talk page speaks for itself.
Despite the fact that I still disagreed with inclusion of the information I decided to seek a compromise and edited the article to include some of what Scott5834 proposed. His response was:

Though the section stills reads a bit glowing (and POV) in my opinion, it still is a great addition. Well done! Scott5834 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

After posting that he made no further edits on the Exetel page so you can imagine my surprise when, almost 12 weeks later, he started editing the page again, deleting valid information and exaggerating various aspects, most notably in regard to the coverage of the multimedia policy. However, I did not revert his edits. I did remove the section on traffic shaping and suggested he read the talk page discussion regarding that. Instead he immediately reverted my edit and chose to ignore consensus. In the ensuing discussion he started WikiLawyering, citing policy after policy. It also became obvious that "Keep Civil" is his new catch phrase when he doesn't have anything else to respond with. He's used it 5 times so far. Even commenting that despite finding my previous edits "a great addition" he's now seen fit to hack them to pieces resulted in it being used.
Despite the WikiLawyering, when it was pointed out that his own comments and sources breached some of the very policies that he cited he started making excuses in order for his own edits to ignore policy. He seems to expect others to obey policy but believes he should be exempt. For example, a reference to a thread at Whirlpool was presented as a citation for a claim that Exetel customers are unconcerned at the policy. He claims that analysis of the thread posts constitutes original research but when it was pointed out that the techdirt article doesn't mention Exetel and the only way to link Exetel to the article is to examine anonymous comments, thereby making it WP:OR using his own arguments, he claimed that was a stretch of WP:OR.
He has also started feigning ignorance as a way of avoiding addressing an issue. For example he argued that "we shouldn't be looking at notability guidelines to edit the article". (Wikipedia:Notability says "These guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles" indicating that while notability guidelines don't limit the content they are relevant) I responded that I had seen an administrator delete content from an article because of lack of notability. I even supplied a link to a specific page edit with the direction "Check the page history". If you follow the link and check the page history you see that the Administrator's explanation for that edit was "removed non-notable information about cheerleading squad". Scott5834's response was "I see a page about a high school..." There was no acknowledgement that an administrator had done as I said.
And of course the peculiar claims are back combined with heading off on a tangent in order to avoid addressing something. For example, he claimed that one statement regarding Exetel supplying free data in the off-peak period was unverified so I provided a link to a site where 6,863 different plans from 254 different Australian ISPs can be compared. The site in question is used as a source by many organisations including the Australian government, something I pointed out to him. That should have satisfied him but his response was to ask for something better because a newspaper article had "a pretty different take on the "free" bandwidth policy". After pointing out that the article he referenced was about a P2P deprioritisation policy which had nothing to do with the free data (the article doesn't mention the free data at all) he's now claiming that the two are related and the "free" period was implemented at the same time as the P2P deprioritisation program, despite providing no citation to prove those assertions, and yet he expects me to provide citations to prove that the free period has existed for a lot longer. For reference, the article he mentioned is here and a statement from the company CEO confirming the existence of the free period in March 2004 is here. You be the judge.
I think it's fairly obvious that if you're going to edit the content of articles then you should have some knowledge of the subject. You shouldn't just go in blind but Scott5834 has demonstrated with his edits and comments that his knowledge of Exetel is almost non-existent. This is understandable. By his own admission he lives 8000 miles away. He'll probably never have any direct involvement with the ISP so I'm puzzled as to why he'd even bother involving himself in the article especially to the depth that he is. I did ask but he hasn't replied. His only knowledge seems to stem from the boing boing article in June 2007 and the edits he is making are based on misinformation and pure guesswork. It's really not appropriate in my opinion.
One last point I'd like to make really shouldn't need explanation, just revelation.
At 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Scott5834 posted on the Exetel talk page
At 16:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC) he posted here.
At 02:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC) he was back editing the Exetel article.[427]
So much for letting things simmer down.
Once again I apologise for the length of this but I've always found that if you don't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth people tend to get bogged down with the facts and innocent men end up on death row. --AussieLegend 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Like Sarcasticidealist, I look forward to hearing what AussieLegend has to say. When he does join the discussion, I hope he will comment about some of the statements he has made on Talk:Exetel, which do sound like they misunderstand Wikipedia policy. For instance, he has removed at least once a statement that Exetel has engaged in a practice called 'traffic-shaping', where P2P transfers are capped at 50% of the rate they would otherwise enjoy. This was a policy announced by Exetel itself that was commented on in Sydney newspapers, so it appears to be well-sourced critical content. However AussieLegend argued, Yes, it did make the newspapers but, as already pointed out, just because something makes the newspapers doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia... Though AussieLegend's argument is one that some editors make when they are trying to balance out a lengthy article by dropping unimportant information, this traffic-shaping is hardly a minor issue, it can be stated very briefly, and its truth is well-verified. Its removal seems to make the article more favorable to Exetel, and the overall effect of the removal looks like bias. EdJohnston 09:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
As I've explained in the lengthy section above, the decision to remove the reference to traffic shaping was achieved by consensus. Scott5834 just went and put it back in, even after I'd removed it and warned him that he should read the talk page and directed him to WP:CCC#Consensus can change which states:

No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined. An editor who thinks there are good reasons to believe a consensual decision is outdated may discuss it on the relevant talk page, through a Request for Comment, or at the Village Pump or Third Opinion to see what points other editors think are important, and to compare and examine the different viewpoints and reasons.

Scott5834 did not attempt to discuss his proposed edits, even after I directed him to WP:CCC#Consensus can change. He just decided that consensus had changed and edited. Had he attempted to discuss the issue as suggested by WP:CCC#Consensus can change there likely would have been a different outcome. --AussieLegend 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is determined Wikipedia-wide, not just on the Talk page of an individual article. If you choose to disregard settled policy by removing critical information, you need to deal with the body of all Wikipedia editors, not just those who work locally. Please provide a justification that all of us will find convincing. In what sense did you make the article better by removing the well-sourced information that Exetel engaged in traffic-shaping? EdJohnston 23:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read WP:CCC and the discussion on the article's talk page. In removing the edits I was acting to maintain consensus that had been reached in accordance with the instructions of an Administrator. It is up to Scott5834 to discuss the issue before he reapplies edits that consensus had excluded. Whether he discusses the issue at "talk page, through a Request for Comment, or at the Village Pump or Third Opinion" is irrelevant. He needs to discuss it somewhere before doing so. He didn't. He just unilaterally decided that community consensus has changed and included the edits. --AussieLegend 03:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that was a typical aussielegend post, a huge post with very little actual content that actually deals with the matter at hand. My so called "Unverified" (which were made when I was still an exetel user) facts were taken directly from the Exetel forums, posted by the Exetel Administrator/Owner himself! At the time those posts were still around, and they dealt with in the various news articles I posted on the issue. Of course, some time after, the owner apparently "cooled down" and removed his posts. Of course it was too late by then, as they had been seen by thousands, and reported on in major newspapers (and their websites) as well as smaller tech sites. But apparently this is not verifiable to AussieLegend. At which point he removed them and engaged in the edit war. I like how that apparently his information is the one true gospel, and my information, which was verified with news articles, is vandalisim. Another tactic of his, brand the other person a vandal and that apparently gives himself free reign to remove any of their edits.

This is his strategy. Obfusticate, pile on paragraph after paragraph, over and over until the other people get bored on have to get on with their lives. Of course, he also posted one of the very first edits I made, which were subseqeuently edited by many other people, and then improved to make it more wiki-friendly, with verified articles included. Another tactic. The so called "consensus" was a false consensus reached by a small group of biased editors, instead of via establish wiki principles like I tried to do.

His account is a single use account regardless of any other edits or stated goals. It's sole purpose is to guard the exetel site that has been the accounts goal since practically day one, and bombard anyone who dare edit it with revisionism and lies. I have no idea what would compel someone to do this for so so long, unless they have a vested interest in the company. At the very least, he should be barred from editing the Exetel article. How long before yet another user would end up in the identical situation that both I and scott have both dealt with. Macktheknifeau 02:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Several brief comments, although due to the indenting above, I'm not sure who I am addressing. AussieLegend does not appear to be an SPA. (Based on my review of his last 1000 edits). SPA has a rather specific definition, which doesn't appear to be met here. I think you mean Agenda-Pushing, which while bad, isn't the same thing. Also, internet forums are not generally considered to be reliable sources. As far as the rest of the rather lengthy comments above, I haven't had time to review them, so I can't offer an opinion currently. (So this post isn't mean to address anything other than the SPA & verifiability issues). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't intend to respond to any of Macktheknifeau's comments other than to address one ridiculous comment that Bfigura has addressed.

His account is a single use account regardless of any other edits or stated goals.

I have made 1,431 edits on Wikipedia of which 837 are mainspace edits. Of those, only 45 (<5.4% of mainspace edits) have been on the Exetel article.[428] That's hardly "a single use account" and the accusation has as much validity as the other unsubstantiated accusations that Macktheknifeau has made. --AussieLegend 03:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If you use a more accurate representation, and take all out all his talk pages, and include edits related to his guardianship of the exetel article (including on other people's user pages, plus various administrative pages regarding the article, it's actually more like 15%, that being 177 Edits out of 1,448. Plus a huge amount of his non-exetel edits are extremely recent, only in the last few months has he done anything except post about the exetel site (and those are dozens of tiny edits to pages about his local area). Like I said, the original and currenty objective of his account is to guard the exetel page. It's as close as you can be to a SPA without actually being a true SPA Macktheknifeau 15:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

AussieLegend arbitrary section break

"Once again I apologise for the length of this.." If AussieLegend would express his thoughts more briefly there would be no need to apologize.

I've explained why the response was so long. There is a lot of relevant history and without a proper explanation, which can't be given in a paragraph or two, you don't get the full context. --AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Web forum postings are not a reliable source, but newspapers are. That's why I ask the question about Exetel's traffic shaping, which was discussed in Sydney newspapers, and I'd like a clear answer as to why that information is being kept out of the article.

You've been given a clear answer which is further explained if you read the discussion on the article's talk page. That's the thing about discussion. You get to see exactly why people make the decisions that they do. --AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is conceivable you might have felt there was a local consensus that the information wasn't needed, but that feeling appears incorrect in the light of well-established policies.

Regardless of whether it was incorrect or not, that's what the consensus was and WP:CCC is very clear that no one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed which is exactly what Scott5834 has done by including the information. --AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Explain for us the removal of critical information from Exetel's article, which gives the appearance of bias.

Already done and done more than once. How many explanations are needed? --AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll add that it is also explained in the section above that you seemed to think was too long. Apprently it wasn't long enough. --AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just put back the info on traffic-shaping, based on our new discussion here?

The discussion on this so far has been far too brief and limited. Consensus has not yet been reached. --AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What is preventing you? EdJohnston 04:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy. Or do you think I should ignore policy after it has been hammered down my throat by Scott? --AussieLegend 05:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If policy prevents you from making edits that are otherwise valid, verifiable, reliably sourced, and supported by consensus, you ignore them. There is a clear source, the information is clearly relevant, there are many editors who believe the info should go in the article, and the only opposition there seems to be is you, citing WP:CCC for some reason. Consensus can change is what the policy says. The fact that only one person initially objects to the old consensus does not mean that a larger consensus won't be formed. I, for example, believe the content does belong in the article. Also, please do not dissect people's comments. Leave them intact and respond in your own single response. --Cheeser1 05:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The disputed edits were not supported by consensus when they were made. Thats's not entirely correct. This discussion is only a few hours old. In the discussion on the Extel talk page the only editor that supported the inclusion was Scott5834. All other editors disagreed with their inclusion. I'm citing policy because in his attempt to have his edits included and to have others excluded Scott5834 has been selectively citing policy. When he wants the edits excluded he rigidly cites policy. When he wants his edits included he chooses to make excuses to ignore policy. I'm usually fairly flexible and admittedly I probably don't stick to policy as much as I should. If people want to kill my edits they usually can if they can cite a reason but when an editor tries to bludgeon his edits into existence and exclude the edits of other the way that Scott5834 has I become somewhat less flexible. I agree but you shouldn't just ignore consensus. All I'm asking is that some discussion occur first. Remember, this discussion wasn't implemented to discuss the changes, it was implement because of alleged uncivil actions and that only happened because Scott5834 wasn't getting his own way. He really doesn't seem to want to discuss the issue. He acts as if he's discussing but then just edits regardless. I'm sorry but I find it far easier to address the points somebody has raised if I do it that way. --AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The following is added to restore some semblance of order the above since Cheeser1 has placed my comments in an unintelligble format and I don't have the time to completely rewrite it:

If policy prevents you from making edits that are otherwise valid, verifiable, reliably sourced, and supported by consensus, you ignore them.

The disputed edits were not supported by consensus when they were made.--AussieLegend 06:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a clear source, the information is clearly relevant, there are many editors who believe the info should go in the article, and the only opposition there seems to be is you,
Thats's not entirely correct. This discussion is only a few hours old. In the discussion on the Extel talk page the only editor that supported the inclusion was Scott5834. All other editors disagreed with their inclusion.
citing WP:CCC for some reason.
I'm citing policy because in his attempt to have his edits included and to have others excluded Scott5834 has been selectively citing policy. When he wants the edits excluded he rigidly cites policy. When he wants his edits included he chooses to make excuses to ignore policy. I'm usually fairly flexible and admittedly I probably don't stick to policy as much as I should. If people want to kill my edits they usually can if they can cite a reason but when an editor tries to bludgeon his edits into existence and exclude the edits of other the way that Scott5834 has I become somewhat less flexible. --AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change is what the policy says. The fact that only one person initially objects to the old consensus does not mean that a larger consensus won't be formed.
I agree but you shouldn't just ignore consensus. All I'm asking is that some discussion occur first. Remember, this discussion wasn't implemented to discuss the changes, it was implement because of alleged uncivil actions and that only happened because Scott5834 wasn't getting his own way. He really doesn't seem to want to discuss the issue. He acts as if he's discussing but then just edits regardless. --AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I, for example, believe the content does belong in the article. Also, please do not dissect people's comments. Leave them intact and respond in your own single response. --Cheeser1 05:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I find it far easier to address the points somebody has raised if I do it that way. --AussieLegend 06:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you like chopping people's comments to bits, but that's now how discussions take place on Wikipedia. I explicitly asked you not to do so. Editing or rearranging other people's comments is inappropriate, most certainly when they ask you not to. I am especially concerned about this statement: "The disputed edits were not supported by consensus when they were made." Have you read the policy on bold edits? Of course there was no consensus then. He hadn't made his edit yet. Making a bold edit is an important way users contribute to Wikipedia. You seem to believe that you have "won" or something - that Scott consented to your consensus and that he is being devious and underhanded by introducing this content. Refer to this. You have not assumed good faith and have been uncivil. Perhaps he has too, being very insistent on having his information in the article. That is a fault of his, but that does not excuse you, nor does it resolve the issue: he has attempted to introduce verifiable, reliably sourced, relevant material to the article. You oppose him not based on some present reason, but based on past consensus. Past consensus is irrelevant: he's made a bold edit, and now it's time to discuss it. "You agreed to it 2 1/2 months ago" is inappropriate and pushy. --Cheeser1 06:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Fine. We'll have to compromise though.
"Editing or rearranging other people's comments is inappropriate"
As you just did to mine?
"Of course there was no consensus then. He hadn't made his edit yet."
Let's rewind a bit. You said, "If policy prevents you from making edits that are otherwise valid, verifiable, reliably sourced, and supported by consensus, you ignore them." My point is that because his edits weren't supported by consensus he couldn't just ignore policy. The traffic shaping inclusion had already been rejected when Macktheknifeau attempted to include it so there already was consensus that what Scott5834 proposed should not be included. Because there was an existing consensus he needed to discusss the proposed edits first, BEFORE adding them. I gave him that opportunity and did so quite civilly. I reverted his edits and directed him to the talk page and WP:CCC for guidance but he chose not to seek consensus and just added the edits again without even attempting to discuss it. After I reverted his edits the correct thing to do would have been to reopen the discussion on the talk page proposing that the edits be allowed but he made no attempt to do so.
"Making a bold edit is an important way users contribute to Wikipedia."
And that's fine but there was an existing consensus that what he wanted to include was not appropriate. That's why I reverted his edits and posted the following on his talk page:

Before you do any more editing of the Exetel article I suggest that you thoroughly read the discussion on the article's talk page. Traffic shaping, which you've just added was a contentious issue that resulted a mediation case, adminstrator intervention and full protection of the page for 3 months. Consensus among editors was that the traffic shaping/p2p deprioritisation issue was not worthy of inclusion in the article so you shouldn't just go ahead and add it in again. --AussieLegend 06:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He obviously made no attempt to read the discussion because he immediately reverted my reversion. He really doesn't seemto care what others add to the article. He just reverts and adds what he wants. When what he said is countered he makes some excuse of heads off on a tangent and continues editing as he wants to without consideration for other editors.
"You seem to believe that you have "won" or something"
No, not at all. I do however believe that if an editor agrees with a series of edits and then changes his mind he should at least explain why he's changing edits that he has agreed to. It's just common courtesy. Scott5834 continues to show none of that.
"he is being devious and underhanded by introducing this content"
Well, he pretty much is. Since he started editing the Exetel page his actions have been a continual "say one thing and do another" act. He starts discussing an issue and while you're attempting to discuss it with him he heads off and edits the page. Take, for example, the techdirt article. We discussed that on the talk page and he knows quite well that the article doesn't even mention Exetel but has since restored the link to the article using the reason

not clear why this was removed as Exetel is mentioned as prime example

You can see the edit here. The reason is a lie. He knows that it was removed because the article doesn't mention Exetel and he knows that the article doesn't mention Exetel. We discussed that very issue.
He also feigned stepping back from editing. Only a few hours after posting "Perhaps we should take a break from editing the article to let things simmer down a bit?" he was back editing the article.
"You have not assumed good faith and have been uncivil"
I tried to assume good faith but I've seen what he tried to do before and what he is doing now. Despite that I've given him a lot of leeway in editing the article and have resisted urges to edit his edits. Instead I have attempted to discuss the issue with him but he has made some pretty outrageous claims, which I've mentioned in my large resposne further up this page and tried tosend me off on wild goose chases. I don't think I've been uncivil however his rather puerile use of "Keep civil" is rather annoying and I've made it clear that I find it annoying. I'm not going to apologise for that. Questioning his reasons for hacking a series of edits that he's previously claimed was "a great addition" is not being uncivil. Nor do I intend saying "Deja vue!" after seeing him say "Keep civil" yet again when he has no other response to something. His constant use of "keep civil" is like the schoolyard "I know you are but what anm I?". Still, despite my frustration I've continued to try to discuss while he makes edits based on misinformation or even worse, what amounts to pure fantasy (eg his insistence that the free period was implemented at the same time as the P2P deprioritisation) and completely ignores what others think and the efforts of other editors.
"he has attempted to introduce verifiable, reliably sourced, relevant material to the article."
He has also attempted to introduce information which is based on his own misguided assumptions and citations that do not support his claims and resists ignores all evidence that what he says is wrong.
"he's made a bold edit, and now it's time to discuss it."
As you can see by the talk page, I've tried. He pretends to discuss but ignores the opinion and proof of others and just forces his edits into the article regardless. --AussieLegend 07:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
i'd like to add that it simply ins't sufficient to say you agree with the edits in order to gain consensus. There are several points that still need addressing. Boing Boing, for example, is a blog site and it seems to be that a lot of people, not to mention policy, agree that blog sites aren't acceptable sources. The techdirt article that Scott5834 relies on doesn't even mention Exetel so it's not a valid source either. These are just two examples that need to be discussed. Until such time as they are, Scott5834 is going to continue to force them into the article. I've already tried justifying why they aren't valid and he just ignores reason. --AussieLegend 06:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not rearrange your comment, I simply undid your absurd chopping-up of mine. This is a bizarre and unproductive way to have a discussion. I will not stoop to tit-for-tat bickering. I've explained how you've acted without assuming good faith (you yourself have assumed that when he asks you to be civil, that he's teasing you - there's no reason to assume this). You've been uncivil. That is what this noticeboard is about - a complaint was filed against you. His actions are not in question, and his misdeeds (should such misdeeds exist) are not a defense for yours. I'd ask also that you keep the content dispute where it belongs - not here. You claim that he has agendas, biases, misinformation, etc. Again, you should be assuming good faith (and, if you were honest, you'd admit that we all have agendas, biases, and misinformation). Now, even though the content dispute is not relevant to the WQA, I will again point out that citing past consensus is not reason enough to dismiss someone's claims. In fact, it's not even valid - consensus must be re-established in the event of any bold edit. Outright reversion to this "old consensus" version, and refusal to compromise, goes against consensus policy. I'm not going to nitpick the fine points of this debate with you any more because this is not the place for that discussion. Scott has suggested that you both cool down. I suggest you do so. You've made alot of edits and comments (some very lengthy) regarding this topic and moreso regarding your conflict with Scott. This may indicate that you are worked up or invested in this conflict somehow. Take a breather, get some perspective, and try to come back to this content dispute with compromise and good faith in mind. --Cheeser1 08:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
"I did not rearrange your comment, I simply undid your absurd chopping-up of mine."
At least after my edits you post was still readble. All you needed to do was ignore the indented and signed edits. Your "undoing" removed formatting and signatures and turned my comments into a meaningless mess.
"This is a bizarre and unproductive way to have a discussion."
This "absurd", "bizarre and unproductive way to have a discussion" has been in use since well before I first started using Usenet in the mid-late 1980s and has served many people well over the past 20 (at least) years.
"you yourself have assumed that when he asks you to be civil, that he's teasing you - there's no reason to assume this)."
That's not actually what I said and any case there is a good reason as his comments and edits on the Extel pages show. As you are aware he suggested taking a break from editing but since doing so he's made at least 7 edits to the page so his susggestions don't really seem genuine. I've provided other examples above but it seems that they're not being seen.
"His actions are not in question"
His actions are entirely relevant though because they provide context taht was sought, which is why I've detailed some of them. As I said, I don't think I've been uncivil. I have been extremely tolerant of his misguided efforts to edit the article including his reversions of most other editors' changes and I've held back from making my own changes. In fcat I'vemade only 8 edits since he has returned, compared to his own 26 edits.
"Again, you should be assuming good faith"
I tried that in July and I even tried when I started participating in the discussion over his edits but when I saw that he was ignoring whatever I said and making whatever edits he wanted anyway I realised I was deluding myself. I think anyone who assumes good faith in his edits on the Exetel page is doing that. This is not to say that he hasn't produced some good work elsewhere. I've looked at some of his edits on other pages and I find very little that I'd really feel criticising but the Exetel page seems to be a different matter. I don't know why but I'd like to. I did ask but received no reply. --AussieLegend 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
As I've said - his conduct may be pushy, but this is a complaint filed against you. Deflecting blame onto him may bring attention to his actions, but it will not remove any attention from your actions. Using months-old consensus to dismiss changes to an article is not in the spirit of consensus policy or bold editing policy. I can imagine such a response may have caused Scott to ignore your objections and re-insert the content. --Cheeser1 06:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cheeser1, but would also suggest that you may have gotten more interest in the actions of the other editor by first acknowledging a mistake in insisting that an opinion be unchangeable on your part. (Though I also want to say when one changes their opinion they should explain why it changed, otherwise the rest of us may wonder about the nature of such a sudden change.) Anynobody 08:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I never insisted that my opinion was unchangeable. I just posted the following on his talk page:

Before you do any more editing of the Exetel article I suggest that you thoroughly read the discussion on the article's talk page. Traffic shaping, which you've just added was a contentious issue that resulted a mediation case, adminstrator intervention and full protection of the page for 3 months. Consensus among editors was that the traffic shaping/p2p deprioritisation issue was not worthy of inclusion in the article so you shouldn't just go ahead and add it in again. --AussieLegend 06:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've already noted, he completely ignored it and just edited it back in.
"Though I also want to say when one changes their opinion they should explain why it changed, otherwise the rest of us may wonder about the nature of such a sudden change"
Thank you for saying that. I was starting to think I'm the only person who thinks that way. --AussieLegend 11:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
"Using months-old consensus to dismiss changes to an article"
That's not what I've been doing. I intially reverted his edits and suggested he look at the talk page. He ignored that and everything that I've said since. All I wamt him to do is discuss the edits before making them and to take on board what is said but he dismisses everything regardless of its validity.
"Using months-old consensus to dismiss changes to an article is not in the spirit of consensus policy "
That's not entirely true. WP:CCC says that no individual can declare consensus has changed yet this is effectively what Sott5834 is doing. WP:CCC also implies that proposals to change consensus should be discussed. It also says that wikipedia does not ignore precendt. All I'm doing is to try to convince him that there is a precedent and that he should discuss the matter which is in accordance with consensus policy. He just refuses. No, actually that's not true because he hasn't actually refused. He's made no response at all. He just edits andedits and edits, even when he's supposedly taking a break from editing the article.
Yeah, it's easy to get consensus when you obfusticate and batter people to wiki-death boring them with dozens of pointless paragraphs of wiki-lawyering. It's impossible to get any consensus that differs from AussieLegends view of the world because he will revert it as vandalisim and then cry with his mates about it.Macktheknifeau 09:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If he is willing to discuss the edits, so am I. I've indicated above that there probably is a case for including them. I don't know how many times I have to say this before somebody will take it in. I do, however, expect that if he expects that others should folow a policy then he should follow the policy as well and not expect to be exempt from the same rules that he expects others to comply with. Is that unreasonable? --AussieLegend 08:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
You both appear to be discussing the edits quite alot on the relevant talk page - however, the discussion has strayed and become uncivil. That is not only his fault. Your comments have been uncivil and have assumed bad faith. This is the concern of this WQA post. Your actions. Certainly, he has been unduly pushing his edits on the article. But you've been pushing back, making this some sort of shoving contest. He, on the other hand, has been pushy but has asked repeatedly for you to remain civil, and has suggested things like cooling off. This is not a contest to see who's more at fault. It is a complaint about your incivility. I've told you what I have to tell you: your actions were uncivil. You seem to have assumed bad faith. You have not seemed willing to listen to him when he suggested cooling off or being civil. This is not appropriate. I'm not here to evaluate Scott's actions, and yet I have, and I have mostly agreed with you. I'm not even going to touch the content dispute, because it's totally irrelevant. The point is, your actions are in question here. And I've said all I have to say. Feel free to pick apart every sentence of this post to try to elicit a response, but I'm done here. I've done everything I can to explain how you've been uncivil in the hopes that you'll take it as constructive criticism, instead of trying to blame Scott for everything. --Cheeser1 17:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to note the user in question has attempted to silence me by way of administrative and legal threats. Macktheknifeau 12:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:A Kiwi

Resolved. User has retired. I hate it when this happens. --Bfigura (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am very concerned about the personal speculation and commentary made by User:A Kiwi that is devolving into senseless and irrelevant personal attacks. [429], [430], [431], [432], [433], [434], [435], [436], [437], [438].

On one hand I don't think it is appropriate (or productive) for me to keep "rising to the bait" and getting into discussion with her, but on the other I don't think it would be very wise for me to let it go without refutation, as it is about me, not at all accurate and on fairly permanent record. Perhaps somebody could reason with her a little? --Zeraeph 00:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Already at WP:AN/I [439], has been there for several days. [440] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Well this is just a different, more informal, approach two seperate admins advised me to take instead. I did not even know this page existed until today. --Zeraeph 00:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
PS here is an opinion on the last time I sought advice on a similar issue and User:SandyGeorgia tried to get me sanctioned for "forum shopping" [441]. I really believe that I have as much right as anyone else to seek advice and assistance in resolving disputes. --Zeraeph 02:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) It seems there a fair amount of reading to do here. I'll take a stab at it, and see if I can come to some sort of conclusion. --Bfigura (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am happy to try anything you can suggest to stand this situation down.--Zeraeph 02:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So, after looking through the diff's provided, I don't really see any egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL. There's clearly a lot of history here however, which is no doubt complicated by the off-wiki history, so it's entirely possibly I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to give me a brief summary of why you think there's a civility issue. (Since what I'm seeing now is a lot of back and forth that (for wikipedia) seems reasonably restrained on both sides). However, I would add that it's considered polite to notify someone when you file a complaint about them here or at AN/I. (I'll do that now -- since I didn't see anything on Kiwi's talk page). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh I did notify her [442], you must have missed it because I put it in a PS with a hyperlink. I do not feel personal matters should be raised on Wikipedia, it isn't appropriate, I wouldn't be comfortable with it if she was sticking to the facts, which she is not. Surely it isn't in accord with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to use Wikipedia as a forum for expressing fictional personal negatives about other editors? I have to refute it or otherwise someone is bound to pick up the diffs and use them against me in a few weeks time as though they were hard facts. --Zeraeph 03:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for missing the link there. And I agree, personal information has no place on Wikipedia. (Although you may have opened the door with this post that Kiwi dug up diff). That said though, Kiwi digging through the archives to re-post it isn't terribly polite (and I'll leave Kiwi a brief note saying as much). But aside from that, most of the content looks relatively civil. Hopefully the two of you can settle this amiably, since you seem to both be valuable contributors here. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you look, you will see that User:A Kiwi actually made that post, not me. Doesn't matter, I have realised the dice are too heavily loaded against me whatever I do or say, I am scr*wed, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday soon and for the rest of my life. I am retiring. Thank you for trying. --Zeraeph 03:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to see good contributors leave the project, so I just wanted to extend my hope that you'll join us again after a wikibreak. If not, all the best. --Bfigura (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Triddle Etiquette question: Can an admin issue warnings and then forbid a response?

Resolved. No WP:CIVIL violation. Editor who raised issue satisfied with conclusion. --Bfigura (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Short story: User:Triddle who is an admin contacted me about my behavior that he considers incivil. I attempted to discuss and justify my behavior with him. Along the way, I got a block warning which surprised me since I thought I had explained myself. Today, he contacted me here, told me that discussing things with me was wasting his time, gave me more warnings about being blocked, and specifically said: "note the lack of an invitation to respond to me".

My specific concern is that an admin should not issue warnings and then forbid me to represent my side of the dispute. I am also perplexed about how I am wasting his time. If he is an admin, then I assume that part of that job description is to deal with discussion and dispute.

Long story: Background: I have been in a disagreement with another user User:Geo Swan. It is my opinion that he is engaged in large scale POV pushing on the subject of the War on Terror. In the course of making this argument, I will freely admit that I have used some intemperate language. I have resolved to remedy this issue by (a) Not directly engaging with User:Geo Swan and (b) Toning down my language. However, I believe that I still have the right to raise the concern that this POV pushing is occuring on such a large scale (hundreds of articles) that it is going to seriously compromise Wikipedia's credibility on this subject. (I can provide links to articles on request, but that is a secondary debate).

The entire conversation between Triddle and me consists of six sequential diffs: 1, 2, followed by no response from Triddle for a time, followed by 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

My particular objection is to the block warnings coupled with the firm suggestion: "note the lack of an invitation to respond to me". This sends a message that I am being given orders that shall not be questioned or disputed in any manner. There was no need for this kind of language, particularly when I had already agreed to a resolution in behavior. An admin should be held to at least the same standard of civility that he demands of others.

Maybe I am way off base and I am being the jerk in this discussion. I was going to say nothing and keep quiet, but I spent the afternoon re-reading the NPOV and civility policies, stumbled across this forum and would like to request an opinion on this. Kevinp2 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kevin. My short answer to your alert would be that Triddle *did* give you a chance to reply, and you availed yourself of it. The fact is that incivility is never justifiable in any event, so there's not a whole lot you can say in your own defense except "I disagree with your application of WP:CIVIL," which probably isn't going to convince anybody. With that in mind, Triddle warned you that he considered your behaviour to be uncivil, you replied (failing to change his mind), he told you that his warning still stood. That really should have been that (for the incivility bit, anyway). If you still disagree with him, you can provide some diffs to the alleged incivility and I'll provide some thoughts on it (although you seem to admit that your language was intemperate).
Lastly, if Triddle ever does block you for reasons that you don't consider appropriate, you have an avenue of appeal via the {{unblock}} template. In this way, you remain free to question or dispute Triddle's "orders" even if he blocks you. If that really isn't satisfactory to you, you always *can* respond to Triddle (beginning with something like "I know you asked me not to respond to you about this, but I think that there are a few more points I need to make before I leave you alone entirely"), but don't expect a response and don't badger him if you don't get one.
On a final note, I do think Triddle's reaction was a little excessive (assuming the diffs you provided are the extent of the interaction betwee the two of you). Moreover, some of his phrasing ("Note the lack of invitation...") is hovering on the edge of civility itself. But to answer your main question, I don't think it's inappropriate for an admin to ask that an editor no longer contact him about an issue once there has been full discussion of that issue. Sarcasticidealist 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict) After looking at the diffs which you provided, I don't really seen any incivility on Triddle's part. The gist of his statement seems to be: "You were uncivil to user X. It doesn't matter why, being uncivil isn't allowed. If you keep it up, you may be blocked. Also, I'm personally done with this debate." Now, I don't think he is/was personally threatening to block you, rather, it sounds as if he was just warning that if poor behavior continued, there might be repercussions (from someone else, at some point in the future, on some other issue). And as far as him saying "(paraphrase) Please don't reply", it sounds as if Triddle felt he had made his points, and had nothing further to say. And while it would be stellar if every admin could handle every issue, it's his right, given that there are better places the whole content issue could have been settled.
Still all of that said though, I appreciate you providing a brief, fairly neutral summary. And I recognize that it's frustrating to deal with other editors who aren't following policy. But rather than getting upset, try enlisting help, perhaps from Third Opinions, or Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project. Or just follow dispute resolution. Calling people names (even if they deserve them) doesn't always help (see WP:SPADE for an essay on the topic). Hope that helps, --Bfigura (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Point of note, Triddle (t c) has already brought this up at the 3O talk page. --Darkwind (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Per WQA policy, I left a note on Triddle's talk page informing him of this discussion. --Bfigura (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) Thanks to all for your good feedback. I appreciate your feedback and time. I consider the matter closed (from my side anyway). Kevinp2 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing. And thanks to Kevinp2 for being rather mature and civil about the whole thing. --Bfigura (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

User:Odd nature

Resolved. Article is under protection, and the discussion has ceased to be productive. --Darkwind (talk)

User resorted to personal attacks and other hostilities (not assuming good faith) when I politely explained here why his edits were problematic. In fact, the user blatantly and unabashedly admits to violating WP:ASG with this comment (and he cites non-specific extra-Wiki material to justify it). Jinxmchue 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So? Reading your blog is illegal? Really? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice misrepresentation of what I posted. Jinxmchue 22:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You caught on. Good. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If we are to assume good faith, what should we make of "I don't really give a rat's ass about Wiki rules anymore"? Have you renounced that view? Ossified 12:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
You tell me. Jinxmchue 07:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll tell you. If that's your renunciation, it's pretty weak tea. Ossified 12:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) This is a Wikiquette forum, sarcasm is hardly called for. That said though, Jinxmchue, I don't see any real violations of WP:CIVIL in this links you've provided. (I won't comment on content/editing though, since I haven't looked into it). --Bfigura (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So making baseless accusations of me of not understanding rules and of "white washing" articles is civil? Jinxmchue 22:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm....That runs into an issue raised in WP:SPADE. But since I haven't looked into the details, I don't know who is correct (factually) in this case. (And I haven't read your blog, so I can't comment on whether his allegations have merit). But you are correct, even if he is right, his doubts could have been phrased more politely. I'm not 100% they constitute a personal attack, but they do seem mildly uncivil. I'll leave a note to that effect. --Bfigura (talk)<;;/small> 23:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with SPADE. Odd nature disagreed with my edits and defended reverts by uncivilly claiming that I didn't understand the rules (proof of that?) and was trying to white wash articles (which boggles my mind since the reference I removed was nothing more than a second-hand repeat of the reference before it - how can I white wash something when the information remains?). Jinxmchue 07:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Could anyone who has been working on the D. James Kennedy article start out by explaining the issues in User talk:Odd nature#Recent edits to D. James Kennedy? The thread under that heading is a source of much bafflement. Who is talking about removing what references, and for what reason? I see no need to consider what is said in an external blog. Removing references is supposed to require a Talk page consensus. Who among you is confident that he has consensus to remove references, and please point to where that was decided. Removal of tags should need consensus also. EdJohnston 23:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The reversions made were not made with any consideration as to everything that was being reverted. The initial revert here, which is described by Odd nature as "Restoring deleted content/sources," actually restores a defunct reference (the Coral Ridge Hour reference) which I removed because it doesn't work anymore due to changes to the source website (now it simply goes to the main Coral Ridge Hour page). The revert also was made with no consideration regarding verb tense changes due to Kennedy's death, added date brackets or added fact/citation tags.
I honestly have never seen anyone request consensus when adding or removing references before. Either this isn't a well-known rule or it simply doesn't exist. Jinxmchue 07:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, I find it fascinating that Odd and Guettarda are apparently hiding behind WP:SPADE to defend their incivility. Can I do that, too? Be uncivil and then just say, "Whelp, I'm just calling a spade a spade! You can't nail me for NPA!"? Jinxmchue 15:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you read WP:SPADE? First of all, it's an essay, not a policy. Second of all, it simply describes the fine line between telling the truth and being a jerk. OMG I said jerk. But guess what, if we're talking about somebody making personal attacks, that's exactly what being a jerk is. A jerk is a jerk. The fact that we don't have to sugar-coat everything we say is not an invitation for you to throw WP:NPA out the window, and you (ought to) know it. --Cheeser1 15:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
"It's an essay, not a policy." No! Really? I guess I was confused about that because of how others were portraying it. And incidentally (or not), one person's SPADE excuse for "a jerk is a jerk" is a NPA violation to someone else. Who do you decide is right? Additionally, I could equally use SPADE to justify the things I have said about others. They weren't personal attacks. They were calling a spade a spade. Shall we continue to go around in this endless circle? Jinxmchue 23:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you refuse to participate constructively, no, we shan't. --Cheeser1 23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm being constructive. It just appears that people don't want to deal with uncomfortable questions and comments. Jinxmchue 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue, you really do have to call a spade a spade here: Odd nature is consistently rude and uncivil, unless he's tag-teaming with other users like Orangemarlin, FeloniousMonk, KillerChihuahua, ConfuciusOrnis, Filll, or others in their clique. They are their own little "cabal", communicating "off-wiki", intent on berating and beating down any user who might disagree with their well-known and obvious POVs, using whatever means necessary to maintain the "purity" of WP for them, regardless of whether it drives WP into the ground for its (that is, their) obvious bias. And once they have "pegged" you as "not one of us," they will stalk you, hound you, arbitrarily revert you and harass -- even ban -- you until you leave WP for good, because they own WP -- at least their little corner of it. They are their own priesthood, a prole's vanguard of the great unwashed masses who writhe in the muck of their ignorance, and they will brook no dissent from heathen such as yourself.

Welcome to Wikipedia, Jinxmchue. Best of luck. --profg 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This I know. Every time I revert their weak and baseless additions, they band together to get around the 3 revert rule. Jinxmchue 01:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the article on D. James Kennedy has been placed under indefinite full protection by User:AndonicO. That suggests we might be able to close this report, least temporarily. Further discussion and negotiation can take place on the article's Talk page. If there is something more that this noticeboard could do, please outline what that is. EdJohnston 02:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Hefner

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Rogue and I debated for many days on the Discussion Page of the Hugh Hefner biography. He has deleted my comments nearly a dozen times with little or no evidence to support his view that my remarks do not belong on this page.

The statement that Rogue Gremlin opposes is shown, in complete context, in blue, below. It comes from the top of the Hugh Hefner page:

Hugh Marston Hefner (born April 9, 1926 in Chicago, Illinois), also referred to colloquially as Hef, is the founder, editor-in-chief, and Chief Creative Officer of Playboy Enterprises[1]. He is the majority owner of Playboy Enterprise Inc.[2]For decades, Hefner and Playboy Magazine have been icons of American sexuality and a voice for the sexual revolution.

The Playboy empire peaked in 1972 when the magazine sold over 7 million copies. Today, total circulation is just over 4 million.[3] The company Mr. Hefner founded, Playboy Enterprises, has since 1983, been managed by his daugther Christie Hefner, and today derives only one third of its revenues from Playboy Magazine. The balance comes through the dissemination of adult content in electronic form, such as television, the internet and DVD's.[4] Much of this electronic revenue comes not from the soft nude imagery which made the magazine famous, but from hardcore pornography connected with the company's ownership of Spice Digital Networks[5], Club Jenna[6], and Adult.com [7]

In editing this, Rogue Gremlin argues that he "Removed the negative comments on the biography of a living person." This argument is falacious and the comments should be returned. First, the "negativeness" of ownership of pornography assets is nowhere proven. Second, even it were indeed negative, Wiki guidelines do not prohibit such material from being in the biography of living persons. The actual language is: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." None of these conditions hold true as every single thing I posted is plainly sourced.

I argue that Hugh Hefner as the largest shareholder (over 60%), controlling shareholder, and most highly paid officer of Playboy Enterprises Inc. must be measured in no small part by the business results of that company. Once cannot reasonably divorce Mr. Hefner from all that happened since the day after he created Playboy Magazine in 1953. The image of Mr. Hefner as the sophisticated playboy may have once been connected with reality. Today, the business he owns is quite different than the one he started. The magazine itself does not make money. It loses it. Real money is made mostly in the TV and web business in which Playboy (under other trademarks) disseminates hardcore adult entertainment. My citations prove these points. I have not sought to comment on any of this. Only to report it. JerryGraf 13:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You should try either WP:BLPN or WP:RFC. Best of luck! Sarcasticidealist 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Wwefan980

Resolved.

The user is blocked for two weeks. M.(er) 05:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wwefan980 (talk · contribs) made this edit to the Sandbox. I chided him with this, which I thought was a civil reminder. He replied by blanking the comment and putting in this edit summary. I replied with a reminder to be civil, to which he replied with this. I thought my comments were proper, and would like a second opinion. Corvus cornix 23:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your own comments were perfectly in-line with policy and Wikiquette; although your second comment on his talk page was a bit… terse. His replies were definitely out of line. As a normal part of the WQA process, I'd leave him a note reminding him of the proper application of WP:CIVIL, but you mentioned you primarily wanted an opinion on your own comments. Shall I ping him and see what happens? --Darkwind (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
If you don't mind. I don't want to escalate this, so I don't feel I should make any further comments to him. Corvus cornix 03:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I've left him a message and watchlisted his talk page. --Darkwind (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've commented a little, but this user seems to take anything as an attack. Asking him to be civil is uncivil, according to him, and thus justification for him to retaliate ("They were rude first"). He's also baiting people to incite edit warring (see here) and threatening to report those of us who are intervening (to whom, ourselves?). --Cheeser1 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT taken to an extreme. --Darkwind (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is also extraordinarily troubling. I think these two may need more than some constructive criticism from the WQA. This is out of line too. --Cheeser1 00:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He has also made similar uncivil accusations on my talk page, seen here. I agree with a 1 week block next time the user is uncivil. M.(er) 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is too bad you aren't an admin Miranda and you are too power hungry to ever be one. I say you get blocked for threatening me by acting like you can block me when you can't. How's that? Wwefan980 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The user is blocked for two weeks. M.(er) 05:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Guettarda

Work in Progress Work in Progress - comments welcome

User also resorted to personal attacks and other hostilities (e.g. this edit about "temper tantrums") when problematic edits were pointed out. Jinxmchue 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NPA? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have. Jinxmchue 22:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The incivility looks mutual to me, in tone and content. For example, you called his editing "mindless." I only followed the link you gave, so if there is more I have missed it. Bsharvy 22:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That was not incivility. That was a description of edits that were obviously not done with any consideration as to what was being changed. Jinxmchue 22:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
And there you have it, folks. Everyone else is at fault but Jinxmchue. Odd nature 22:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Only I am at fault for anything regarding all this. Jinxmchue 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue, I think you may not understand what people consider a personal attack. ANYTHING that is a comment about the editor or a quality comment about the edit, when previous comments about editors are present can be understood to be a personal attack. The two WA listings here seem to be a lack of good faith on your part as much as on others, based on the links you've shown. keep to neutral descriptions of comments (i.e., removing unsourced material) when you feel the need to revert someone. Also, try and keep to the talk pages of the articles. It is much easier to stay focused on the article, rather than the editor. Also, if your blog shows a particular point of view be careful editing to strongly towards it, because people will review your edits closely. --Rocksanddirt 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I really do think that most rational Wikipedians would agree that accusing someone of having a "temper tantrum" is a personal attack. Jinxmchue 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Nah, not when it's accurate. •Jim62sch• 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I see a lot of back-and-forth bickering right here in this alert that could be perceived as violations of WP:CIVIL. I suggest that you ALL read WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL, and take a few moments to examine your comments in that light. --Darkwind (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the last time this came up "Jinx" McHue insisted on replacing reliably sourced content with his own opinion. When other editors did not acquiesce, he complained about OWNership, and when no one reacted, he quit the project in a huff, attacking the project and fellow editors off-wiki. In other words, he threw a temper tantrum. That isn't an attack, it's a description of his behaviour. Now he's back and is up to the same nonsense, inserting weasel words like "purportedly" in front of the (sourced) information he tried to get expunged from the article back in June because he didn't believe the source (a report which quoted the leading scholar on the history of intelligent design). He has made his intentions abundantly clear. While one would have hoped that after his break he would have returned with a little more respect for our sourcing policies, his actions editing the article show that he still holds them in contempt. Per WP:SPADE, since he has resumed his pattern of editing, that I would be rather stupid to assume good faith on the part of an editing who has made it abundantly clear that he is not acting in good faith. Guettarda 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I didn't realize that I typed my own handle instead of "Guettarda" above. My bad. Jinxmchue 07:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to say there appear to be several ongoing issues underlying this. Resolving the specific issues mentioned in Guettarda's post should probably be addressed in some other forum within the dispute resolution process. As to the complaint which generated this thread, describing another editor's behavior is a tricky proposition because it can be very easy to slip into a personal attack if done incorrectly or if too much emotion is involved. Here, I think Guettarda was simply being blunt in describing the relationship between opinion and sourced material as well as their opinion of Jinxmchue's behavior. Anynobody 08:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Once again, we waste the community's time protecting POV-warriors, and attack reasonable editors like Guettarda. Excellent choice. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because Guettarda (and Odd nature) aren't "POV-warriors" at all. Jinxmchue 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Falsely accusing me of being a "POV warrior" is a personal attack. You really want to engage in personal attacks while complaining about Wikiquette violations? Please remove your personal attacks. Guettarda 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, it's just SPADE, Guettarda. Jinxmchue 14:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda please don't use personal information not disclosed by an editor to address them. While I don't think you were violating WP:CIVIL in this complaint it doesn't mean I think you're incapable of wrongdoing either.

Wikipedia has a pretty strict Privacy policy and right to vanish, and while using this site we should follow them as best we can. Anynobody 06:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Shutterbug

Work in Progress Work in Progress - comments welcome

A violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF against myself and Jimmy Wales right here:[443]--Fahrenheit451 01:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks fairly uncivil to me also, and it seems the common tactic for an editer to accuse others of lying/deceiving etc. simply because they disagree with them is decidedly unhelpful. While I bet Mr. Wales could care less about Shutterbug 's opinion of him it does seem that Shutterbug would benifit from a cool down. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This user is the former User:COFS, who has an open ArbCom case. Any comments about this user's current behavior need to be brought to that case page, not to WQA. --Darkwind (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Struck per my comment below. --Darkwind (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Not true, see this:[444] That case is evidently closed. This is a Wikiquette matter.--Fahrenheit451 02:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't interpret that comment as meaning the case was not accepting further evidence, but since they do have a proposed decision under consideration, it probably is too late to add this matter. As for this alert, the user's behavior may be a violation of wikiquette, but I don't think WQA has the ability to make this particular user listen to reason when it comes to AGF/CIVIL/NPA, etc. However, if another WQA volunteer wants to take a shot, I won't complain. I've replaced the {{NWQA}} template on this alert with {{WQA in progress}} to facilitate interest. --Darkwind (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Granted, we don't have the ability to force anyone to do anything, much less listen to reason. But any reason for the doubts, or should I just drop a note on Shutterbug's talk? Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I witnessed an example of what Fahrenheit451 is talking about on L. Ron Hubbard. Shutterbug accused Fahrenheit451 of being a POV pusher. Fahrenheit451 disputed that description on the talk page. Long story, short it seems like good faith is lacking and some of Shutterbug's actions border on incivility. Anynobody 01:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Noroton

Resolved. Two good faith editors, settled. --Bfigura (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lately, this user and I have been discussing the an article for deletion. I've tried my hardest to state my position on the article without sounding offensive. I tried my best to do so, but this user persists to make rude comments towards me. I was hoping someone could step in and evaluate the situation. Thanks in advance! Icestorm815 02:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that both you and the user were entirely civil until the Noroton's last comment, when he did cross the line (so "persists to (sic) make rude comments towards me" is probably a little strong). I'll leave a note on his talk page. In the meantime, though, I'd suggest that if you see any WP:COI issues with Noroton's contributions (and for whatever it's worth, I don't), WP:COIN would be a better place to discuss them than an individual AFD. I'd suggest that both of you let the particular thread drop, since you've both stopped talking about the deletion of the article, and are instead arguing over Wikipedia policies that are only tangentially related. Sarcasticidealist 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that I concur here. Also, I personally didn't see any hints of COI. (COI would apply is he worked at the school, not if he had written an essay to suggest that he thought schools were notable). Just let the AfD handle itself. --Bfigura (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
My recommendation: just stop. You've both !voted, you're not going to change each others' minds. And while I've known Noroton to have some--ahem--particularly strong opinions, I've never known him to have an agenda other than wanting to improving articles. Cmprince 03:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for your feedback. Unfortunately, this was my first time citing Wikipedia policy in a dispute, so I'm not quite familar with the specifications. I'll be sure to learn from this experience and will avoid making the mistakes I made again. Once again thank you for all your help. Icestorm815 03:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur with basically what's been said. AfDs should really not include huge drawn out debates between two people. It appears that perhaps he is wrong incorrect, but honestly, if you've said what you have to say, then stop. The closing admin will review what you've said (and the other votes) and draw the appropriate conclusions. You don't have to convince him, you just have to make your case and wait for the AfD to close. --Cheeser1 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess I would disagree that there was no incivility before I finally got a little sarcastic. Accusing me of COI could be the result of a mistake, so the first time Icestorm815 did it, I politely referred him to WP:COI and suggested that he show me how comments on my userspace could possibly be a violation. Then he repeated the allegation, again without any reasoning that linked anything I'd done with WP:COI. That's something more than just being mistaken. There's even a specific link to a spot on the WP:CIVIL page for just that kind of thing: WP:ICA. Wasn't that action by Icestorm815 uncivil? I think it's a bit odd that this editor can repeatedly bring up unfounded accusations of policy violations ("ill-considered complaint[s]" as WP:ICA puts it), even after I've asked him to back them up, and then only my sarcastic reaction is called a little uncivil. i don't understand why there's no note on his talk page asking him to be civil. Please advise. And, ah, thanks Cmprince, although in this particular case, I don't think my opinions were particularly strong.Noroton 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you've made a pretty strong case that there was a technical violation of WP:CIVIL by Icestorm815. That said, he was arguing policy rather than personalities, was new at arguing policy, and pretty obviously believed in good faith that you were in violation of WP:COI. WP:CIVIL has to be interpreted in context, and I think context in this case is pretty kind to Icestorm815.
As for posting a civility warning on his talk page, I certainly could go over there and write "Hi Icestorm815 - you've violated WP:CIVIL by making unfounded (albeit in good faith) accusations of COI against another user. Please don't do it again." Instead, I responded to his alert (in part) by advising him that his COI allegations were ill-founded.
In any event, you're obviously two good-faith editors, and I don't think any further parsing of blame for this particular incident would be productive. Icestorm815, please be more careful in the future about making this kind of accusation, and thank you for apologizing to Noroton. Noroton, in the future please don't respond to incivility of any kind (whether good faith or otherwise) by becoming uncivil yourself.
Now, go forth and improve the encyclopedia. That's obviously both of your primary purposes in being here. Sarcasticidealist 04:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I was wrong to finally respond to Icestorm815 with sarcasm after repeated provocations. Icestorm815 turned that deletion thread away from issues and toward accusations against me after exploring my user space and finding some things he somehow thought were somehow policy violations. I take that kind of focusing on personality rather than issues as a serious mistake on his part and one that causes me concern. He's told me he's dropping it, however, so as far as I'm concerned, this is over. Noroton 04:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It seemed to me like a gross misunderstanding of WP:COI (on his part). I'd say that, in general, don't bother responding to provocations on AfD pages. If a user makes an absurd, irrelevant, or invalid point (especially one that reflects non-comprehension of policy), the closing admin will discount that user's opinion appropriately. Responding unnecessarily starts a sort of back-and-forth thing that isn't very helpful. --Cheeser1 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Getaway

Work in Progress Work in Progress - comments welcome

I have noticed a pattern of incivility from this editor against a number of users. I first encountered him when I gave him a warning for telling another editor “That's so liberal jam your opinion down their throats Wikipeidan of you” [445]. He responded with multiple tirades telling me I was “dead damn wrong” and “you are wrong and that is your problem, not mine.”[446] [447]. An admin asked him to tone down the hostility a little. Since that time, others have come into conflict with him, and he has responded in the same manner. After being warned about cut-and-paste edits, he responded with “you came along with your silly, incorrect comments and warnings… You should be ashamed of yourself.” [448]. More recently he has responded to criticism with comments like this: “I never stated that you were ‘deliberately falsifying sources.’ Making that charge against me without having anything to back it really must be embarassing for you.” [449]. I think he should be warned about his incivility.--Dcooper 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I did not state that Seicer was falsifying sources. That is flat out lie.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I will agree with the pattern of incivility. He has been blocked many times in the past for this and for 3RR violations. Here are some diffs --
* [450] The user does not agree to stop willingly insert comments into the middle of replies, which violates WP:TALK. See [451] [452]. His comments also err close to wiki stalking.
* "I will respond however I want to respond. It is not up to you to decide."
* "I will be following my own decision making process and your advice or lack there of will not be concerned or even remotely referred to."
* [453] Revert war on a smaller scale. He claims that the "burden is on you" whenever an editor does a change that upsets his method of editing.
* [454] Accuses other editors of harassment.
* He constantly accuses others of POV violations, such as at Sean Hannity, and when his edits are challenged, he asks for "burden of proof."
* ^ Same at Robert Byrd, where he reverted an edit, calling Slate an op-ed piece and claiming that I falsified a source. [455] I added portions of the article here.
* Similar editing style to WYLAH. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No. This is not true. I do not state "burden is on you" whenever an editor does a change, that comment is simply not true. And, yes, when an editor is going against concensus then the burden is on them. That is fact and nothing to be ashamed of or warned about.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No. Not true.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I will be. Nothing wrong with that.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is harassment when an editor comes to my talk page and write inappropriate comments such as this one: So, essentially you will be wikistalking my edits and violating WP:TALK in the future? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, when an editor does make a comment such as the one that I have quoted Seicer to have made on my talk page, I take that as a hostile, inappropriate and threatening comment and I WILL refuse to engage in anymore conversation with the threatening editor. This forum and other forums and rules will not be enough to make me interact with that editor, which of course in this case is Seicer. As far as I am concerned from this point forward this forum and anything else concerning this topic is merely a forum to discuss how we deal with nasty, threatening comments such as Seicer's that you can review here: Go down the section named In the future.... And once again, I would ask Seicer stop harassing me. I will not apologize for asking Seicer to stop harassing me. It is inappropriate for others to attempt to stop me from asking Seicer to stop harassing me. The harassment must stop.--Getaway 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Do not know what this is in reference to.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I never, ever stated that Seicer falsified a source. That is just a flat out lie.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No. I don't know who this person is. But I would encourage any of the admins who have access to the appropriate tools to check the edits and you will see that it is not me. I've learned that you have to nip these types of false charges in the bud very quickly or they just grow and grow.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Lots of stuff to comment on here, but I will just point out, that the statement: "I will be following my own decision making process and your advice or lack there of will not be concerned or even remotely referred to." is not at all in the spirit of consensus. Dlabtot 20:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Lots of stuff to comment concerning your comment, but when an editor comes to my talk page and makes the comments that Seicer did then the discussion should be about how we stop Seicer from harassing other editors. Also, Seicer's comments do not exhibit the charms of someone who really cares about consensus, of which you claim to be concerned.--Getaway 20:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
There was general consensus to add the bit at Robert Byrd regarding his renouncing of former racial ties. Most of the discussions against it were in regard to the Slate source, where some were comparing Slate to an "op-ed" piece, and disregarding the Charlotte Observer article as being "inferior" to a CNN article. (my initial restoration); (I restored an accidentally removed cite just above); [456]; even Getaway (talk · contribs) agrees.
Furthermore, he attempted the same tactic at Strom Thurmond, where there was general consensus. (Getaway replaced a Slate source (same one used at Robert Byrd) with one that was nothing about); [457] [458]
Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello all - this is quite the situation. Before I begin, I want to make clear that I'm dealing only with Wikiquette issues. This means that I'm not dealing with accusations of sockpuppetry (which should be reported to WP:SSP). I'm also not dealing with the question of whether User:Getaway accused User:Seicer of falsifying a source; until I see a diff in which Getaway makes such an accusation, I'm assuming that no such accusation exists.
All of that said, I think there are a lot of Wikiquette breaches going on, here. On User:Getaway's side, some of the diffs provided are certainly violations of WP:CIVIL. Moreover, you seem extremely unwilling to assume good faith on the part of people with whom you are in dispute - you are quick to accuse them of deliberately misrepresenting you (instead of assuming that they honestly misread what you wrote), abusing Wikipedia to further their own political opinions (instead of believing that they're genuinely trying to be NPOV), of being too lazy to provide sources (instead of considering that they might not consider a source to be necessary, or some other good faith explanation), etc. Also, your writing style, whether intentionally or otherwise, gives the impression that you are positively foaming at the mouth with rage as you write. I think that it would be useful to focus on short, succinct posts (like you've been making on this page) rather than long drawn out ones. I also echo User:Dlabtot's comments about consensus. Finally, WP:TALK (a guideline) does discourage using responses from breaking up the posts to which they are responding, and you seem to do this rather often; please try to respond to entire posts at once rather than breaking them up.
There is some blame on User:Seicer, too - notably, I don't think what he wrote on your talk page could reasonably be summarized as "So, essentially you will be wikistalking my edits and violating WP:TALK in the future?". That appears to have been an unecessarily inflammatory response.
I think given the bad shape your wikirelationship is in, I'm going to see how you respond to my comments before I start talking about possible solutions. As a first step, you each need to take responsibility for how you've aggravated the situation, and I want to see if you're both willing. Sarcasticidealist 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the citation for Gateway assuming that I was falsifying a source:
1. Stating that the article I cited does not exist.
2. Asserts that the 'burden' is on me to provide a citation.
I explained to him on his talk page that not every citation requires a URL or an online source. Given that there are thousands of citations on Wikipedia that are from books, newspapers, and etc. that are off-line, it would be unbearably difficult, if not impossible, to give summaries or snippets (the latter which I provided at talk:Robert Byrd although it is a copyright-vio) of every citation.
Per the wikistalking comment, it is in regard to this comment: [459]
"I also noticed that your edits seem to protect Byrd and condemn Thurmond. Since they are both avowed racists, you really should think about why you feel the need to provide aid and comfort to an old racist like Byrd. And, yes, you did. You're argument is basically, "See, Byrd isn't as bad as Thurmond!!!" Which is not only wrong, but strange. I'm going to respond to that silliness with a response that goes to your argumentative level, "At least, Thurmond was never in the KKK!!!" Look forward to more of your edits on the Robert "KKK" Byrd article."
I took note on the last sentence, which may indicate he will be monitoring my edits at Robert Byrd and possibly elsewhere for the explicit purpose of reverting them based on my prior edits. Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Dealing with the second issue first, I don't think it's fair to infer an intent to wikistalk from his comments - he said he was looking forward to more of your edits in one specific article. All this means is that he's going to monitor the Byrd article for your edits, and presumably for others' as well. It *could* be interpreting as a threat to wikistalk, but I think doing so is precluded by WP:AGF.
The second issue is a little more complex. His edit summary said that the article "didn't exist", which intially appears to be an accusation of falsifying a source. However, if you look at the reference you put in with regards to the Charlotte article, it included a link to the slate article. What Getaway could well have meant is that the Charlotte article didn't exist at the end of the link that was supposed to lead to it. If that's what he meant, he certainly should have been clearer. But this illustrates the importance of WP:AGF: in cases where an editor could have meant different things by his/her words, we should always assume that his meaning was the most innocent of the available reasonable explanations.
This is not to say that Getaway has been behaving perfectly reasonably, and that you stepped in and unfairly ascribed a whole bunch of nefarious motivations to him/her. I think that your interpretation was quite reasonable. However, so was the interpretation I offered above, and I think that we should function on the assumption that it's correct (especially since he/she is adament that she/he never accused you of source falsification) until we see a compelling reason not to.
Thank you for your response. Hopefully User:Getaway will respond as well, and we can start working towards resolving this. Sarcasticidealist 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
He initially removed the Slate citation, calling it an opinion reference, and the statement as a whole due to that. There was debate regarding the Slate source, with the users in question calling the source an "op-ed" piece. The Slate citation was restored and the source for the Slate article was the Charlotte Observer, where they conducted an interview with Strom Thurmond. The Charlotte Observer citation was not to reference the comment regarding Robert Byrd renouncing racism, but to provide verifiability to the Slate article.
At Strom Thurmond, the Charlotte Observer citation, in conjunction with the Slate article, provides a solid citation for the comment regarding Strom Thurmond not renouncing racism.
Kind of confusing. Let me know if you need additional clarifications. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem at all with the use of the Charlotte Observer as a reference, even if it's unavailable online. The problem was that the Charlotte Observer footnote (not the Slate footnote) included a link to the Slate article. Users, such as Getaway, could have clicked on that link, expecting to be led to a Charlotte Observer article, and instead finding themselves as Slate. This could easily cause somebody to conclude that this was a faulty reference. Sarcasticidealist 23:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that was my mistake (looking at my original inclusion). But that could have been handled far better and in a much more civil manner, IMO. The citation could have just been edited, since the citation immediately below it contains the exact same URL (I was copy/pasting the template). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it could have been handled more civilly, and I hope that we can get to that once User:Getaway offers a response to my original comments. I just wanted to resolve the question of whether User:Getaway had accused you of falsifying a source. I think that it's fair to assume that he/she said something that was not intended as such an accusation, and that you (not unreasonably) took it to be such an accusation. On that specific question, I think there was a blameless misunderstanding, and hopefully we can stop dealing with that in favour of the various other issues raised by this alert (of which there are, sadly, a great many). Sarcasticidealist 23:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I am the editor that User:Dcooper is referring to as the target of User:Getaway's "...jam your opinion..." comment above. I would suggest that readers have a look at some of Getaway's edit summary commentary on the Sean Hannity article and discussion pages from around the end of August. In particular, this diff, and this diff are quite illuminating. Please keep in mind that I was (and still am) a new editor, and that these are Getaway's responses to my attempts to achieve consensus. There are limits to WP:AGF ("This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary). I assert that Getaway has demonstrated ample evidence of lack of good faith, as well as frequent bouts of incivility. Furthermore, I believe that Getaway has a prior, abandoned account User:Keetoowah in which he demonstrated much the same behavior. The existence of prior warnings (including warnings against legal threats and being placed on personal attack parole) under this username should be taken into account in determining whether User:Getaway is a regular violater of Wikiquette. Ossified 23:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that those diffs are uncivil. I do need to advise you that this page isn't primarily for determining whether anybody is a regular violator of Wikiquette; instead, we try to identify instances in which Wikiquette has been violated and try to prevent future violations by the users in question. Obviously, this requires good faith on the part of all involved (quite often, all it takes is a third party such as myself advising an editor that his/her edits are uncivil, to make that editor look in the mirror and change his/her ways). If we can't accomplish that, there really isn't much else we can do. The next step is generally WP:RFC/U, but we always hope that it won't come to that.
For the time being, let's wait to see how User:Getaway responds to my comments; hopefully that will give us a basis on which to move forward. Sarcasticidealist 23:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. I would certainly prefer to avoid any future conflicts with the editor in question. Ossified 23:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gayunicorn attacking other people's religions

Resolved.

Would someone please have a word to Gayunicorn (talk · contribs) concerning this edit and his/her refusal to retract it? Corvus cornix 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm less concerned that the comments are offensive, and more concerned that this user seems to be labouring under a serious misapprehension as to Wikipedia's purpose. I've left some comments to this effect on his/her page. Hopefully that will help clear things up.
In the meantime, it might be best that you avoid interacting with this user unless necessary. Regardless of the wisdom of your words, it's apparent that he/she does not wish to read them, and little good will come of continuing to post on her/his talk page. Sarcasticidealist 23:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gayunicorn 00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)for the record I am just stating that our North American culture is based Judeo-Christian beliefs and that the media is a reflection of this, I could care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Thanks for the heads up though I will refrain from personal comments in the future.00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What? Don't be combining my belief set with yours. And frankly, you're incorrect. And lastly, it would be appreciated by all of us if you take the time to learn about signing your posts. Thanks OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I made a note regarding his signature on his talk page. As for the religious comment by Gayunicorn (talk · contribs), I added on the talk page of the AFD that a person's religious beliefs should not weigh in as a valid opinion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is definitely just a nonsense AfD vote. The closing admin will surely disregard it, as would be appropriate. It appears as though others have already pointed the user to the purpose of Wikipedia and now it's not a catalog of majority or normative opinion. --Cheeser1 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User blocked due to inappropriate user name, and also tagged as suspected sock of User:Tweety21. Marking as resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs)

User:Hal Cross

Resolved. It appears that the etiquette problems have subsided, at least for now. The editors involved have begun more discussion on this matter, and I believe the WQA-related disputes have been resolved. I may be wrong, in which case this complaint can of course be reopened. --Cheeser1 02:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

I'd appreciate an outside opinion on the conduct of User:Hal Cross. He's been editing at American Family Association since July, and his approach to the community leave an awful lot to be desired. He seems to have ownership issues with the page. He is uncivil -accusing other editors of being vandals, engaging in information suppression, violating policy, etc etc. He engages in tremendously long circular discussions, usually ignoring the responses he gets to his points, and the result has been that just about every over contributor to that page has drifted away. If you want the full history then have a look at Talk:American Family Association/Archive 2 and Talk:American Family Association/Archive 3, but be warned - they're very long.

Recent examples (a small selection from a long, long list):

  • [460] - WP:CIVIL (calling other editors vandals and POV pushers), poor interpretation of WP:NPOV
  • [461] - Accusation of creating a POV fork. What actually happened is that a long list in the main article was split out into a sub-article, so nothing was removed.
  • [462] - Accusation of information suppression, WP:OWN.
  • [463] - Arguing in circles, ignoring previous points, protestations of innocence.
  • [464] - "Please watch carefully and learn from me and other concerned Wikipedia editors" - I'm not sure if this breaks any policy, but it's not a particularly useful way to talk about a content dispute.

After the third archiving I essentially gave up responding to the same points made over, and over, and over again, so if you want to read my specific responses to his arguments then you'll need to have a look at Archive 3 - but this isn't about the content dispute. It's about the user who is obstructing the discussion so much that he's making consensus almost impossible to achieve or follow. If you want a contrasting example, see here: User talk:Citadel18080/AFA Discussion with Orpheus. Same article, same content dispute, but a resolution in two screens of text that pleased two editors who were opposed at the start. The difference is that Hal Cross wasn't involved.

Also see this AN/I that he filed [465], which was roundly ignored by administrators, but is a good example of his vexatious approach to editing.

Orpheus 09:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Counter-Complaint

Hello all. I am a fairly new editor here, so I would also like some advice on using Wikiquette correctly to handle this long standing situation on the AFA article. I have already been getting some feedback from other editors and admins, and Orpheus has been hassling me about it on my talkpage [466].

I feel its unhelpful to simply point you to archives, so here are some diffs. Feel free to check them to see if they are representative:

  • Long term context: Category dispute. Orpheus and CMMK want the homophobia category to be applied to the AFA article because anti-AFA people say that the AFA is anti-gay. I (and other editors) do not want the category because it circumvents NPOV policy, is used accusatively, and it adds nothing to reader’s understanding of homophobia. To my mind adding pop singers to a Michael Jackson article is useful, but homophobia serves no use as a mere accusation towards AFA. Lists have always been encouraged as an alternative[467].
  • The past month or two: I have been working to enrich the article with reliably sourced views from the AFA and those with views about the AFA. E.g. [468] [469] That diff was the result of me adding information on beliefs. CMMK and Orpheus objected and removed the information, and I made subsequent improvements and additions. Orpheus both here and above ignores the fact that I have dealt with all objections and Orpheus still makes no effort to discuss the specific points to and adjustments of the edit. [470].
  • After I make the adjustments, I restore the new information and it gets deleted. I make civil discussion for why it is deleted. No discussion is made in return for my discussion or questions. Discussion is often dismissed or is highly unconstructive [471][472][473][474][475][476] and some editors are often unhelpful to other editors [477].
  • Myself and other editors are getting tag-teamed by Orpheus and CMMK [478][479][480][481][482][483][484]. As far as I know that’s a classic example of WP:OWN. Again, it often happens within the hour and without any discussion, or Orpheus makes reference to discussion that happened a long time ago, and ignores multiple changes that have been made [485]. Orpheus refers to a non-existent consensus [486].
  • Those reliably sourced additions tend to get deleted within the hour without any discussion [487]. Unreliable negative information gets added, and any positive information, with more reliable sourcing, gets deleted [488]
  • Orpheus and CMMK make a lot of edits without any discussion at all, and they fail to reply to civil discussion [489] [490][491][492] despite there being a lot of activity over that information on the article.
  • Any one sided comments or headings I will try to make balanced or neutral [493]. From my beginners understanding of Wikipedia policies and recommendations, what Orpheus and CMMK seem to be doing is pushing a particular POV by constantly disallowing relevant views, by POV forking which removes information about why the AFA boycotts certain companies, and via information suppression [494].
  • To my knowledge I have done nothing to WP:OWN the article. I have requested outside views on the subject from a variety of editor viewpoints [495][496], and been constructive in my communications with other editors and admin [497][498].

I know it’s a controversial subject that can involve high emotions. For example, CMMK has made discussion rather personal on several occasions [499][500] referring to editors as liars and information as “lies”. I understand that this is a controversial article and that its important not to get personal. To my knowledge I have never removed reliable sourced criticism of the AFA, yet Orpheus and CMMK have constantly removed any information that shows the AFA as having genuine cares and concerns about society [501][502]. I have discussed objectionable subjects as neutrally as I can with reference to sources. If you can offer me any way to adhere more closely to Wikiquette, especially in a way that constructively improves the article, I am very much open to your suggestions. Hal Cross 12:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, please read WP:SELFPUB Dlabtot 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I'll be the first to comment and hopefully I'll help. First, I'd like to say that the bulk of this is more of a content dispute. It's hard to evaluate this situation without taking into consideration the content dispute at hand. I'll step past that for a moment. I don't think there's a whole lot of Etiquette problems here so much as misunderstanding particular rules and/or disagreeing about content. I do believe User:Hal Cross is making some false accusations, but it would appear that these are being made genuinely (not uncivilly). He may honestly believe you are trying to create a POV fork, and saying so doesn't amount to breaching WP:CIVIL or anything - it's not like he called you stupid or made other sorts of personal comments.

  • Content - On the other hand, I would like to discuss the content dispute, and the various policies that are being cited. First of all, most anti-gay groups assert that they are not homophobic. Some go so far as to say that they are the only ones who are really helping LGBT people, by turning them to the right path. This does not mean that it's true. LGBT people don't necessarily have a cohesive set of goals or an agenda, but groups and individuals have particular desires - to marry, to be treated as equals, to have their sexuality not scrutinized so much. Whatever the case, opposing those goals (in the name of "the American family" or what have you) would appear to be anti-gay prima facie. This is also almost certainly verifiable, it is at least mentioned, I'm sure, in gay-interest magazines. So that's what I see going on in the content dispute - giving the organization's opinion of itself more weight than the reality of its actions and the views of other groups/individuals.
  • The complaint - As for the particular complaints against Hal Cross, I believe he may have been acting contrary to policy, but perhaps not in an uncivil way. This is in the sense that none of the diffs you've provided are particularly hostile or rude. On the other hand, Wikiquette also applies to the sum-total of one's actions. It does appear that Hal Cross is being fairly stubborn, and unyielding in his (mis)interpretation of things like WP:NPOV. There is also a complaint that he has been reverting in other people's userspace (see his talk page). I believe that requires a bit of intervention - since he's already here, I'll forgo commenting elsewhere, but would ask that he think things over.
  • The counter complaint - To speak specifically, there are a few points. (1) I don't see any POV fork issues at all. These accusations seem totally unfounded, and may serve to make the discussion hostile. (2) Hal Cross consistently reverts people's reverts of his bold edits. This is troubling - it creates an atmosphere of edit warring, and does not seem to reflect well on Hal Cross's willingness to work towards consensus. Hal - you cannot remove content without consensus. If people object, you have to establish a consensus (meaning everybody needs to agree) before you remove it again. (3) The only accusations of incivility I see are things like "he called me a liar." However, this came after what appears to be a gross misrepresentation of policy to support a particular side in this argument. That could easily be considered lying, and I don't think saying so is out-of-line. Orpheus has made efforts to engage you in discussion without edit warring, but the revert craziness seems to go on. Other editors have also asked that this edit warring stop, but to no avail. There was also no "hassling" - Hal Cross (apparently falsely) said that he had been seeking outside views on his editing - Orpheus obviously would have liked to see those views - this does not constitute an attack, hassling, or an invasion of privacy. When it became clear that Hal Cross was either being deceptive, or not forthcoming with the result(s) of any review(s), Orpheus came here to get actual outside opinions, which Hal Cross may have mistaken as an attack. (Again, all this is on Hal Cross's talk page).

The bottom line - the bottom line is that neutrality is hard to maintain. It makes things contentious. It's a hotly-contested content dispute. However, criticism does belong in the article, and categories should reflect that. The fact that the AFA continually opposes gay activism and LGBT people's goals is pretty well documented. Furthermore, this article is not a safe haven for the AFA's idea of itself to flourish. We should be doing our best not to use the AFA's website as as source of information, or at least not considering it a source of unbiased or complete information about itself. The AFA wouldn't be considered a reliable source anywhere outside of this article, and its contributions to this article should be kept in perspective. I think Hall Cross fails to see this, and fails to understand several other important policies. The heated atmosphere is due in no small part to his repeatedly reverting reversions of his bold edits, and his misunderstandings of things like POV forking. His counter-complaints appear to be more or less without merit. I'm not sure if this is incivility or a breach of etiquette, but Hal Cross should accept reversion of his bold edits from now on, and work to form consensus. This will require him to familiarize himself with what is and is not reliable sourcing, what is and is not POV forking, and how to construct a balanced article. --Cheeser1 13:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and considered reply Cheeser1. I agree on not using the AFA article as a source of unbiased or complete information about itself. To my knowledge, I never have, and have always sought other sources on their opinions. Should be kept in perspective: Yes completely. I am working on context all the time. If you can offer ways for me to add more reliable context to the article I will be grateful.
Concerning POV forking. I agree. I am uncertain of how to proceed and would like your advice on the issue that AFA boycott certain companies for certain reasons. How do you suggest that I can present those AFA views neutrally in the article without them being removed to other articles?
The information I have been referring to on reliable information is [503] and [504]. The finer points of those articles are not presented so I would appreciate your input on how to apply these articles in this situation. I have used AFA related articles and web pages, in combination with other information I have obtained from Proquest databases. To my knowledge, that satisfies the crux of those requirements in the articles, though I would like to hear more about your recommendations. The article states “Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.” That is what I have presented and Orpheus and CMMK have gone against those articles I believe. They have used the argument that these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, which goes against the recommendations. I know you are only suggesting caution, though they are acting on total removal of views. In line with your suggestion I would like to know how best to apply caution.
Forming consensus has been hard. Its made harder due to some editors seeming to refuse discussion, or offering dismissive comments and unconstructive suggestions. How do I handle that constructively according to your view of this situation? Regards Hal Cross 14:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
As I stated, I believe that you are refusing discussion as much as (or more than) the other editors, especially by reverting reverts (probably the best way to avoid working towards consensus). Dismissive comments may be warranted when certain contributions merit dismissing. Removing boldly added content is not necessarily nonconstructive. Listing the beliefs of this organization in great detail would not necessarily be encyclopedic, nor would doing so by simply repeating what is found on their website. Listing the boycotts, for example, would be the same as listing (for example) every single protest lead or sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition, instead of simply reporting the notable or encyclopedic content. There is a clear statement of the group's beliefs in the lead of the article - concise and in the group's own words. To continue to elaborate (ad nauseam) every single viewpoint or boycott of the group would make this into a pulpit, instead of an article. I realize you aren't trying to include every detail, but much of the details of their views would be considered more or less irrelevant - we need not make this article a list of all the things the AFA supports, opposes, boycotts, etc. Furthermore, the POV of the group may be important to consider, but it should not unduly shape the tone/content of the article (especially in the criticisms section). For example, "first amendment rights" is not the same as homophobia or anti-gay activism. Sure, you could call it that (and that may be what the AFA calls it), but that's sugarcoating/dodging the issue. Calling it anti-gay/homophobic is not non-neutral. The group has stated its opposition to LGBT activism and LGBT rights, and there are reliable third party coverage to document these views and actions. These sources should be used wherever possible, instead of citing the AFA. These content considerations should be discussed on the article's talk page - however, there seems to be difficulty based on your edit-warring and your (mis)use of other policies (as in your counter-complaint) to distract the issue (perhaps unintentionally) and keep consensus from forming based on the policies in question. --Cheeser1 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Cheeser. If you look at the deletions more closely, Orpheus and CMMK are not actually removing all views that are solely supported by the AFA. They are inconsistent in that matter. They are leaving plenty in. [505] but they are removing AFA supported views that put the AFA in a considerate or concerned light. It seems that it is ok for CMMK and Orpheus to have negative information supported by AFA sources, and any positive information is deleted. Hal Cross 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, PS, to my knowledge, since I have been here I have not once removed criticism of the AFA from the article. And I reiterate I believe it is blindingly obvious that Orpheus and CMMK have consistently and repeatedly removed NPOV compliant information that sheds a positive light on the AFA. If anyone can give me your views and suggestions on this main point I will be grateful. Hal Cross 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have not picked through the entire history, the diffs you provide do not seem to demonstrate anyone acting without neutrality. Much of what they seem to remove is simply a positive statement of the group's opinion by the group itself. Such material is arguably "spin," and shouldn't be introduced into the article. --Cheeser1 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the perspective Cheeser1. I am not a member of the AFA, loved members of my family are homosexual and well accepted, I am not a practicing Christian, Muslim, or any other type of Abrahamic religious follower, and I don't claim to be neutral at all. There are outside opinions from other sources that would probably never be called spin. If you can see your way to at least considering that information we will be getting some way towards resolution. Oh, by the way, if I am allowed to present information that you consider spin, will I be ok to present it as spin by attributing you as a source? Hal Cross 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Back to specifics. There is an AFA view that Yahoo provides pedophiles with child pornography. Now that may be considered spin against the homosexual agenda. Basically the AFA believes that the homosexual agenda is full of people such as NAMBLA who like obscenity and their activities will lead to the encouragement of pedophilia. The view is also reported by PR Newswire according to Proquest databases [506] and removed by Orpheus only a couple of hours later without discussion [507]. Now do I censor the AFA as it is "spin"? Do I accept it because I am following WP on reliable sourcing? Hal Cross 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hal Cross, I accidentally replied above in the wrong section. Please read WP:SELFPUB. The American Family Association should not really include any text that is based on their own website. This really is a content dispute, not an etiquette problem - none of the diffs you've provided really show any violations of WP:CIVIL that I saw. I'd suggest starting over on the American Family Association article, with a version based only on independent sources. Dlabtot 15:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dlabtot. Again I am very much in need of guidance here. Which of these points specifically applies?:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Hal Cross 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I believe I've addressed this below. Namely, an individual action alert is not relevant to the AFA's notability (unless there are other sources that address the alert in a non-trivial way). Since it is an accusation against Yahoo, it could also be seen as contentious and involving a claim about a third party.
In other words, if the Random Organization filed a complaint that FooBar Corp. was giving porn to minors, there's no need to include it here unless the accusation has had reliable, independent coverage. (Which doesn't seem to be the case here, as discussed below). --Bfigura (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. I'll sort it outHal Cross 16:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
To answer "Which of these points specifically applies?" - all of them. What the policy is stating is that unless self published material fits that very long and exacting list of requirements, it should not be included in an article about the entity that did the self publishing. Dlabtot 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dlabtot, I was in the process of applying that long and exact list of requirements and was told off for it [508]. There is other more relevant and encyclopedic information to add to that section. Which is why I did not remove the heading. Work in progress. Hal Cross 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitratry Section Break

Hi there. If I can chime in: I agree with you that such content shouldn't be removed without comment as it isn't blatantly violating WP:RS. However, I'm not convinced that Wikipedia should report an action alert from the AFA unless it's picked up mainstream coverage (ie, USAToday commenting on the AFA Boycott). Otherwise it does come across as spin-y. (Since Wikipedia isn't for PR, we probably should have more than a press release, given that there are a relatively large number of action alerts issued). Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A minor point - it wasn't without comment, it was with this comment. Otherwise, I agree with your AU$0.04. Orpheus 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the diff. That certainly is a reasonable justification. For next time though, if there was a reference to the talk page comments in the edit summary, perhaps Hal wouldn't have made unfounded accusations. --Bfigura (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bfigura. I agree and have been consistently working to provide whatever mainstream coverage I can get hold of. Where it is not supplied, it is consistent with the context of the secion of the article in question. I am not interested in spin. My main concern is to make sure the actual views of the AFA are not suppressed. From what has happened over the past few months, it seems that suppression is utterly rampant. It will be really easy to obtain secondary sources and in that case all relevant views will be presented again. There are a lot that I have not used because I believed that facts will be more accurate from the horses' mouth. Your solutions seem to be coming together pretty well in my mind. Its just a matter of presenting the other sources I originally left out. Cheers Hal Cross 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can show how a particular self-published citation meets all the requirements of WP:SELFPUB, it should not be included, even if it means that the 'actual views of the AFA' are therefore are not promoted in the article. Putting something in the article simply to insure that the AFA's view is presented seems to violate the spirit and the letter of the policy. Dlabtot 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine Dlabtot. The key views of the AFA are described by independent reliable sources so those views can be presented despite the efforts of Orpheus and CMMK towards one-sidely removing them. WP policies will be satisfied. In fact the views will most likely be clearer, more fair, and more compelling this way. Cheers Hal Cross 18:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
But you've been presenting them verbatim or paraphrased from the AFA website. That's the problem. Sourcing is key, and you cannot simply parrot the AFA. Orpheus and CMMK were reverting your changes because you've been adding material that is improperly sourced (and from a nonNPOV source to boot). --Cheeser1 18:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe I know the problem by now. Many of Orpheus' and CMMK's deletions were of reliable sources other than the AFA website and publications. There are many reliable sources where those came from. I'll make sure that AFA views will be supported using independent reliable sources. I have no problem at all with Orpheus and CMMK removing unreliable sources. Its the removal of reliably sourced AFA views that I believe will be the more pressing problem on the AFA article long term. Hal Cross 20:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. Thanks again for your input folks. I found the advice conflicting and contradictory in a fairly humorous way, and I am making sense of it as best I can. The only things I would actually disagree upon is the assertion that I have not communicated any more than the other two editors, as I believe I have made more room for discussion than any other editor I have seen. I fully agree with suggestions on how to move forward though. Orpheus and CMMK seem to be back into discussion at least to some extent now you have applied a bit of scrutiny, and I am grateful for that as I feel it at least temporarily stops what I see as month upon month of tag teaming. I would appreciate any follow ups from any of you. On overall reflection, I think you have been pretty fair considering the circumstances. Regards Hal Cross 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gaetanomarano

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereBeyond Wikiquette and into subtle vandalism / linkspam. Referred to ANI. --Bfigura (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This user put links leading to his website on talk pages of many articles. He adds links to the talk page in the Reference section. He reverts editions that delete his links. This user also claims that Google (and other "lobbies") censor him . Check his entries fore more details Scorpene 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more of an issue for the administrator's noticeboard. This seems to have gone beyond Wikiquette. --Bfigura (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will have a look there, thank you for the tip. Scorpene 13:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Madrus

Resolved. Impersonating user indef blocked. --Bfigura (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The user has copied all of my own user page and most of my talk page unmodified to his userpage and his user talk. Here's his contributions page. User Madrus is a new user since 19.09.2007 14:00. I learned of all this when he announced about his new pages on my talk page.

The difference between his and my usernames are two letters: mine is Mardus, his is Madrus. In Estonian language, they also mean two different things, so it doesn't appear that much to be a username hijacking, but it still feels like that.

I didn't want to notify him of this alert, because he has copied all of my talk content to his talk page. I checked the different resources on user conduct, but couldn't find the correct specific place (other than here) of alerting about the incident. What can be done about it? -Mardus 02:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the type of thing WP:U#Doppelganger accounts addresses.

It is acceptable to pre-emptively create another account with a username similar to one's own, with the purpose of preventing impersonation by vandals.

What to do when it actually occurs is probably best handled on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Anynobody 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I blanked it for the interm with the edit summary: "Blanked as it is a direct copy of user:Mardus: Possible conflicting username that should be brought up at WP:UFA". This needs to be brought up there. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't had any chances to attend much of the above, so here's thanks for resolving the issue. The copied pages and notification of these in my Talk came as an unwelcome surprise. To pre-empt doppelganger accounts, I would have used a different method. I was also more interested as to who did that and where. -Mardus 10:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User Precious Roy

Resolved. Closed, Wiccawikka indef blocked for being a sock --Bfigura (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiccawikka 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)*apprears to be attacking voters in coven(short film)

  • making allegations towards me of being a "sock puppet", I dont know what this person is talking about, but not appreciated.
  • Appears to be bringing in a personal fight into a voting forum. (has a history of quarelling with a user Tweety21 and other users, and writing derogatory statments in the voting forum)
  • Appears to be border-line attacking religious freedom.

Wiccawikka 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

These sockpuppet accusations are made on some pretty inconclusive grounds. I would say it's pretty uncivil to label everyone a sockpuppet of someone just because they agree. Not sure where to proceed - others, do you have any ideas? --Cheeser1 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The puppet Tweety21 was using yesterday, Gayunicorn (now indefinitely blocked) was very vocally anti-Wicca. (Also note, I haven't accused the other "keep" !voters of being socks.) I can list many reasons why I say Wiccawikka is Tweety21's puppet if you want, or you could wait for the Checkuser results. Precious Roy 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
You can list the reasons? You better. If you don't, then your accusations are unsubstantiated and uncivil. And until the RFCU in question is finished, I'd suggest you not use its possible outcome as the explanation for your actions. You're supposed to assume good faith, which includes assuming someone is not a sockpuppet - if you have substantial evidence to the contrary (now, not evidence you might have pending the RFCU), you must present that, and you should do your best not to repeatedly make your accusation. Labeling most/all of the user's comments as "this is a sockpuppet" or "this is an SPA" (not to mention repeating the warning/accusation) seems quite premature. --Cheeser1 17:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't jump all over me. I wasn't saying anything about the possible outcome; I was giving you the option of either asking me for my reasons, or waiting for the outcome—conclusive or not. Also, I have not "repeatedly" labeled her comments. I put a "suspected sockpuppet" tag on her talk page, and labelled one of her comments (the first one) on the AfD page. Precious Roy 18:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to ask. Accusations like this require an explanation. As for repeating your accusation, you've accuse her in several places of sockpuppetry. One accusation, with at least minimal justification, would suffice, until conclusive (ie not circumstantial) evidence is found. Wiccawikka is clearly a new/inexperienced user, and confronted with accusations like this can be confusing and disheartening. When these accusations come with no explanation or justification, it becomes fairly uncivil. I'm not saying she isn't a sockpuppet - I have no proof, but I've assumed that she isn't until we know that she is. This means you should treat her civilly and explain your accusation, including explaining what you're accusing her of. No one should have to ask, especially not third parties like me. --Cheeser1 18:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding her experience level, take a little time to review Tweety21's level of expertise. She'd been around longer than me (almost 2 years) yet edited like someone who had just started; helpful tips (even down to telling her how to sign her comments) went unheeded. The asking part I was referring to was in regards to this forum. If you want an answer, you have to ask me. Precious Roy 19:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
My reasons for suspecting WiccaWikka is Tweety21 include 1) the time of day the edits started 2) that she went immediately to the Coven AfD (which her last sock, Gayunicorn, was causing problems in yesterday), 3) when she leaves comments on people's talk pages, she almost always posts them at the top and usually leaves them unsigned 4) she frequently makes multiple sequential edits 5) in the AfD she says "I usually don't get involved in these kinds of forums" yet she is familiar enough with the formatting (Tweety21 was involved in a number of AfDs—2 examples:1, 2), including "Strong keep"' 6) problems with spelling 7) makes baseless accusations (that I'm "attacking voters", I "writ[e] derogatory statments [sic]" in the AfD, that I have a "history of quarelling [sic] with a user Tweety21 and other users", etc). I could go on but I realize that none of this is ironclad proof. You're the admin, you tell me—do I have to open a new sockpuppet report on this user? I'm hoping the checkuser will settle matters but since it's the first time I've used it, I'm not sure what to expect. Precious Roy 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you've misunderstood this process - no one here is necessarily an administrator, we're not here to take administrative action, but to mediate disputes between people who are (in general) editing in good faith. Even then, administrators aren't here to tell you what to do. These things are circumstantial. 6 is irrelevant. You opened the window for 7, since you brought up Tweety21. 5 means she can mimic bullet-points. 4 - plenty of people do that. 3 - many new users do this. Again, none of this is conclusive, but alot of it can be explained by the fact that she's new. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you've elicited a complaint, and your conduct may have been colored by how dismissive you were (due to the assumption of sockpuppetry) and the fact that you didn't explain yourself (which can only be justified by the hypothetical future outcome of the RFCU). I will admit that you've raised suspicion, but when the user asks "what's a sockpuppet?" directing the user to the person to the sockpuppet complaint against GayUnicorn isn't helpful. My only point here has been, from the start, that you assume good faith - this includes assuming that this person is not a sockpuppet (no matter how erratic her behavior) until you have more-than-circumstantial evidence. --Cheeser1 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I do plead ignorance to the process here (I've never visited before today). I did say outright that none of it is really proof; I know it's all circumstatial, but people have been convicted in court solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The poor spelling is not irrelevant; it, like the rest, establishes a pattern. Regarding #7, the only one I've "opened the window for" would be a history of quarrelling—but only with Tweety21, not "other users" (being partially based on fact does not make something true). I've never "attacked" anyone, made derogatory statements (not even when accusing of sockpuppetry), or attacked religious freedom. #5 It was more the usage of "Strong keep" than the bullet points. And #3+4, yes plenty of new users do that; it's not any one of the things I've listed—it's all of them put together. As I said on your talk page, I have taken what you've said to heart and will be more gentle in the future with any suspected sockpuppets. Precious Roy 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe I overlooked her claim that I'm "attacking religious freedom". I've never made a single edit that could be misconstrued as attacking religious freedom. Ever. Unless one considers nominating a film called Coven for deletion an attack on religious freedom. Precious Roy 19:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for spelling out the reasons. Next time thought, I'd at least provide a link to the place where the reasons can be found (the checkuser, or RfC, etc). As far as reporting goes, can't you just add onto the old sockpuppet file? --Bfigura (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
As a note, this is also on ANI in this thread. --Bfigura (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New Complaint

I've moved the following comments from a section below, as I think the user meant to place them here. (If wrong, please let me know). --Bfigura (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiccawikka 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)User:Precious Roy
Wiccawikka 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)User: Precious Roy again engaging in Harassment, has already been warned once before, constantly accuses me of being a sock puppet
I was alerted by another user of the following abusive comment he left about me (below comment by Precious Roy after being warned against abuse) he constantly puts sock puppet on my user page, I'm pretty fed up with this abuse, was warned by User Cheeser1 I am quite concerned about his fixation with abusing me. I noticed he has an entry about a serial killer as well.
Hello m'dear!


My pleasure. Music is the one area where I would dare claim advanced levels of expertise (20 years working in music, don'tcha know). Every once in a while I've gone behind an editor's back and created an article that had already been declined. In most cases I had to do a little extra work because references or content wasn't up to WP snuff (like today). I've been busy dealing with a sock whose user has been a thorn in my side for about a month now. It's my own fault for getting involved but it bums me out that I could've been doing actual helpful stuff around WP but instead spent most of the day dealing with nonsense. C'est la vie. Precious Roy 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Wiccawikka 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if I need to continue to defend my actions here or not; I thought this was considered resolved. Here is the post that Wiccawikka has included above. Notice that there are no names named—she is assuming I am talking about her. I don't recall being "warned against abuse"; I think I was cautioned to WP:AGF, which I agreed to do. If you feel I am not living up to that, please point out specific edits where I have failed. Precious Roy 16:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This has really gone too far. He was not warned for making the allegations, I simply reminded him (a bit too sternly) that he needed to justify them. He was not being abusive, he was simply jumping to conclusions without explaining himself. There are actually a number of things that indicate that you might be a sockpuppet of the other user - similar IP addresses used when posting anonymously, similar topics, your account started up when the last sockpuppet was banned and participated in the same discussion. Is this conclusive? No. But it is suspicious. Saying so is not against the rules. --Cheeser1 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur. I don't there's been any civility violation here that hasn't already been dealt with. --Bfigura (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

William (Bill) Bean

Stuck.

This user has become quite upset that I apparently failed to properly explain the placing or replacing of a NPOV tag. My apology has not worked to defuse the situation and now he's telling me: " I have more than enough evidence to assert that you are not acting in good faith.". I'm finding this whole thing very unpleasant and I really feel liked I am being attacked unfairly. OK, I've only been doing this for a few weeks and perhaps my edits have not been without error but does that mean I should be told that I am "failing miserably?" There are other examples but I think this gives the gist of it. Thank you, gentle Wikipedians, for your help. Dlabtot 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the diffs and see if I can help. --Bfigura (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Judging from the discussion on the talk page, Dlabtot wasn't even the one who added the tag in the first place. --Darkwind (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, I didn't think so, but he was asserting so strongly that I was, I was afraid to say so without taking the time to research it. Dlabtot 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
A moment ago this comment was not here in this postion. When I researched the edits initially I found that Dlabtot had indeed thrown the first POV tag. I then went to his talk page and found numerous complaints that Dlabtot had thrown tags without explanation. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I doubt I'm wrong. Perhaps you should show the diff where my research failed. William (Bill) Bean 03:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this would be a good time to set the record straight. The edit where the POV tag was inserted: diff 01:03, 19 September 2007. My first edit to that article: diff 01:04, 19 September 2007. Yes, I think I did replace the tag later after I had seen it removed. I was under the impression that if there is a tag like that on an article, it's not supposed to be removed unless a consensus has been reached on the talk page to do so. Since no such consensus had (or has yet) emerged, I didn't think I needed to explain why I was replacing it. I may have also moved the tag to the specific part of the article that seemed problematic. I don't know whether or what descriptions I put on the edit summary line. I will endeavor to be more descriptive in the future. I must admit that I have taken offense at some of the posts you have directed towards me. Dlabtot 07:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've left a reminder of WP:NPA on Bean's talk page, and let him know that he's free to comment here if he feels that he's been somehow misrepresented. --B/font>figura (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Please note. This user has made numerous POV tags without any comment or stated reason. This is not a personal attack, but a statement of fact. It is also a violation of wikipedia policy. A quick review of back up my assertion. Please review Dlabtot discussion for verification. I now consider my placement here a personal attack. Fair warning. William (Bill) Bean 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Stating that someone is coming across as a troll or sock-puppet is not a personal attack. Accusing someone of the same (something I did not do) is. I will gladly accept your apology once you recognize the different. Finally, the person in question has made numerous POV entries outside wikipedia policy. He or she should stop. That's my point. William (Bill) Bean 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
As pointed out above, I don't believe Dlabtot placed the tag that you're referring to. And even if he did, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet (if it isn't relevant to the current discussion) and stating that they "...are failing miserably..." (as in this diff: [509]) is possibly not the best response possible (see WP:CIVIL). And I don't believe that a listing here constitutes an attack, perhaps someone else can comment on that. --Bfigura (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, for perspective, it might be helpful to take a look at a couple of other recent diffs, not directed at me: diff, diff. Dlabtot 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps for perspective the reader will note that the poster I'm responding to is making assumptions about my motives and or state of mind with no relevant evidence to back up those assumptions. Your turn. William (Bill) Bean 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not directly call Dlabtot a sock-puppet. Please review the posts again. I said the tag without explanation smacked of sock-puppetry. It's not the same thing whether you realize it or not. The presence of sock-puppets and trolls here at wikiedia is always relevant; always. Finally, if Dlabtot had not thrown the original tag he never denied it. Had he or she denied it I would have reviewed the diffs again. By the way this is a brilliant tactic for setting someone up. Your turn. William (Bill) Bean 04:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You've got a point. The other day, a guy said my Mom looked like, and acted like, a whore, but since he didn't actually *call* my mother a whore, I figured he was actually being civil, so I let it slide. Dlabtot 04:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't a debate. The point of WQA is to suggest that while you may (and I'm neither taking a position for or against) be correct in that Dlabtot tagged without posting posting on the talk pages, it is not appropriate to respond by calling someone a troll, or a sock-puppet, or a failure. If you feel someone is violating policy, then the right thing to do is notify them (politely). If they don't respond in a manner that's constructive, then follow dispute resolution, or try and establish a consensus on the talk page in question. Inflammatory language won't get anyone anywhere. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I'm not convinced that a back-and-forth argument is going to be terribly productive. May I suggest that we place this matter on hold so that other WQA responders may comment? --Bfigura (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Show me where I called Dlabtot a troll. I didn't. Instead of responding to criticism positively or appropriately he or she has made excuses, claimed ignorance, and "begged for forgiveness" without a hint of sincerity. I responded by pointing out why this started in the first place; a violation of wikipedia policy. The response was "please stop." This is manipulative and I know it. Now he or she has called upon you to intercede on his or her behalf rather than correcting the behavior that started this. Wikipedia is rife with trolls and sock-puppets. It hurts this place. Finally, inflammatory language is entirely up to me. If you don't like it that's your problem not mine. But I did get his or her attention. And I can guarantee you if he or she does the POV without showing cause again (and I'm not banned) this will seem mild. Enough is enough. I welcome input from others. If I feel I'm wrong I'll apologize, but don't hold your breath; it's unlikely. William (Bill) Bean 04:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
How do you suggest I 'correct the behavior'? What could I do that would make you happy and end this? Dlabtot 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but inflammatory language is not up to you. There's an official civility policy, which specifically lists ill-considered accusations as an avoidable example of incivility, among other things. If someone doesn't like something you've said, and it can reasonably be taken as a violation of WP:CIVIL, then it is your problem. Also, veiled threats (if [X happens] this will seem mild) fall under incivility as well. I'd suggest previewing your posts first, or reading them out loud, before submitting, as it's entirely possible you don't realize how you might sound (the post above quite shocked me, especially on a page dealing with incivility as its primary purpose.) --Darkwind (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Concur -- the irony is somewhat staggering. As this doesn't look as though it will go anywhere in this forum, I've marked the complaint as stuck and fowarded it on to AN/I. --Bfigura (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page. William (Bill) Bean 14:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC) *Regardless of whether your behavior fits the technical definition of a "personal attack", your comments of late have been incivil, both to Dlabtot and to Bfigura. Demanding that people follow procedure, or make apologies, is not a very good way of interacting with other editors, and not conductive to a pleasant atmosphere. I'd suggest that you refrain from such behavior in the future. >Radiant< 13:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note for clarity, the above comment was directed at William (Bill) Bean. --Bfigura (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


I have been consistently on point about my issue with the tags. I have repeated these points numerous times. They have been ignored. I have never made an issue about the reason for the tag, rather the lack of a reason. Worse, rather than take my issues at face value and address them, I have been accused of having other motives. Since I have not brought up any other issue with the tags the motives attributed to me are fabrications. I find that insulting. As I said I have been on point from the very beginning. From the talk page on the article in question.

"Considering that you have listed numerous reasons that you believe the section is not WP:NPOV, I hope you will now follow Wikipedia policies and refrain from removing the tag until a consensus to do so has been reached here on the talk page. Dlabtot 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)"

I have listed only one reason why I felt the POV tag was invalid; that being no reason was given for throwing the tag in the first place. Additionally I found the assumption on Dlabot's part both insulting and groundless. Again, my issue is with throwing tags without explanation. Further, Dlabtot is not the only poster who jumped to a conclusion as to my motives with no supporting evidence.

Please see [510]. My concern is now and has been for years the following; attempts by various parties to kill information, hacked articles, bias, and opinions presented as fact. Finally, I find the attempts at misdirection insulting as well. William (Bill) Bean 14:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I find it amusing that this section has been moved from Work in progress to stuck in less than twenty-four hours. Interesting no? William (Bill) Bean 14:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • In that thread you state that process wasn't followed in nominating the page for deletion, and start talking about vandalism - whereas it turns out that you were simply looking at the wrong day of the deletion logs. Seems to me that you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions. >Radiant< 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
First, I stated that throwing a tag without following proper procedure "smacks of vandalism." Please be accurate in relating this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjbean (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The AFiD tag was thrown on September 18th. For that reason I would expect to find the nomination on the page with that date. I did not. I did look at September 19th and did not find it there either. One poster claimed that the entry appeared on the September 19th page within seconds. I dispute that since I didn't find it. If the entire wikipedia community is not aware of a nomination for deletion then the process is flawed and any voting potentially skewed. I jumped to no conclusions. I responded to conditions I can plainly see with my own two eyes. Seems to me you are jumping to your own conclusions. William (Bill) Bean 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • According to the edit history, the article was nominated on the 19th, and indeed that's when the nomination page was made, and when said page was added to the logs. All at 04:06. So it would appear, from those logs, that you are simply mistaken. Being mistaken is really not a problem, but attacking others as a result is. >Radiant< 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw the nomination on the 18th. This may have to do with time zones though I thought wikipedia used a universal time stamp. William (Bill) Bean 16:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If this "dispute" has been moved to an alternate forum I have a right to know where that forum is. William (Bill) Bean 15:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you do. That's why I gave the link to AN/I above. --Bfigura (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there was a call earlier for other WQA-regulars to comment, I'll say that User:Wjbean has been uncompromising, rude, and unproductive. He has even taken to seeking out other people who've been reported here, to inform them that he suspects a Cabal is out to get him. I'd say we're stuck, unless the user has a change of heart and decides to abide by policies like WP:CIVIL, instead of turning his nose at them, saying "Wikipedia has lost its way." --Cheeser1 01:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "a cabal is out to get him" and attributing that to me is a misrepresentation of my note to AussieLegend and I take strong exception to it. That was rude and uncalled for. If you are going to hold me to some standard of civility you should abide by it yourself.
I reviewed the statements he made that brought about an "incivility" charge against him here. Though I found them pointed I did not consider them uncivil. Certainly not remotely as "offensive" as my own. I am simply asking for his opinion on the attitudes around here. The title of the thread, like a newspaper headline, was designed to draw his attention to my question. I am finding that your (collective) attitudes are reminiscent of a lynch mob. I will not back down until I hear from someone who has elected authority. I will abide by whatever decision that authority makes up to and including leaving here permanently. Respectfully (well as much as I can muster) William (Bill) Bean 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that everyone who gets reported here seems to wind up hurling complaints at the accuser and/or the WQA volunteers? "Lynch mob"?? Are you serious?? That's probably a more absurd thing than a "cabal." Nobody on Wikipedia has "elected authority" - this is not a democracy. Certainly not on the WQA, where regular volunteers and other community members attempt to resolve conflicts. We abide by policies on Wikipedia, and when people step out of line, the community steps in to help resolve it. You have apparently violated some policies. My saying so does not meant that I'm out to get you (not to attack, lynch, or cabal-ify you), and reporting your behavior does not constitute a personal attack. If you don't want to be accountable for what you say, don't say it. You are soliciting help from other users who've been reported here, in order to mount resistance against cooperating, against abiding by policy. That's something definitely worth mentioning here. And I'm sorry, but lashing out at people is not how you settle these complaints against you. You should stop it. --Cheeser1 00:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser1 First, I'm letting this drop as it's pointless. I'm simply responding to your question "why is it that everyone reported here seems to windup hurling complaints at the accuser and/or the EQA volunteers." My specific reason is that there is no process whereby the accused can mount a defense. Anyone placed here is automatically guilty. I cannot even use the word "verdict" since there's no formalized process to determine guilt. As a senior account creation date editor I find that highly irregular and extremely suspect. Since that does indeed appear to be the case I respectfully submit that the incivility flag is open to abuse. I am currently researching which WP: topic to report my concerns to. This is not the place though. My apologies for making this such a contentious issue. Finally, In my three plus (almost four) years here I have never once been cited for incivility for pointing out clear and suspicious violations of wikipolicy. I'm letting this drop here; I'll be continuing my investigation and reporting on it elsewhere. William (Bill) Bean 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not entirely sure 2005 qualifies you as a senior Wikipedian, and seniority or age is not a compelling reason to exempt you from WP:CIVIL. Every person who's been uncivil has a first time. Regardless of what evidence you may or may not have about your clean record or what you didn't do wrong, you can "mount a defense" by politely and civilly explaining your actions. Not by hurling attacks and accusations at everyone. That's just digging yourself a deeper incivility hole. While I appreciate your apology for making this a contentious issue, I wish you would recognize that that's exactly the point. --Cheeser1 14:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Good luck and best wishes on your 'investigation'. Dlabtot 15:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Sarcasm on a civility page? That wasn't really necessary. --Bfigura (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right; I should have found a better way to point out that William (Bill) Bean was continuing to make veiled threats. Dlabtot 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser1: I respectfully submit (no sarcasm intended) that you missed my point; that being that I see a clear potential for abuse when every wikipedian cited here is "guilty." I cited my time here to demonstrate that I'm not just some "rube" that fell off the turnip truck. It's 2004 not 2005. And I have cited many instances where misstatements have been made regarding my responses; they've been roundly ignored. A defense is useless if it's completely ignored. Thus my assertion that a cite here is an automatic guilty.
Bfigura: This is not the first time. Please see this. In fact my statements to Dlabtot did not take a more stern tone until s/he posted that. I've asked that Dlabtot's account be checked for possible past abuses. I do note that Dlabtot threw his/her first civility flag a mere two days after joining. That alone seems suspicious to me.
Perhaps we should take this up elsewhere. As was pointed out to me earlier this really doesn't belong here. Suggestions? William (Bill) Bean 16:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, there are plenty of instances where complaints here are found to be lacking substance. This is not a witch-hunt, lynching, or cabal. It's a group of people who try to resolve civility disputes by taking complaints, evaluating the situation, and attempting to resolve it. We do not determine guilt, and more importantly, we do not assume that anyone has violated WP:CIVIL (or other policies) until we've seen the situation. I will not dig up examples, but there are plenty of complaints here that are almost immediately turned away as either not having any violations, or having violations that aren't WQA issues. Secondly, Wikipedians are allowed to make complaints at any time, be it two days or two years after joining. You can't defend yourself by saying you've been here for a few years, nor can you dismiss Dlabtot for being here for two days. Wikipedians are also allowed to create new accounts or use multiple accounts. It is not appropriate to assume that Dlabtot is new to Wikipedia, nor is it fair to dismiss his complaint because he might appear to be new. --Cheeser1 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge all of your points. William (Bill) Bean 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I just want to interject with some reality to counter the untrue statement "In fact my statements to Dlabtot did not take a more stern tone until s/he posted that." 'That' being this diff 00:36, 20 September 2007, which actually took place, after, rather than prior to, William (Bill) Bean's vicious personal attack against me 00:22, 20 September 2007, which he still has not acknowledged as being uncivil. Dlabtot 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The only recognized authority on Wikipedia, in the sense you seem to be referring to (someone or someones who will make a binding decision), is the Arbitration Committee. If you feel that you need to open an ArbCom case to settle this matter, feel free; but there exists no "greater authority" of WQA who will come in and settle this. Wikipedia just doesn't generally work that way. ArbCom is generally the last resort of all disputes on Wikipedia, and I really don't think this has reached that point.


Also, please consider that if several people who are uninvolved in a matter say the same thing about your behavior regarding that matter, it just might be true. Referring to "lynch mobs" and "cabals" and so forth just smacks of paranoia, and reduces the impact of whatever reasoned argument you might be trying to make at the time. --Darkwind (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering this perhaps it is time to mark this as resolved, even if it has ended badly, it seems to have ended. Dlabtot 22:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikimachine

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereTry AN/I or Arbcom given the severity of the issues and the history of the editor. --Bfigura (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have recently walked into an ongoing "feud" spread over several articles between a number of users, one of which is a subject of a current arbitration case (Liancourt Rocks). I call this a "feud" because of the persistant animosity displayed by this editor against those who he does not agree with, whom he subject to automatic POV labelling. For example, arguments presented on the basis of WP:NPOV are repeatedly only met with accusations that editors are "using WP:NPOV to further their agenda" [511]. He even goes as far as to refuse a RfC on the basis that the general Wikipedia community is biased [512]. He publically states his disdain for other editors [513] and persistantly resorts to uncivil / childish language in response to perfectly reasonable comments [514][515][516][517][518][519][520].Phonemonkey 14:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

An arbitrator has proposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Proposed decision that this user be banned from the entire project for a year, so the matter has probably gone beyond the point where a Wikiquette alert is going to be helpful. If extreme disruption continues, you can post to WP:ANI for an admin to consider a block, or request a temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop. Newyorkbrad 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway

Stuck. Parties involved do not seem willing to mediate - please escalate via WP:DR, or drop, as deemed appropriate

Follow up: An RfC/U was created for this matter. --Cheeser1 04:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't always agreed with Tony, but I've long respected him and valued his contributions. This is why I'm quite distressed to find myself unable to resolve a dispute that evidently arose for no reason other than the fact that we disagreed with one another. I've tried very hard to communicate with him in a courteous manner, only to find all such attempts rejected. I want to once again be on good terms with Tony, and I seek advice on how to accomplish this (and hopefully avoid further conflict in the future).
The dispute began at Phil Sandifer's talk page, where I was expressing my disapproval of Phil's decision to overturn a bureaucrat's closure of Kelly Martin's RfA. Tony expressed strong disagreement with me (which was fine), but he did so in an uncivil manner. Eventually, the discussion migrated to Tony's talk page and began to have less and less to do with the RfA. The original thread (up to the point at which Tony removed it from the page) is preserved here. The most recent replies were posted after said removal (which occurred while I was asleep). I brought this to Tony's attention, and he declined to continue the discussion.
My perception of the events that followed is conveyed in a reply that I posted to Tony's talk page earlier today. I now reproduce it below (following the message to which I was responding):

I shall not apologise for saying that to tell an editor in good standing that he cannot edit a wiki page is unbelievably stupid. Certain editors should be bloody well ashamed of their conduct towards others, and I will not be hounded to withdraw this well founded opinion, by the fact that the despicable conduct has now been turned on me for saying that they're wrong, These attacks disgust me as they should disgust all Wikipedians. Further attempts to hound me will also be ignored. Clean up your act. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to note that from my perspective, this isn't even about the RfA any longer. Speaking purely for myself, I never once requested that you alter your opinion or apologize for expressing your belief that people were wrong. I merely argued my own opinion, which you then referred to as "disgusting," bullshit," "idiocy" and "pure wankery" (while removing the discussion before I'd had an opportunity to respond). You also referred to the closing bureaucrat and other unspecified editors as "loonies."
When I attempted to politely discuss my concerns regarding the above, you removed my message (which you deemed "utterly unacceptable") and took it upon yourself to also remove a good-faith discussion (once again labeled "wankery") from Phil Sandifer's talk page. When I politely requested that you explain how my previous post was unacceptable, you removed that message as well (this time claiming that I was "badgering" you).
I find it remarkable that you would accuse others of attempting to silence your opinions while simultaneously purging (and refusing to address) all criticisms directed toward you (and engaging in blatant incivility and personal attacks against everyone with whom you disagree).
As you condemn other users' "despicable conduct" and demand that they clean up their acts, I once again ask that you step outside of your glass house and examine your own behavior. I assume that you shall remove this response (presumably with a rude edit summary), and I can only hope that the Tony Sidaway I've long respected, defended and supported soon returns to the wiki. —David Levy 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure enough, Tony removed the message (with the edit summary "More attacks and false accusations ignored as promised.").
As noted above, what frustrates me the most is that this is not some random editor. If it were, I wouldn't bother pursuing the matter. But this is Tony Sidaway, and I hate being on bad terms with him. I don't believe that I've engaged in "attacks and false accusations," but I welcome any advice concerning where I've gone wrong and what I can do to resolve this dispute. I'm inviting Tony to take part in this discussion and convey his viewpoint (which obviously differs from mine). Thanks in advance for any assistance that you're able to provide. —David Levy 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, my off the top advice is to drop it. What he's taking your comments and questions for now is harrassment, and will not respond to it. So, if you drop it, in two months after the issues is dead and gone he might see that you had a valid point, but not if you bring it up. He will need to come to this realization himself. good luck. --Rocksanddirt 22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm displeased by some of Tony Sidaway's comments and tone in the past two days, but it seems clear from his last edit that he is disdainful and dismissive of this forum and/or of the concern that has been expressed, so I am not convinced that further discussion here will be productive. Newyorkbrad 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in seeing the edit history on this topic (including seeing it removed by the party in question and then restored with an edit summary saying that the WQA forum itself should be deleted) that it doesn't seem further discussion here will be helpful. Marking as Stuck. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already made my extreme distaste for this issue plain, and have asked the offending party to stop hounding me. He persists despite my every attempt to make it absolutely plain that I regard his attacks on others, and on myself when I intervened, as unacceptable. Carrying it to this forum is hard for me to regard as other than an attempt to keep this bleeding sore open. I strongly urge David Levy to stop trying to rake over this extremely painful matter, and hope that others will enjoin him to disengage, too. I myself have made every effort,without being intrusive about it, to communicate my extreme pain over David's conduct to him. He will not take the hint. My disgust remains but I expressed it and want to move on. Hopefully David will stop hounding Phil Sandifer, too, but it will be noted that I have not harassed David in any way. I ask him to extend the same courtesy to me. --Tony Sidaway 01:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Can someone (I use that term because Tony obviously isn't interested in continuing this discussion.) provide some diffs for these "attacks" that I've allegedly perpetrated? If I have written something that constitutes an attack, I want to know about it (as that certainly wasn't my intention).
2. Is it crazy for me to believe that our policies regarding civility and personal attacks are important and must be followed? Am I wrong to feel that Tony has no right to hurl such insults and then declare the conversation finished (claiming that anyone who expresses concern is harassing him)?
Was it unreasonable for me to attempt to discuss my concerns with Tony on his talk page? Isn't that what we're supposed to do?
Not once have I called Tony any names or accused him of acting in bad faith. I made it very clear that it was my respect and appreciation that led me to pursue amicable conflict resolution, and he responded by referring to me as a "troll" (as he removed this thread). Where have I gone wrong? I'm doing my best to set things right, and I'm truly depressed over my failure to do so. —David Levy 02:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's where you have gone wrong, David: by not letting it go. You've both hurt one another's feelings; neither of you feels you've done wrong or violated any policy; so just accept the impasse and move on. What good could you possibly hope to derive from continuing to drag out these grievances? Validation that you're the good guy? Some sort of formal censure? Do you wish Tony to magically assume a meeker, more repentant personality? Just focus on something else for a while. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I want nothing more than to resolve the conflict. I want to know how (other than by disagreeing with him) I've hurt Tony's feelings, and I want to make sure that it never happens again. Likewise, I want Tony to attempt to understand why people are upset with his behavior (and take these concerns seriously). Is that so unreasonable? —David Levy 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is unreasonable. Accept that there are behaviors we will never understand.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. I care about people's feelings and expect the same in return. I believe that WP:CIV and WP:NPA are important and shouldn't be cast aside. I believe that problems should be resolved (not buried). Perhaps I'm idealistic, but this is who I am. —David Levy 03:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Matter now at RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4. ViridaeTalk 02:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed consensus-building at Talk:D. James Kennedy

Stale.

Editors involved in quickly reverting material on the D. James Kennedy article they personally deem to be not following Wiki policies and guidelines are virtually uninvolved in the process of building a consensus on the talk page. Notably, Guettarda, Odd nature, FeloniousMonk and Orangemarlin are "the usual suspects." Their defenses of reversions range from personal attacks to claims of consensus being reached months ago (completely ignoring this) and more. Recent attempts to politely discuss the issues have been met with silence (last contribution from any of them on the talk page was September 27th, as you can see here. How is a dispute to be resolved and a consensus built when editors involved refuse to participate in any discussion? Should refusal to participate exempt such editors from dispute resolution and consensus building? Jinxmchue 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the discussion, and while there are a few times that people seem to be invoking SPADE, I'm not seeing hugely blatant personal attacks -- just a long content dispute with a few uncivil comments (ie "POV Warrior"). So, while people should be more civil (and I'll say so on the talk page), I don't think this is a cabal). To me, it looks more like a consensus. If you think you have valid points that haven't been heard, than the RfC is the right direction. However, if that fails to attract users who support your point, I would consider either dropping the matter (as you'd probably be going against the established consensus) or taking it up to Mediation or some such (I don't think this is the best way to go, but it is an option). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Raidon04

Resolved.

[521] Do I need to say anything more? The Prince of Darkness 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User warned. Hopefully he's just a new user not aware that standard internet ettiquette is not the standard at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. He needs to understand that free use images are more preferable than fair use images. The Prince of Darkness 20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
That too, although that's not a Wikiquette issue. Anyway, he's blanked his talk page since I posted my warning, which of course communicates that he's read and understood the warning. We'll see if his behaviour changes from here on in. Sarcasticidealist 20:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also put those images up for deletion. Blatant copyright violations, and fair use equivalents were already in the article. --Cheeser1 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Race-Hate website, article links to it

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereReferred to the reliable sources noticeboard. --Cheeser1 21:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me if this is a "Race-hate" web-site, and advise me what I should do when seeing it presented as a "Reliable Source". Linking from the home-page I find blanket references to Palestinians as "Arab terrorists", hatred of human rights observers who report on what the Hebron settlers are doing and a virtual justification of (but no link to) the abusive behaviour of one of the settler women caught on camera. It's not just the web-site that is dubious, because the same (?) group of people were, for instance, accused by an Israeli "senior military man" of carrying out "a pogrom against the Arabs of Hebron, with no provocations on the Palestinian side" in 2002. I'm seeing the link recommended in Talk and see it is linked to from the lead of the same article here. PRtalk 17:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any wikiquette issue involved here or is this just a debate about a source? Dlabtot 18:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the reliable sources notice board is the place to go. and off the top, it doesn't look like a reliable source. --Rocksanddirt 18:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Although calling someone a terrorist is terribly uncivil, this is more of a content/sourcing dispute. But yeah, that does not look like a reliable source in any way (racist fringe theories of a self-published website). --Cheeser1 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The touch-stone for race-hate websites (as I see it) is the Institute of Historical Review (since everyone agrees we'd not link there). The question boils down to "Is this as bad or worse than David Irving?". The Wikiquette issue becomes "Should I revert with a comment about race-hate sites"?, and, if other editors persist in including that link, should I then take it to RfC, AN, AN/I or direct to ArbCom and seek to have them blocked? PRtalk 21:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask, if need be. If/when its resolved that the source is unsuitable, if people still insist on including it, you can either make a request for comment (probably of the "society" variety) or just report it to the administrator's noticeboard (being sure to explain that these sources have been determined to be race/hate sites). --Cheeser1 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to be awkward, but this is not a "Reliable Source" question. I would think it would be quite difficult to disqualify the IHR from ever being referenced in the encyclopedia again on grounds of accuracy, I'd be surprised if it contains material as contested as what appeared in the books. We don't use it because we associate David Irving with race-hatred. I suggest that www.hebron.org.il should not be linked to for the same reason (except much, much more so). Frankly, I don't want to have to trawl through their claims to separate the wheat from the chaff (just as I'm not prepared to go to David Irving to check his work). I don't go to the IHR site because I may pick up something that is provably false and accidentally use it here or elsewhere, giving rise to immediate nasty accusations against my motives and views (personal very nasty experience of this, right here in WP). We should not use a source entitling articles "Palestinian duplicity" for exactly the same reason we don't use sources speaking of "Jewish duplicity" (that example actually comes from a different source, but you know what I mean). PRtalk 11:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Eyes Wide Shut wikipage

Resolved.

A content dispute, a sock puppet case, two users blocked, and legal threats...it's why I hang around here.


Will someone please, please peek in at the Eyes Wide Shut wikipage? A link [at the external links] to a document on my website [522] which I did not add to wikipedia (I will swear on a stack of bibles) has been removed by editor MarnetteD. The link was up for over a year. My website is purely scholarly and offers no self-promotion at all (some of my work isn't even signed by me at all!). I would hope that the link could be restored. But MarnetteD, in my opinion, is acting stubborn and I have become disheartened and distressed by this intractable situation. Wikipedia is a wonderful place for students to look first (on whatever subject) and my link at the Eyes Wide Shut site can only enhance students' examination of the theme.

It is my personal failing, but I find the wikipedia rules kind of murky. I have various scholarly documents on my website [523], each relating to a different subject. So I myself put a link to the Barry Lyndon wiki page, and the Full Metal Jacket wiki page; I also had a document linked to the John Milton wiki page; and to the Alfred Schnittke wiki page. All of these links are to different stand-alone scholarly documents which have been put online for purely scholarly purposes. MarnetteD erased all of these links. This editor has accused me of "self-promotion" because of the various links. But the links are to very different subjects, and are all scholarly, and involve no self-promotion at all (as a quick glance to any of the sites will show). I feel I have been done a great wrong, for I want to be a part of wikipedia and I hope an impartial judge of my work that was originally linked to the wiki-page(s) in question will restore the link(s) which have been up for over a year, links which many students from around the world have visited for their benefit, and for the enhancement of wikipedia (and not for my own enhancement, as a quick glance at my website(s) will show: there is NO self-promotion!). If I can have only ONE link, please may I have the "Eyes Wide Shut" link restored? Thank you for considering my predicament.Scrooby 05:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I`m not an expert on WP:EL, but it looks to me like this is a site that would be eligible to link to under the policy, but not required to link to under the policy. This means that the question of whether or not to link to the site is one that must be settled by consensus - it`s a content dispute. Because I`ve had next to no involvement in film-related articles (and because last time I offered an opinion on a non-Wikiquette issue on this page, I regretted it not long thereafter), I won`t be a part of forging this consensus - I just wouldn`t value my opinion enough. If you want to get more voices involved, try WP:THIRD (assuming this dispute has been limited to the two of you) or WP:RFC. If things between you and User:MarnetteD become uncivil or otherwise difficult (from a stylistic rather than a substantial perspective), please feel free to bring it up here.
As an aside, I think you might be interpreting "self-promotion" a little narrowly. It needn`t mean promotion of your*self*; it can also include promotion of your own work, which I gather is what MarnetteD means here (not that I necessarily think you`re guilty of self-promotion, since it wasn`t you who added the links in the first place). Good luck! Sarcasticidealist 05:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I concur that it might be up to consensus, but frankly, the status quo version seems to have contained the link. Boldly removing the link requires more than just "rm spamlink" or "omg self promotion." It's clearly not spam, and it doesn't become self-promotion until Scrooby says "hey, what about the status quo version, which included a link to my site?" I mean, if somebody removed all links from Pokemon pages to Bulbapedia (a Pokemon wiki), and the owner of Bulbapedia said "hey what happened to those links?" it would be just as much an issue of self-promotion as it would be of bold edits that go against status quo consensus. --Cheeser1 05:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was getting a little ahead of myself - before you can have consensus, you need to have discussion, and before you can have that you need to stop the blind reverts. Good catch on that. MarnetteD needs to be committed to discussing this on the talk page. Sarcasticidealist 05:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Sarcasticidealist. I think MarnetteD had demonstrated his/her opinion in the matter(s) and I suspect discussion on the talk page won't get anywhere. I briefly tried, and was roundly smacked down. So I'm sad about this. I just looked at WP:THIRD and it looks quite complicated!Scrooby 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Sarcasticidealist. I have gone back to the Eyes Wide Shut talk page and see that you have added a helpful comment. Thank you very much. I appreciate it greatly.Scrooby 06:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The link appears to have been boldy removed, and then when reverted, MarnetteD reverted the revert (repeatedly), initiating an edit-war. S/he should have brought it to the talk page. There is a discussion in the talk page but, oddly, it's a third party in this dispute, who goes on a very long, uncivil tirade about MarnetteD. I issued a bit of a warning. --Cheeser1 05:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I went back to the Eyes Wide Shut talk page, though I said I was through with it (because I was saddened by MarnetteD's attitude) and I can roundly say that I am not Ouillah, and while Ouillah may or may not agree with my situation, I have no opinion at all at this time of Ouillah's comments. But now I have learned a new word: sock-puppet. And isn't it unfair to be accused of being someone else? I would complain about this, but I am getting worn out now. Scrooby 05:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

While this situation has been resolved with Scrooby's being blocked I just found these two little gems [524], [525] clearly disproving his statement above. Considering the vitriolic personal attacks that this editor and his sockpuppet made against me I just wanted to note this for the record. MarnetteD | Talk 15:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sarcasticidealist and Cheeser1. I had just written a long reply to Sarcasticidealist, then something went wrong. Oh well. Sarcasticidealist, you say I should go to WP:THIRD? Cheeser1, do you agree? Or can someone fix the problem from here? Thank you again for your reply, and you too Sarcasticidealist.Scrooby 05:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I am so very pleased that this issue has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I have thanked Sarcasticidealist in the proper page (Eyes Wide Shut talk page), but here I want to thank Cheeser1 for assisting; namely, restoring the status quo of the Eyes Wide Shut page which endured for over a year without a single other editor raising an issue. In fact, I have received many positive email responses to my link from people around the world during this time. This can only be a help to Wikipedia -- and not to me specifically, because, personally, I get nothing out of it (nothing sold on my website; no self-promotion; nothing!). Thank you again. I am very pleased that the "system" worked properly here and I will continue to praise wikipedia far and wide. Thank you for you help, Cheeser1.Scrooby 19:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! MarnetteD strikes again! Cheeser1! Sarcasticidealist! I wrote an informative discussion on the merit of my link at the "Barry Lyndon" wiki site talk page[526] and the "Full Metal Jacket" wiki site [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Metal_Jacket] talk page. These sites have each contained a link to separate scholarly articles which involve no self-promotion (the "Full Metal Jacket" article doesn't even have my name on it!!). For over a year these links have endured, and no one ever took issue. Indeed, I have received much praise from students and scholars from around the world. The way I see it, worthwhile external links can only reflect well on Wikipedia. All I ask is for the status quo to be restored. MarnetteD has removed the links without a single comment on the talk page!Scrooby 21:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I have to add, Scrooby, that I just had a look at your earlier talk page discussion with MarnetteD (I had hitherto been under the impression that there hadn't been any such discussion), and you rather seriously violated WP:AGF in assuming that somebody had a personal vendetta against you because she/he removed a link. Some of your comments, especially the ones surrounding grammar, were pretty uncivil, as well. Whatever else comes out of this, please familiarize yourself with those policies. Sarcasticidealist 06:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarcasticidealist. Point taken. I agree, I should have been calmer. I guess I was in a kind of shock. It wasn't just one link, it was all of my Kubrick links! So I was kind of in shock. However, generally speaking, I think wikipedia can be brought into disrepute if the editors are not using proper grammar. Wouldn't you agree?Scrooby 06:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Good grammar in articles is essential. Good grammar on talk pages is merely desirable, especially given that there are quite a number of people making valuable contributions to Wikipedia whose grammatical skills are very poor (sometimes owing to a lack of fluency in English, and sometimes owing just to whatever it is that causes people to have lousy grammar in their native language). Certainly it would be nice if all of these people suddenly started using perfect grammar, but I'd rather have them stick around with middling grammar than leave the project entirely. Sarcasticidealist 06:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Sarcasticidealist. I am very pleased to have found such a pleasant user on wikipedia such as yourself.Scrooby 20:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

69.115.34.186

Resolved. Issue appears to have been settled by discussion on the article's talk page. The edit warring and incivility seem to have ceased. --Cheeser1 00:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This IP adress keeps reverting my edits on LeChuck. My images are a lot better than the previous, and they don't really display the character itself. The best thing would be to either block the IP adress or semi protect the page. The Prince of Darkness 13:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute, not a Wikiquette issue. Further, it appears the two of you are close to breaking (if you haven't already) WP:3RR. Also, after looking at the page, your comments here appear to strongly violate WP:CIVIL. I'd suggest that you be WP:COOL and read there are no angry mastadons. --Bfigura (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above. The only Wikiquette issue is the incivility with which you are both behaving. A block of User:69.115.34.186 would be absolutely inappropriate. I'm personally of the view that page protection would be excessive, but you can take it to WP:RFPP if you'd like.
In the meantime, though, you should take User:Bfigura's words to heart - User:69.115.34.186 is no more in the wrong than you are, here. Sarcasticidealist 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I also agree; to quote a famous historical figure, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Don't open a Wikiquette alert if you're not prepared to have your own behavior examined, and comments like "I will keep on reverting you till you give up"[527] display a fundamental lack of understanding about the wiki process. --Darkwind (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
A note was left on The Prince of Darkness's talk regarding this discussion, but given the lack of response, I'm marking as stale. --Bfigura (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I have also commented at the article in question. --Cheeser1 19:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pushing POV

Stuck. This is essentially a content dispute involving a disagreement about content and a

User Jtrainor is trying to push his POV on some articles about russian military tech. For example here and here Necator 19:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll check the edit history, you will find that it is Necator who is adding unsourced irrelevant material and trying to establish a POV. Jtrainor 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This looks a lot like a content dispute. If either of you thinks that it is in fact a Wikiquette dispute, please provide some specific diffs. Sarcasticidealist 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
My conclusion too. Aside from the two of you ramping up into an revert war, I didn't see anything terribly objectionable. Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that its violation of Wikiquette in terms of
  • Don't ignore questions.
  • If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.

Because Jtrainor does not provide any sources when asked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necator (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some diffs. Sarcasticidealist 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
As an example [528] -> [529] and here [530] Necator 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the original sentence merely stated that this capability was claimed, I agree that there's no onus on any Wikipedia editor to prove that it's physically possible. I also agree that it is inappropriate to add a claim that such a capability would be physically impossible without sourcing it. I'm still not sure that this is a Wikiquette issue, though, so I won't provide any further comment here, and would encourage you to open a WP:RFC on this issue if my opinion doesn't solve the problem. Sarcasticidealist 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
It could be a subject of WP:RFC if there were some constructive discussions. But i, myslef, did provide severeal sources to prove my opinion and Jtrainor didnt provide even one. Necator 21:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Again, to me this seems to be a content dispute, but since we're all here: I agree with Sarcasticidealist that the only source needed is a source proving the claim (regardless of how true it is). Remember, the guideline for wikipedia is: verifiability, not truth. Now, if Jtrainor would like to counter that claim, he needs to provide sourcing, otherwise it's pure original research. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Now, if Jtrainor would like to counter that claim, he needs to provide sourcing, otherwise it's pure original research" But the problem is Jtrainor does not provide any sources at all and keep pushing his original research by brute force. There is nothing about content. Its about behaviour. Necator 23:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. And since he's participating in this discussion, he should have seen our comments. Just to be sure though, I'll leave a note on his page. If he keeps it up after being warned not to, take it to AN/I. --Bfigura (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well... he keeps it up [531] Necator 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
From Jtrainor page: "The consensus seems to be that a source is needed to justify the the claims about the missile withstanding the blast (regardless of how true it is)" It seems like you are not clear with what is going on. It's not about one article. There at least 2 different mentioned by me above. And if you check the list of his contributions, you'll realise that such kind of behaviour is normal for this user. Necator 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL. Also, don't try to ignore the issue with S-400_Triumf. You are clearly pushing POV with your edits to that page-- people should check the history there and make comparisons to how it was before Necator started editing. With regards to the Bulava, as long as it's made clear that it's purported capability to survive nuclear detonations is simply claimed and not fact, I have no issue with it. Jtrainor 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Issue with S-400_Triumf is absolutely the same. I did provide you sources you did provide me phrase "I will continue to revert your attempted POV-pushing" The diff [532]Necator 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) As mentioned above, this is not a content dispute forum. We only deal with cases of Wikiquette, which this has ceased to be. If you're interested in getting someone to give you an opinion on a content dispute, please try WP:3O or Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project. Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • shrug* Works for me. Necator wanted to bring you folks into this, not I. Jtrainor 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in that I agree with Bfigura. This is a content dispute, more or less, so it's not WQA material, but I would say that a source is a source, especially when we say "____ claims that ____" - trying to contradict a sourced claim (especially one like this) with an unjustified claim should be reverted, and it shouldn't be re-added until a source is found for this "it is physically impossible" statement. There's no burden on the editor to prove the claims of the Russian government. --Cheeser1 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of that? [533] Sources were provided and once again changed to original research. So, i can not agree that this is content dispute. There is no dispute at all. There are sources from one side and reverting from another. I've change the template back Necator 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Has the S-400 been tested against or shot down a stealth aircraft or not? If it has not (it hasn't), then any claims to it's performance against stealth aircraft are just that, -claims-. Jtrainor 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jtrainor - it's not up to Necator to verify the claims that can already be verified in reliable sources. It's also not up to him to prove your assertions wrong. You are making the fallacy of assuming things without evidence, based on your belief that statements to the contrary require proof. This is not valid. Certainly, we expect something to be physically impossible until it is known or proven to be possible. But you have no proof of its physical impossibility, nor do you have a source saying so. That means there's no basis or source for your claim]. (Here I'm referring to the missile thing, but it's the same across the board.) If you want to call attention to the fact that these are claims, or that these assertions (despite being in reliable sources) are not scientifically proven, then maybe you can discuss making such a change, and if others agree, then do it. Pushing those disputed changes on the article isn't going to help. Please abide by these policies. --Cheeser1 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious you are only paying attention to one aspect of this dispute. Unless you're going to look at BOTH articles and Necator's history on both of them, I have nothing more to say to you about this as you are not paying attention. Jtrainor 00:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Jtrainor: I'd like to reiterate what was said further above: Wikiquette Alerts is a forum for resolving interpersonal disputes and difficult communication brought on by violations of Wikipedia's civility policies (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc) and guidelines (WP:COOL, WP:POT, et al). We are not in a position here to resolve content disputes or to take sides in matters of content - if one of us can contribute to a content dispute, we will take it up in the appropriate article talk page. In short, WQA is here to help people get along and to educate them on WP civility policies - to help cool you guys down and get you back to a point where you can discuss the matter civilly.
If the situation is such that one person is pushing POV and ignoring consensus (I haven't read the whole discussion, so I can't judge), a more appropriate forum would either be WP:AN/I or WP:RFC/U, depending on the severity. Please also consult the dispute resolution page for more information on the overall process and the various options available to you. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User Geoeg

Work in Progress Work in Progress - comments welcome

This newly registered account drew attention when a request was listed for a third opinion. It's not yet clear whether the articles written by the user should be {{COI}}/{{COI2}} tagged.

The user has persistently violated the civility policy in his posts to npov editors who have attempted to address article issues appropriately.

Sections: Move proposal and What is it?   Examples: 1 2 3 4
Sections: Petr Vaníček notability and Third opinion.   Examples: 1 2 3 4 5(a) 5(b)

The article talk pages are not long (articles are new). — Athaenara ✉ 03:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a COI here, but the implied legal threat made here is more troubling. I'm going to leave a warning for the user. --Bfigura (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as the rest of the COI goes, this seems to more of an issue for the conflict of interest noticeboard, since most of the issues here stem from an intimate involvement of the editor with the subject in question. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, I missed that one. It supports the perception of bullying, big time. You're quite right, also, that this needs some COI noticeboard attention. — Athaenara ✉ 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Geoeg. — Athaenara ✉ 08:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As Geoeg's incivility continues it is a Wikiquette as well as a COI issue. I think it is appropriate for this section to remain open a bit longer for input from other editors. — Athaenara ✉ 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have had much interaction with other editors; you and I are the only ones who challenged him, and he immediately lashed out abusively at both of us. In his latest, he calls me "Dickhawk", and the tags I placed as "naughty repellant-tags." He doesn't seem to be willing to listen to what the tags mean or are good for. Dicklyon 21:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have identified his sockpuppet and probable real identity (now looking more likely that my original conjecture was correct) on the COI page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Geoeg. Dicklyon 21:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

After looking at all the pages, it seems this still could be further addressed. I'll respond on Talk:Vaníček analysis, since that's where the dispute seems to be. But in short, while legal threats and personal attacks are unacceptable, so is trying to expose someone's identify. (I know this was more of attempting to find the reason behind a COI, but it's probably still against policy). (I'm not sure it would fall under WP:OVERSIGHT, but it's still not a good idea). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments there. If it's true there's a policy I violated, I apologize. But please try to find it and point it out to me so I can learn. Dicklyon 03:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. After looking, it's not really against the letter of policy (WP:HA#Posting_of_personal_information would be the relevant one), but it might be somewhat against the spirit. I'm saying 'might' because I think there's a balance between privacy and COI here, and I don't know which end should carry more weight. (I.e., the right to personal privacy, or the right to point out someone's COI by naming their involvement). In any event, I think you were acting in good faith, so I don't think it's an issue. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
On the question of how far editors should go in looking into someone's real life identity, while investigating a COI case, please see a recent item on the User talk page of arbitrator Charles Matthews discussing this. See also Durova's comment in the same thread. These two editors believe you should not reveal the real-life identity of anyone on-wiki if you have determined it only through your searches off-wiki. If there is an actual diff where the user says who they are, the case is different. (According to Matthews, Arbcom has been known to discuss real-life identities on its own internal mailing list). If you have seen a number of these issues on the regular wiki pages, you will note that editors can use careful language to circumvent having to explicitly state someone's real-life identity even in cases where it is rather obvious (e.g. through the whois information on a web site where the user's views are stated). EdJohnston 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Geoeg's violations of civility and no personal attacks policies have been larded with untruths as well. For example, in one message which he posted twice at 23:51 and 23:52 UTC on 8 October:

  • False: Lyon "is trying to separate" the two disputes
  • True: Lyon's request for a third opinion listed them together.
  • False: someone "said loud and clear: Dicklyon has been bashing" on Talk:Vaníček analysis
  • True: Zvika, the only other editor who had posted on either talk page before then, had not said that.
Well, to be fair, Zvika's first talk comment did refer to "your fascinating mutual bashing above." In a subsequent edit he rebuked Geoeg for bashing and denied that I was bashing; anyway, this is all the Geoeg referred to, I think, in his "loud and clear: Dicklyon has been bashing". His incivility and fact distortion in support of his POV are about the strongest I've ever seen, but I've never found any wikipedia way to successfully deal with that unless some admin notices and gets outraged enough. Dicklyon 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

These examples are only two of many such distortions of fact. Might a brief block have some effect on Geoeg's attack posting and disruptive edit warring? — Athaenara ✉ 22:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

NCCC article editors

We have reached an road block in trying to get User:Coterminous to work as a team member and not to attack other users on a personal level. User:LoverOfArt, who is the one being attacked is having a hard time fighting the urge to respond in kind, but he is trying. We currently have full protection set on the page, but even that has not helped the issue. The excessively long posts by User talk:Coterminous have added to the problem. To review the situation, please see the posts on the following pages:

Thank you for any assistance you can provide in this matter. Dbiel (Talk) 18:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly issues there to be addressed, but they may have already gone beyond the scope of this board (given that the user in question has already received a stern warning from Philippe). Is there one place where centralized discussion of the issues is taking place that I should keep any eye on? And do you think it is worthwhile to file a WP:RFC or a WP:RFC/U]? Best, --Bfigura (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. The centralized discussion point is the article talk page: Talk:National Civilian Community Corps Dbiel (Talk) 21:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Only because you asked, I am going to include the most recent edit summary as it relates to a different page.
National Civilian Community Corps/Criticisms of the National Civilian Community Corps‎; 19:30 . . (-1,678) . . User:72.75.55.211 (Talk) (Deleted My Copy from this page - I consider it an Insult to be listed in the same company as LoverofArt (signed: Coterminous))
Dbiel (Talk) 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User : Anastrophe.

User:Anastrophe. put this in a talk page about me: "you seem to have come completely unhinged." He states that I am pushing a POV (06:25, 11 October 2007 Anastrophe. (Talk | contribs) (90,083 bytes) (Undid revision 163748979 by WikiDon (talk) a one day old interview - appropriate for wikinews, not WP. WP:WEIGHT probably also.), which I never have been accused of, and am personally offended by. He knows NOT of any of my views on Dick Cheney or Jimmy Carter, but yet supposes that he does. This is RUDE and OFFENSIVE. WikiDon 07:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll post something on his talk page - some of his language is a violation of WP:CIVIL, in my view. That said, you might want to take a look at your own behaviour. Writing in all caps (shouting) is uncivil, as is giving an order to another editor ("LEAVE IT"). Besides that, your behaviour (as well as Anastrophe's) is conducive to edit-warring, since you're both reverting each others' edits rather than waiting for consensus to develop. Moreover, I would strongly advise that instead of being as defensive as you have been ("EXCUSE ME!?"), you should calm down and try to discuss this rationally. Not only is that the Wikipedia way, it will be more likely to draw in other editors, which is the only way that a consensus will develop here.
I make no comment regarding the content dispute itself. Sarcasticidealist 08:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I apologize to user wikidon for my 'unhinged' comment which was uncivil; it was in response to incivility directed towards me. fighting fire with fire in this case only lent itself to a bigger fire. i stand by my rationale for reverting the edit. Anastrophe 15:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Anastrophe. WikiDon, are you prepared to accept responsibility for the errors you have made as well? Sarcasticidealist 21:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Sarcasticidealist for mediating. I should not have been so snappy. My reason, when I see an edit, I look to see what the users contributions are like before making an automatic revert. I get upset with Wikipedians who just make the automatic revert with out looking at the contributor and believing in "Good Faith". If I see a contribution from a brand new user, I suspect it, but if it is from an established contributor, who seems to make quality edits, I step back and judge it differently. If I don't like it, I go to them. I just don't do an auto revert. The edit was made not with my POV, it was cited, and it was from a credible source. Like him or not, Mr. Cheney has come under more serious scrutiny than almost any other U.S. Vice-President in history. In days gone by, VP's were political advisories, and were largely ignored, dismissed, or sent off on diplomatic and goodwill missions. If criticism becomes part of history, it should be in there. There is criticism about Nixon, Johnson, Truman, Lincoln, etc, etc, et al, at nauseam. So, when I got reverted and cited in the revert for POV, I was not happy. The edit summary box was not the place to question the contribution. I try to present both sides of the story, and only get information from what I am certain are reliable-credible sources. I attempt to maintain a high quality in my edits. Now, as for ALL-CAPS, I use the CAPS on certain words as a point of emphasis. Shouting is when someone types the entire sentence in ALL-CAPS. From now on I will try to use the bold feature to emphasize words. In closing, my main request is: If you see an edit, check the contributor and see if they seem to be of good faith, and then maybe contact them on a talk page instead of just shooting first, firing again a second time, and then saying: "Stop police!" Additionally, what kind of product would be produced if nobody communicated? This idea of not want to communicate just doesn't fly in this environment. Again, sorry for my snappiness, but in my edits I try hard to earn respect, not like some vandal just breezing by with crap. Spend more time running of the yahoos than berating quality contributors. WikiDon 19:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand your frustration. One exercise that I would suggest trying if you ever again find that somebody is reverting your edits without communicating: leave their reversion and post on the talk page politely asking for an explanation of the reversion. If they respond politely, then you can start the process of developing consensus on the content issue (if necessary using WP:THIRD and WP:RFC along the way). If they don't respond, you can revert their reversion after a few days. If they revert it again after that without participating in your attempts at discussion, they're clearly in the wrong, and you'll find yourself much more supported by the Wikipedia community if you need to involve outside editors.
In this particular content dispute, hopefully both of you are now ready to tone down the language a little (and above all, don't argue about who was uncivil to who first). I see that another editor has involved himself in the discussion; hopefully more will (if none do, I'd suggest creating a new heading on the talk page and each briefly summarizing your views; that way, new editors can get involved without having to deal with the vitriol under the initial heading).
One final caution: while I'm glad that you've agreed to stop using all-caps, bolding too should be used very sparingly. To the maximum extent possible, let your words do the talking. Best of luck to you both. Sarcasticidealist 20:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Dave souza

Work in Progress Work in Progress - comments welcome

Dave souza (talk · contribs) is an administrator who has made various personal attacks. He first referred to me as a troll to which I asked him to withdraw his attack or support it. Then he responded further with another personal attack.

Are adminstrators allows to get away with abusing people with personal attacks? I have been on wikipedia for over a year, and haven't ever received this treatment from another user let alone an adminstrator. C56C 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing abuse or a attack here. It looks as though some of your edits may have violated WP:BLP, and Dave souza said as much. Stating that users was incorrectly removing information, when she appeared to be following policy does raise questions as to your motivation. I'm not saying that you were acting in bad faith, just that your actions might have given others that impression. Perhaps Dave souza should have AGF-d a bit more and not called you a troll, but I don't think it meets the level of a personal attack. (See WP:SPADE, although this can be a fine line issue). However, I'll mark this as open so others will comment. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody explain to me how The Faith Healers or The New York Review of Books is NOT a WP:RS? Or how using these references violate WP:BLP? Then explain why I was called a "troll" and asked if I "speak English" by an admin by using these sources. C56C 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Also I was pointing out that she removed the tag.[534] I still think she incorrectly removed it because she didn't provide a source, but in the edit summary said "no doubt". I don't honestly see how anyone can disagree that she "incorrectly" removed it as dmonstrated later when she removed the claim when ONLY pressed further. Seeing those edits further convinced me that she mistakenly removed the Richard Roberts material I added (she left no detailed reason for those reverts). C56C 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I agree with you regarding the 'troll' and 'speaking english' comments. They were uncivil. However, I think a large portion of this could have been avoided had everyone exercised more WP:AGF. If your comment on gwen's page had assumed good faith and asked her why she was doing what she was, Dave probably wouldn't have responded. (And of course, had he AGF'd more, we wouldn't be having this discussion now). In any event, Gwen seems to have explained her rationale, so this seems to be largely academic now. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. The diffs themselves show the complaint to be frivolous. Please see also these responses on WP:ANI to your question about The New York Review of Books. C56C, I suggest you try to take in, in good faith, the explanations you do get, instead of ignoring them and going forum-shopping. One board is enough. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC).
So an administrator shouldn't WP:AGF with a long time editor over an addition, but can just call someone a "troll"? It isn't "forum shopping": The AN/I was about getting opinions on the BLP, this was about, as the page says "Wikiquette." C56C 17:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
So, after looking at the bit on ANI, I have to agree with Bishonen. You've gotten an answer from multiple people. Just because you don't like the answer given isn't an excuse to keep asking more people in the hope that someone disagrees. And yes, while ANI does have a different focus than here, I think the core issue is the same. And regarding the comments from Bishonen that you feel were uncivil, I think a better response than lodging a complaint here would have been to try and convince Bishonen that you weren't one. (Perhaps by apologizing for being a bit snippy to Gwen, gracefully ceding to consensus on the BLP issue, then suggesting that you thought your edits were in good faith, and that you didn't appreciate being called a troll). Bringing an issue to a different board while neglecting to mention that the issue had been addressed on ANI could look like form-shopping, even if that wasn't your intent. Just my $0.02, --Bfigura (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Thewinchester

Stale.

I'd like to report The Winchester who it seems to always attack the editor or creator of an article, where he disagrees with the article rather than limit his critique to the article itself. Mine is not the only case where his comments have been uncivil and appear to be an attempt to aggrivate the situation rather than resolve them. When I have pointed out that I considered the comments that he made to be inappropriate and not constructive he has continued to abuse me as an editor.Dan arndt 07:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dan - please provide some specific diffs of The Winchester's alleged Wikiquette violations. Sarcasticidealist 07:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Civility ==
Normally I would let comments such as you posted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QStik Records (2nd nomination) pass without making an issue of them however judging from comments from other editors you seem to be making a habit of posting uncivil comments about other users. There are a number of issues that I wish to raise with you firstly:

"The editor in question who has recreated the article is well known to members of my local project for his self-promotion activities on the wiki"

What are these alledged 'self-promotion' activities - as I have no relationship with any of the bands or record labels or in fact any of the other articles I have edited

I replaced the article after I had provided what I considered reasonable justification that the article was notable - I still disagree with the rationale on why it was considered non-notable but am willing to accept that others have differing views (a view that you don't seem to take).

I also take offence that you have suggested that I be blocked

"issue the user a stern warning (and maybe find an admin who might consider a block for at least 72hrs)"

which according to Wikipedia's guidelines on civility is a serious matter.

I am not trying to start an edit war or have any ongoing conflict with you but just want you to be aware that your comments are hurtful and are not constructive to the Wikipedia community. Dan arndt 09:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • If you can't handle the heat, then get out of the kitchen. You are out of line with your constant recreation of articles, and you are out of line with your comments now which amount to nothing more than winging about some comments which were stating what is blindingly obvious to anyone aware of your activities. Please take a long walk off a very short electronic pier. Thewinchester (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== "Responding to a moron" ==
Why don't you try to learn how to act in civil manner towards other Wiki editors? Perhaps you should peruse Wikipedia's policy against name calling. There was no need for that insult. ExRat 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

==Recent changes==
A user decided to take it upon themselves to make massive changes to this infobox without any discussion on talk, precedent, and not withstanding the fact these changes were just adding unnecessary pollution to this infobox. If you'd like to make wholesale changes, please as per standing community practice open a discussion on the talk page first instead of just going headlong into it. Thewinchester (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but those changes added use without having any effect on existing pages that use the template. You do not own the page (WP:OWN) even though you created it! I can make good faith improvements to the template on my own, and I saw now reason to discuss them on the talk page as they just added functionality without hurting any existing instances of the template. As for my improvements "polluting" the infobox, I respectfully disagree. Also, your reversions broke many instances of the template that use the new features. --CapitalR 18:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Then here's a novel thought - build consensus before making major changes. It's simple, and something you should have known if you are such a prolific editor as you claim. Boohoo that the reversion broke the implementation on some pages... that's likely caused by your poor understanding and failure to use parser functions properly, which won't get you an ounce of sympathy from the community because you were the one who caused it. OWN isn't going to win the game here either, as there were a large amount of significant editors both on an off wiki who contributed to this template, and already a large number of templates have become depreciated because of this one because it's so well structured (particually because it learned from the lessons of how and why these predecessors failed to gain acceptance). Provide a reasonable rationale for the changes as to why they are needed, and then the community can talk about it and thrash it out to decide if they are appropriate or necessary. I'll tell you now that I would oppose the changes as they not only are they infobox pollution (infoboxes should be short, simple, and contain only top-level information which is relevant across all areas they could be used in), and in any case added US-leaning systemic bias which is strongly discouraged. Thewinchester (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with CapitalR. This is not your template, Thewinchester. Consensus is not required for changes, no matter how significant. I, myself, have watched beautiful articles and templates I've created get all edited by other editors. That is the WikiWay. "Pollution" is your opinion, not a Wikipedia policy. See: WP:OWN, WP:Be Bold. Your approach in this discussion above has been unpleasant and unhelpful, Thewinchester, and your reversions are inappropriate. You may ask for protection, then you would perhaps need consensus for my fellow Administrators and I to consider it. Thank you.—Markles 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

are just a few examples... as I said this is not the first time either - User_talk:WJBscribe/Archive_6#Block_on_Thewinchester. Dan arndt 10:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, that's not exactly what was meant by "diffs" -- what you pasted is a little hard to follow, since it flows into the existing discussion here, etc. In the future, when someone asks for a "diff", this is what they mean. --Darkwind (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Bamadude & User:Clarityfiend

Stuck. Referred to ANI

This user has made what I consider to be two inappropriate additions to Taxi (TV series). When I reverted the first of these, he accused me of conspiring against him with another Taxi editor, User:Wack'd, with whom he had a separate dispute regarding the order of episodes, and an edit war ensued, which also involved a third editor, User:Croctotheface. Things finally quieted down. Then I inadvertently started it up again when I deleted the second addition without checking to see who added it. Of course, it was Bamadude. After some more hostile words both ways, the addition was turned into a reference, which I could have (reluctantly) lived with since it was fairly inconspicuous. However, Bamadude discovered that some bot didn't like having images as references and put the backs of DVD covers in their own section in the main article. I offered to take this to Wikipedia:Third Opinion, but Bamadude accused me of giving in to my emotions and refused to consider it. So here I am. Clarityfiend 03:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Clarityfiend - could you provide us with some diffs of Bamadude's behaviour? Sarcasticidealist 04:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this is what you want:
  • 23:24, September 22 - He added, in the article itself, a link to the talk page re. his dispute with Wack'd
  • 01:45, September 26 - I removed it as unencyclopedic for the first time
  • 04:17, September 26 - He followed me to My Fair Lady (film) and reverted my edit
  • 03:31, October 3 - I deleted his DVD covers "source"
  • 00:43, October 11 - He added the images to the article
I should mention that he has also archived much of the discussion on the Taxi talk page and on his own talk page. His remarks to me on my page are intact. Clarityfiend 07:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, by diffs I mean links to specific article edits. I'm starting to sift through the material myself, but there's quite a bit of it there (I'm sure this isn't news to you). If you could pick out examples of his behaviour that you considered inappropriate - things like accusations of conspiracy, refusal of a good faith offer to incorporate others' opinions, that sort of thing - that would really help the process along.
In the meantime, I have found a few examples of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF violations on your part: [535], [536], [537]. I don't know the full context behind this dispute, so I'm certainly not passing any broad judgment, but the sort of behaviour in which you're engaged in those diffs is not acceptable on Wikipedia under any circumstance (even in response to much worse behaviour on somebody else's part). I'd strongly advise you to refrain from that in the future. Sarcasticidealist 07:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Guilty as charged on the latter two and I will do my best to rein in my sarcasm, but I'm puzzled what you think I did wrong on [538].
As for Bamadude incivility examples:
My offers to compromise:
Clarityfiend 00:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CF, I'm not the only editor who disagreed with you; in fact, the only other editor who cared enough to say anything about this non-issue (Croctotheface) didn't agree with you either, and I refuse to be bullied into defending my edits here as the discussion page itself tells the tale; try reading it sometime. This complaint is based solely on your own lack of self-esteem and really has nothing to do with the article, isn't that right? So no one agrees with your view and you don't think it's fair --- that's life; so what? Posting a complaint to slam-dunk your views down other editors' throats that don't agree with you is not only tasteless and childish, it's pathetic, so please grow up. Let's also title this section what it's really about and should be about --- the Taxi article --- not me and your obsession to delete or modify virtually everything I add to the article and your maniacal control over it.--Bamadude 01:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Bamadude, your comments here are completely out of line in both content and tone. I don't care who was right in the Taxi content dispute, but the comments you make above are completely in contravention of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. They are not acceptable under any circumstance (let alone on a page devoted to dealing with Wikiquette violations), and if you persist in behaving this way you will have a great deal of trouble on Wikipedia. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to change your behaviour.
I've also changed the name of the section back to what it was. This isn't about the Taxi article, it's about editors' behaviour - right now, primarily yours. Sarcasticidealist 02:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my tone upset you, SI, as it wasn't intended. I'm only conveying what I feel is the real problem here, but of course that's just my opinion. I also changed the header to reflect the real problem here even better, because if I violated Wikiquette, so did CF and I can provide diffs also, so in effect, call this a countersuit . . .

Clarityfiend has a long history of maliciously using parts of the WP rules to putdown others by twisting the facts and applying authoritative pressure to win edit wars, and has shown a preclusion to use them fraudulently to gain the upper hand:

  • Clarityfiend violated the 3RR rule on 25 SEP 2007 as shown on the history page here, even though CF had obviously teamed up with another user trying to avoid the 3RR rule as the history page notes.
  • Clarityfiend, once again manipulating the rules, tries to have me BLOCKED here because I disagreed with CF's edits - notice the strike outs added later showing the error in judgment by CF.
  • Clarityfiend makes more personal attacks on my own page here and admits making an egregious error in trying to have me BLOCKED because I dared to disagree. Also note that I backed down and let CF win again.
  • Clarityfiend decides not to post an edit dispute on the article's discussion page so that everyone can post a reply and try to reach a consensus because CF can't get anyone to agree, so instead tries to engage me in a mediation without discussion. I refuse, so instead, CF once again wields the rules as a club by reporting me as a violator of Wikiquette based on an old closed discussion with this notice here.
  • Clarityfiend's former teammate Croctotheface uses the letter of the law to attempt to putdown a detractor (myself) here and didn't send one to CF even though CF had just violated the same rule, so apparently rules are OK as long as they can be manipulated as needed and then wielded against others. It is left to the reader to judge that there was obviously collusion on their parts based on the timing and the teamed-up reverting, but it's extremely obvious, yet I'm called paranoid in bold letters by CF here.
  • Clarityfiend uses personal attacks in the last paragraph here.
  • Clarityfiend admonishes me on my own page using outrageous tone here.

I could provide a lot more examples.--Bamadude 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that anyone has the right to do anything to your contributions to Wikipedia: you do not own them. --Cheeser1 06:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said I owned an edit and that's not the complaint here --- how did you infer that, Cheeser?

In the first place, this complaint has nothing to do with Wikiquette --- it should have been directed somewhere else. It's solely about an edit war; more specifically, CF's absolute, relentless demand to control an article and using any channel, even inappropriate ones in order to effect that control anytime someone disagrees regardless of WP:CON and manipulating WP policy to enforce that control. I've been selected out in this case because I'm the main one who stands up to CF, and since CF couldn't find anyone who agreed, CF decided to use "legal technicalities" to prosecute me by going back to a closed argument some days ago and using remarks from that to start a complaint, but CF's flung just as many epithets at me as noted above and violated the spirit if not the actual WP rules through manipulation.

The issue that started this complaint has been removed from the article and CF wins again. This all could have been avoided if CF would use the discussion page to seek a compromise instead of running for censorship help & twisting the rules to enforce a viewpoint which is shared by no one but CF --- there was never any real discussion about this other than CF didn't like the edits and nobody agreed wtih CF's views.

If CF gets away from here without a serious admonishment for manipulating the rules to putdown detractors, it would be a travesty and the trend will surely continue to victimize others, many of whom may be new users who probably don't know better that CF is wrong and will get scared off from contributing.--Bamadude 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with Wikiquette - you've been making personal attacks and uncivil comments. And for the record, this: your obsession to delete or modify virtually everything I add to the article and your maniacal control over it is why I said you need to read this policy. You've got the shoe on the wrong foot it seems, accusing someone of trying to maniacally control an article when you, in the same breath, seem to have constructed an imaginary conspiracy of one, out to destroy your contributions. Your comments are hostile and rude, and that's the issue here. The content dispute is a separate issue. (Which, by the way, DVD covers are copyrighted - you cannot reproduce them on Wikipedia simply to cite them as a source - sources are cited by a citation, not by violating copyright law and reproducing the entire source. There's no way that falls under fair use either, see here.) CF is not on an elaborate quest to destroy the references, or to meddle in your affairs, or to suppress your contributions to the encyclopedia. Lashing out and trumping up complaints against her creates a hostile and unproductive editing environment. That is the nature of this complaint, and it is a valid one. --Cheeser1 19:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As a note, I've reverted the "censorship" going on at Talk:Taxi (TV series). One cannot censor or remove another's comments from talk pages, and it is especially difficult to assess the state of this dispute when you two have been deleting each others' comments. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's not how things generally operate. Reverting comments on talk pages is more or less exclusively for vandalism only - doing so to another's comment, unless it is vandalism, would (as far as I know) be considered a violation of Wikiquette. And here we are. Imagine that. --Cheeser1 19:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You failed to mention that the person who initiated the censoring was User:Croctotheface. My doing so thereafter was a parody; any reader could see that; I even censored my own comments while I was making them to show that censorship is wrong.
It's also a proven fact that Clarityfiend was on a mission to manipulate the editing per the evidence I've already listed above, and the reasons for the reverting of my edits had nothing to do with copyright issues as you claim, Cheeser1, so get your facts straight; it was strictly arguments per WP:MOS and WP:V per the history page.
"Civility" and "personal attacks" have nothing to do with this, Cheeser1. They seem to me to be buttons to push when you don't like what someone is saying, as there's absolutely no personal attack in my last postings, just facts, and I was totally civil, but that's my opinion, I'm entitled to it and you're entitled to your own. But what I do find inappropriate is that you have apparently waded into the argument here and are addressing not only the Wikiquette issue (at least not with a NPOV) but you're now involved in article-related debate, so obviously you have chosen sides and aren't an mediator at all. You seem to be very up on quoting WP policy. Ever heard of a WP essay called WikiLawyering? It's what many users do (some on this page even) in order to seem authoritative to push their viewpoint. I can quote policy that contradicts your viewpoint as well, but it's just easier to say that I don't agree with you and you've obviously chosen sides on the issues.
I'll just diffuse it all right here by saying fine, delete the DVD cover images and case closed; the veracity of the episode list is no longer an issue anyway. For the record, I don't agree with your comments on the alleged non-fair use of the DVD covers, even though I have no problem with the removal of them.--Bamadude 21:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you missed it, but people have provided examples of you making personal attacks (e.g. [539]). And if you agree that editing others' comments is inappropriate, doing so as a "parody" of someone else is even more inappropriate. Furthermore, I'd ask you to (once again) refer to Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable images, which does not provide for anything but the cover of a DVD, and then not for the purposes you wanted to use it for. When third parties are asked to weigh in on an issue, you cannot immediately call foul when they don't agree with you. NPOV policy is for article content. It has nothing to do with dispute resolution. I'll thank you not to mis-quote policy so blatantly. Furthermore, while Wikilawyering might be frowned upon, a real lawyer could sue Wikipedia for violating copyright law. That's why copyright policy is very clear about these matters, and provides for the immediate removal of copyright violations. --Cheeser1 23:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Bamadude's own userpage is full of personal attacks, which have no place on userpages (or anywhere). Per the relevant policy I've nominated this page for deletion. His personal attacks and argumentative editing have continued, in case anyone else from the WQA would like to help intervene. See here. --Cheeser1 02:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This has gone from being a case about Wikiquette to an edit war between Cheeser1 & myself concerning image copyright issues. What's the deal here? I thought this was a place to find peace and civility to discuss & settle Wikiquette issues, but it seems to be nothing more than a shooting gallery for Cheeser1 over a whole other issue and I'm the target. I've tried to diffuse the subject by conceding the point, but apparently that's not good enough. Cheeser1 is now coming after me on my own user page and in the article discussion page itself, yet this discussion here had nothing to do with the article. Is this something that's normally condoned here? I also changed the header back to the appropriate title as I could've just started a new section, but in the interest of space and continuity, I combined my case against Clarityfiend here. Could we please confine this space to Wikiquette issues?
For the record, Cheeser1 is currently upset with me because I'm debating the user on another page, and I claim to have caught some inconsistencies in the argument, so instead of debating further, Cheeser1 is also going the route of asking for intervention instead of backing up its claims. Does this sound familiar?--Bamadude 02:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Your userpage is full of personal attacks. That's a completely unrelated issue that is being addressed in this complaint against you. You've made some personal attacks, and another user reported you here. I've just been witness to your continued incivility. The fact that I've also intervened in a related content dispute is more or less irrelevant. --Cheeser1 02:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant?? The fact that you waded into an argument that you weren't even a part and are now manipulating the text of WP policy to buttress your argument on that page; that's irrelevant? And now you're now saying that I don't have the right to file a counter-complaint? Every time you make a post here, you are destroying your credibility. How about confining your posts to Wikiquette issues here, OK? Also, it is a total falsehood that my user page is full of personal attacks --- where did you get that from?--Bamadude 02:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This, among other things, is totally inappropriate. It is uncivil, contributes nothing to the project of building this encyclopedia, and is a thinly-veiled attack at me. See also userpage policy. Please stop making exaggerated claims (e.g. "you are destroying your credibility"). --Cheeser1 02:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I take great offense that my user page has been nominated for deletion by a person who has a grievance with me on another matter and is trying to manipulate WP policy to suit his needs to putdown the argument in his favor in a backhanded fashion. This is an utterly-ridiculous complaint, but it's obviously very telling that Cheeser1 would infer that any general statements I make on my own user page would be about him when they are strictly general statements and cannot be attributed to any one person and were mostly made long before I ever met him. They reflect my own general opinions of my usage of this site and I'm entitled to them; besides, they do help newbies who read them to better understand WP. Cheeser1 should be admonished for trying this highly-underhanded and childish tactic as it is prosecutorial, smacks heavily of censorship and is against the policies/essays of WP:BITE and WP:LAWYER, an action which violates the true spirit of WP.
I am also entitled to my opinions of your arguments whether you like them or not, and if I feel that your argument doesn't hold water, there is no reason why I shouldn't have the right to say so.--Bamadude 03:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, at no time did I delete portions of other editors' comments - that was Croctotheface and then Bamadude. I only added explanations that there had been deletions. Clarityfiend 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has made that remark, and we're very close to a resolution at the moment at another page. I would like to invite you to do the same and will send you a message on your page shortly to consider ending this dispute mutually.--Bamadude 04:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser1 said "...it is especially difficult to assess the state of this dispute when you two have been deleting each others' comments." Clarityfiend 04:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
That is true, and I was mistaken. I saw that both of you had been "censored," and when I made the remark, had not taken the time to realize that a third party was the one removing Bamadude's comments - I assumed it was you. --Cheeser1 04:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
That is true, I missed that myself; I apologize for my error.--Bamadude 04:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I want everyone here to know that I sent an olive branch to both Cheeser1 & Clarityfiend offering to settle all the disputes by withdrawing my disputes and letting them have their way completely in exchange for dropping all of their own complaints (which are baseless, BTW) and I was turned down on all offers. They have both sent me up to a total of half a dozen different forums in the last couple of days counting this one in a effort to censor my opinions and silence me, and yet I offer to settle the various disputes and edit wars essentially on their own terms and yet they refuse to negotiate a truce. I would call that uncivil at best. There are no facts involved in this, just argumentative opinions from users who can't agree to disagree --- it's apparently all-or-nothing with these folks, which is certainly not in the spirit of WP at all. I mean, after all --- I'm arguing with a WQA moderator on 6 different pages now! I thought this forum was for civility and peace and reaching a truce, not more bashing by a moderator and more of the same police-state tactics that led me here, which is manipulation of the various WP policies to suit a user. These two users have gotten me involved in incidents at WP:WQA, WP:MFD, WP:RFP, WP:BLOCK and arguments over image usage and other petty issues strictly to shut me up. Certainly this violates some WP rule somewhere.--Bamadude 05:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what you did was offer to concede the content dispute if we dropped our complaints about your incivility. You can't bargain like that - Wikipedia doesn't work that way. The fact that I decided to remove copyright violations on sight (something one is supposed to do), when I happened to step in to this civility dispute, is not evidence of some conspiracy of people out to get you. --Cheeser1 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
What Bamadude neglects to mention about his offer to me is an insulting condition he tacked on: "You agree to stop using WP policy to enforce your viewpoint on others anywhere, from here on out, unless a true violation occurs, and also refrain from manipulation of the rules and keep the true spirit of WP policy in your work along with the words of the policy." Clarityfiend 05:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reported at ANI

(general comment/notice) Given this report, past events, and current ongoing problems, I have brought this matter over to ANI (link here). I think that Bamadude's behavior should be addressed in a larger forum. R. Baley 09:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Celia Green article

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Please could I have some assistance on the above article which I believe to be a vanity biography created by the user Ranger2006 - who appears to be Celia Green. Please see my comments in the discussion, but put simply, this article has been referenced to in a newspaper advertisement to suggest that this person is notable and requesting money for her. 86.160.229.161 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a Wikiquette issue. There seems to be a discussion on the article's talk page suggesting that this isn't a vanity article. If you feel there's a COI issue, the conflict of interest noticeboard is → over there. However, I would advise against forum-shopping. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:SpigotMap

Resolved. Content issue seems to have resolved itself, issue seems to have been handled administratively by the complaining user himself, but apparently he did so inappropriately. Regardless, this one is definitely done. --Cheeser1 07:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I ran across some comments that SpigotMap let on Talk:Bong. While I respect that SpigotMap wants to increase the quality of the article and the article desperately needs attention, SpigotMap is following a course of action on the talk page that is in direct violation of WP:CIVIL. I left a message on his talk page informing him of this, informing them that as a member of this community they must abide by the community guidelines including WP:CIVIL, and that failure to follow those guidelines can result in blocking. The response they left on my page was not in the spirit of cooperating or Wikipedia, basically coming down to "if others are not civil to me, I will not be civil to them." I do not wish to block this editor but I get the idea that they do understand the community guidelines, they do understand the ramifications, and they just do not care. Can someone please give this editor (or me, if I'm in the wrong here) some neutral feedback so they can understand how important the community process is? Triddle 15:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:JTBX disrupting PlayStation 2

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereReferred to AN/I

- I have put warning on his page that he should not post NON-neutral viewpoints. - He just keeps erasing the warnings. - In addition, he keeps trying to add "most successful console" WITHOUT any citations. - .... even though he's been asked by the other editors to stop doing that & stop adding non-neutral viewpoints. - Thus his additions have gone from merely "non-neutral" to annoying & repetitive. - i.e. Vandalism.

I've had enough of his refusing to listen. - Theaveng 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Title changed from "I'm reporting User_Talk:JTBXJTBX for disruption of PlayStation_2 (see history)".
Theaveng: This does not appear to be a Wikiquette issue. Judging by the edit history, this is purely a content dispute, and one where it's pretty clear that the person involved is not abiding by WP:CON or WP:NPOV. I don't see evidence that this person has been attacking anyone or being uncivil to them. This would probably be better reported to WP:AN/I. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Addendum to Theaveng: I'd just like to add that you should remember to keep your cool as well. I realize it's frustrating to deal with a stubborn editor, but don't fall into the temptation to start becoming uncivil and start making personal attacks against him - that will likely only inflame the situation and make it worse. In situations like this one, you have good reason to stop assuming good faith, since you've already warned the person and he's continuing to go against consensus. That's when it's time to report the user to the Admin Noticeboard. :) Just keep your cool, though, and you'll do fine. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He's back. This time he revealed my personal info (real name) on the Talk page. Also it appears he may be using a sockpuppet (Ciao90) but there's no way for me to know for sure. - Theaveng 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you suspect sockpuppetry, take it up at WP:SSP. As for your real name, that's a matter for WP:ANI - although it appears to me that his usage of it in this case was pretty innocent. The warning you gave him was quite proper, and unless he persists or reverts your deletion or something, I'd suggest you let that slide. It's your choice though, of course. Sarcasticidealist 14:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereUsers have been referred to the relevant ANI thread. This complaint is a small part of an ongoing, hostile content dispute. Concerns about sources referred to the reliable sources noticeboard. --Cheeser1 07:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Skipping boring background... i'm making a huge effort to work with said user but the interaction has gone so wrong that i'm posting here.

A little while back he asked i find the "book of hebron" ("Sefer Hebron" request - I added here, 17 Sep.). At first he accepted the source (and even reverted it back in (1)(2)), but later he started objecting to information from the source being put into the introduction in what seemed to be a response to my rejection of jewsagainstzionism.com (about us), a website introduced by a POV partner, User:PalestineRemembered. later he cited bigoted explanations on how racist and criminal the people of Hebron are (7000 people) to justify his rejection and insisted either we accept both or reject both.

Despite him asking me to find out (and translate) material from the source (see here), he refuses to state acceptance of the source as valid on it's own - as is evident in this subsection.

sample diff: attempt at reconciliation - response.

-- JaakobouChalk Talk 23:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating, Jaakobou. It's "bigoted" to claim that the Hebron settlers are "racist and criminal", but it's fine to call "the people of Hebron" 7000 people, in other words denying that Hebron's 166,000 Arabs are people. You don't even notice you're doing this, do you? <eleland/talkedits> 00:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This Wikiquette notice was notified to Nishidani out of respect for policy, not in order to give his friends excuses to troll. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
(I had a response here, but Jaakobou reverted it on the basis of "trolling". <eleland/talkedits> 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Removing another editors comments by falsely accusing them of trolling is far worse than any complaint I've seen this editor make. --Cheeser1 07:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Certainly Nishidani seems a bit hateful/rude in his communications. Is that not grounds for blocking? --Law Lord 02:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Another egregious case of time-wasting forum shopping by Jaakobou. I will not reply immediately to the absurd and distorting mirror of his synthesis, which gravely misrepresents key facts in a rather extenuating thread at this point, since I expect those who are keen to join in the proposed squabble will look very closely at the evidence and decide whether this accusation merits the attention it will certainly get from me, if a sudden consensus asserting I am a troublesome violator of netiquette does form. I will admit that, in an otherwise urbane tone, I have in one or two instances, used language which speaks the annoyance of exasperation at what, for want of a better word, I would call the obtusity of dialogic stonewalling exemplifed by Jaakobou, who, it strikes me, is a minute pettifogger on rules that serve his own pronounced and decidedly lob-sided POV, but at the same time, wholly nonchalant in attending to repeated requests by his interlocutors for closer definition of what he is trying to insinuate into texts.
There are far too many pages requiring serious editorial attention for me to jump into this kind of bickering, unless of course it assumes serious consequences, a bickering that distracts editors from the primary work of actually contributing productively to the drafting of decent articles. Please note, my page record (one inadvertent violation of 3RR, when I was still new to the rules, and was maliciously dragged into a trap) versus Jaakobou's impressive record for bunfights with other editors. I will wait to see how seriously this adventitious series of charges is taken by others in the community before mulling the option of analysing in detail the substance of Jaakobou's selective memory of what occurred. Serene regards to all. (And, regards to Law Lord. This is the second time in some days that Denmark has roused its native democratic spirits to intervene in a case involving Jaakobou, to support his interests. I have always admired Scandinavian culture, and I welcome your concern. Look closely and I feel assured that you will find here that the instances cited by our mutual friend are, as the Swedes say, prov utan värde) Nishidani 09:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:Nishidani is a first rate editor the project cannot afford to lose. His treatment by Jaakobou was already a disgrace before this action. Nishidani's thinking (as seen on TalkPages) shines with scholarship. He transfers that scholarship (both his own and the work of others) into articles. He has been generous of his time explaining his thinking in detail - to User:Jaakobou in particular. He has several times reverted me on things, but I have never so much as objected because his natural feel for writing encyclopedic articles is clearly so good. I have suggested and even pleaded with him not to allow Jaakobou to waste his time, with apparently little effect, as he has continued to be patient - even when, increasingly, the response to his carefully thought and well expressed paragraphs are insulting one-liners. (Later - this is how Nishidani responded to first hearing of this "Book of Hebron". The behavior of a real scholar - lets count ourselves privileged to share a little bit of work-space with him).
  • Meanwhile, User:Jaakobou is a serial complainer who has wasted (and is wasting) a huge amount of the time of good-faith editors just with his complaints, never mind the damaging effect he has on articles. It's only 4 days ago he was found to have been "Forum Shopping"[540] with his nonsense. He promised to stop doing it. Instead of which, he's simply transfered his unwanted attentions to another victim - and this time to the even more clear detriment of the project.
  • Anyone who might be startled by what I've said should examine Jaakobou's diffs. Nishidani was positive to the expensively produced web-site of the Hebron settlers until it sank in just who they were and what they're up to. It's no exaggeration to call them a lot worse than US neo-Nazis. Have a look here or here to be horrified - or even feel physically sick. PRtalk 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As a note, this dispute also seems to be occurring on ANI here. --Bfigura (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through as much as I can of this and I believe this is a frivolous complaint, stemming from a content dispute. I'm marking this as referred elsewhere, since there's an ANI going anyway. I believe that there are alot of issues going on here that are way out of bounds for the WQA, and I was going to toss my opinion out there, but I realized that it's really not something I want to touch with a 10 foot pole. I will say though that this, for example, demonstrates the fact that this WQA complaint was not made in good faith, and appears to be inappropriate. --Cheeser1 07:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm terribly sorry to re-open this, but this has absolutely zero to do with User:PalestineRemembered who's under observation by the community for an impressive track record of policy breaches (and is under forced mentorship). i've opened this because i'm having serious difficulty in discussing issues with User:Nishidani who at first requested this book, and won't agree to it based on (1) a grossly false comparison with jewsagainstzionism.com and (2) because of his concern that he can't read the source and thus will be rendered at a disadvantage. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The reliability of a source is in question, as a part of a content dispute - a very large content dispute already under scrutiny at the AN/I. If you really want to talk sources, try the reliable sources noticeboard. If you want to discuss the content dispute, do it on the article's talk page. What you've just explained above may be (1) a bad analogy and (2) an issue of reliable sources and verifiability, but it's not a Wikiquette issue - disagreement is not incivility. I see nothing here that demonstrates incivility on Nishidani's part. In a contentious content dispute like this, it's not unheard of or out of place for editors to say that others are advancing a particular POV, and often they are right. It does not constitute incivility, especially given the fact that you've been just as uncivil, if not more, even in this WQA. Unlike saying "POV," removing someone else's comments on a talk page is never allowed unless it's vandalism, and frivolous accusations of trolling/vandalism do qualify as incivility. --Cheeser1 08:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Nishidani: It seems clear that this case in far more comprehensive than I had thought. I will recede and refrain from further comment. --Law Lord 09:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your reflection and the generosity of replying to my remarks, which contain an innuendo I now readily withdraw. Regards Nishidani 09:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou (and N) -- Yes, I see that you both are having difficulty discussing your content/source dispute. But in terms of user conduct, I don't think either of you have egregious conduct. (Well, you both sometimes resort to unkind etc. wording, but not so unusual around here.) Your biggest problem is that you tend to over-react to tone and process, rather than stick to the subject matter -- e.g., the source, WP policy and the like. You distract each other. In article Talk, stay on topic, and bring up you process/civility concerns on a different page (your Talk pages or another User page, for starters, else maybe MedCab?). Then, edit down your article Talking to keep it strictly on the subject, no ad hominem comments, no tit-for-tat accusations, etc. If you guys can't exercise enough self-discipline to disattend the "static" (or deal w/it via another page, as I've described), then how can you claim to be qualified and capable of editing such disputed pages? Thanks. HG | Talk 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

comment by thread opener: this has nothing to do with the ANI, however, the RSN might be a better location to pursue the content dispute - i see, issues of civility mean nothing in this place. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You may think there was incivility, but you certainly didn't provide any diffs to explain what's going on here. The evidence I've seen suggests an ongoing content dispute in which Nishidani appears to be very firmly sticking to WP:V. You have disagreements about what is verifiable and what is a reliable source. Nothing you provided at any time in this dispute constitutes incivility, although this response and this edit are actually quite inappropriate. The fact that you edit other people's comments is inappropriate, for starters, and if you ask for a third-party to intervene or comment on a dispute, when people don't disagree with you, insulting them will get you nowhere. --Cheeser1 07:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding a rude editor

Stale. It's incivility from an IP - not much comes of these complaints usually. Conflict seems to have ended. --Cheeser1 07:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.188.24.125 has been insulting me nonstop despite my trying to calmly explain something to him and I'm just wondering why such a rude person is allowed here to begin with. I'm not the first person he's shown a bad attitude to. He's very egotistical, ill-mannered and obviously lacks the ability to show common courtesy to others. Wouldn't it be better for the site if he was permanently banned? Bokan 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan

In general, IP's are only banned in severe cases due the risk of collateral damage (i.e., if the IP is dynamic, innocent bystanders can get whacked). That said, I'll leave a warning on the talk page. --Bfigura (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Everyone is allowed here - even anonymous people who are rude. Until they are banned, they are still welcome on Wikipedia. This user seems extraordinarily disruptive, and may require more banning - possibly: it may be difficult or inappropriate, since it's an anonymous IP contributor (which might ban more than one person, even innocent parties who share a computer). Based on the conversation on his/her talk page, the editor may have no intention of obeying WP:CIVIL, so I don't know if we can help. If the user vandalizes any page or does anything else actionable, you may request administrator action at the administrator's noticeboard. However uncivil his comments here might be, please keep in mind: (1) your edits are original research and actually don't belong in that article and (2) you brought up his/her past editing history (which may not even belong to the same person) as a way of discrediting him/her in the content dispute - this is actually a violation of etiquette guidelines. Clearly this user has a history of incivility, and has made no exception with you, but responding with incivility back-and-forth isn't going to help. --Cheeser1 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Everyone is allowed here so you better don't mind him or just ignore him. users or members or even a guest or visitor here in wikipedia are always welcome. They can talk or write what ever they want even they are in bad manners but still they can freely express there thoughts to anyone and everything in here. Users can also be banned but in reason if they violates the policies here in wikipedia but we don't know if they come back as a new user then he repeatedly insulting you, so then you better calm down and just ignore anyone who's insulting you. Just keep your mind relax and be a professional.--Oliviatrolles 15:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Use of sock puppets to evade bans is explicitly prohibited. The Wikipedia community has ways to identify those who create new accounts to evade bans. Your username goes here 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Yitzhak Hudas

Resolved. The issue appears to have been somewhat resolved, and no diffs regarding incivility were provided. --Cheeser1 07:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Above editor has accused me of "whitewashing" antisemitism on the Dalit Voice page, where you can see the history. Also said I had been "whitewashing" on the Antisemitism page. I take strong exception to this accusation. I also believe this editor to be a sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar and have reported this. As instructed above, I went to his talk page to warn him. I was not as polite as I usually am (I spent hours discussing patiently with Hkelkar before he was blocked and turned into a prolific sockpuppeteer and also was polite to his alter ego User:Nahartasanhedrin, who was blocked as an alternate account without being formally linked to Hkelkar). I do not want to spend any more time on what is essentially feeding a troll. I need some advice on how to deal with this quickly without tacitly admitting to antisemitic beliefs that I emphatically do not have. Itsmejudith 21:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There's been a fair amount of discussion on the article's talk page (here), is there still an issue that needs to be resolved? Best, --Bfigura (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes because the talk page discussion is quite rightly about the article. This is about this "user". I've just noticed that I completely messed up my attempt to have him blocked as a sockpuppet of Hkelkar but I need a quick solution otherwise we're all wasting our time with what is basically just trolling. Itsmejudith 06:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs of edits that you consider to be uncivil or personal attacks? Thanks. All I'm seeing is a content dispute, and honestly, if you appear to be removing legitimate claims about anti-semitism, then you are whitewashing - that's what the term whitewashing means, and if that's what he thinks you're doing, then that's what he's going to say. Now, is that really what you're doing? I don't know - I'd assume that's not what you're doing. But it's not like he called you a "big dumb nazi jerk" - not that I can see. So please, provide us with some diffs. Thanks. --Cheeser1 07:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Angry comments / edit wars on two Anti-semitism-related AfD's

Stuck.

I'm not sure what exactly is the locus of the dispute, but these AfDs seem to have led to an extremely heated discussion and accompanying edit warring right on the AfD pages.

Also note the accompanying talk pages.

Someone with a strong stomach should wade in and try to sort things out. (As a side note, I'm not convinced that the whole AfD thing was necessary, since it seems more like a merge proposal, but whatever.) <eleland/talkedits> 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the first one ("Protocols of Zion") and see if I can ask for calm on the talk page. --Bfigura (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

These seem to have calmed down some. It's not quite resolved, but the heat/light ratio seems to have settled down. (And resolution should come when the AfD's close. Marking as stuck for now. --Bfigura (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Fabartus

Stuck.

If anyone wants to try and break impass, feel free.

I've received a few messages on my talk page from Fabartus (talk · contribs) in response to a content issue that seem far more aggressive and uncivil than necessary. I've requested that he stop posting on my talk page and discuss content on the article's talk page. Any other suggestions? Thanks, Chaz Beckett 01:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi ChazBeckett. Since I've been helped on this page I'm happy to try and look at issues here as well. Having skimmed over your talk page, it looks as though things got a bit overheated, probably because editors naturally tend to get defensive when an article they've worked on gets changed (WP:OWN). I'll look at the content page and in the meantime a little cool-off period may be best. Epthorn 09:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Chazbeckett, I tend to agree that Fabartus (talk · contribs) made some remarks that are, at best, not constructive. I added a request to his talk page that he be a little more careful about that. Once thing to remember is that even though you are not required to note edits on the talk page and explain them, it can sometimes help. WP:BOLD is a useful guideline, especially with non-controversial edits... but can hinder constructive editing when people disagree. While I am not taking a position on the edit itself, may I suggest that you ask for outside opinions? Perhaps a good place to start would be Portal:American_football where you can ask for help or take a look at how other articles have been written. Then again, maybe after a little time both of you will be able to work together.I hope this helps, and feel free to comment back if you think the situation still is unresolved. Epthorn 11:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Epthorn, I agree completely with your remarks. On my part, I probably could and should have better explained my reasons for reversion on the article's talk page. I have made several comments there since and hopefully that should encourage input from other editors. I'd like to think that any content issues can be worked out, I'm just not used to dealing with personal attacks. Thanks again, Chaz Beckett 11:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh oh, whenever someone completely agrees with my remarks it means I must have done something wrong. Epthorn 14:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, Epthorn. I'm hoping that discussion on the article talk page can resolve the content issues, though the conduct issues may prove a bit more difficult. Content issues become exacerbated when incivility and assumptions of bad faith enter the equation. Anyway, I'll try to avoid Fabartus as much as possible; fortunately I don't think there's a great deal of overlap on the articles we edit. Thanks, Chaz Beckett 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good way to avoid problems. WP:MEDCAB is another non-binding method of resolving a dispute, but it too requires cooperation from all parties which I suspect would not necessarily be forthcoming. I'm going to call this dispute "stuck" for the time being. Epthorn 17:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Matter unresolved User Fabartus (talk · contribs) believes he was in the right and rebuffed suggestions otherwise on his userpage User_talk:Fabartus; I believe he asserts that Chaz was uncivil by reverting Fabartus's edits. You can also see Fabartus' reply on my talk page User_talk:Epthorn. I have informed him of this dispute page if he wishes to make his thoughts known directly. If this continues to be an issue I am afraid something else along the WP:Dispute may have to be explored, although perhaps the two users (or one who chooses to be WP:COOL) should simply lay off the offending site for a bit of time and invite third party intervention in terms of content WP:RFC if the dispute continues. Epthorn 14:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:StevenBlack

When User:Butseriouslyfolks slapped an AfD on an article that was less than two hours old, StevenBlack (talk · contribs) went into a full-court press, removing and moving the AfD template multiple times, calling it "heavy-handed" and "bullying", and generally violating WP:CIVIL at every turn. Can someone with a little more distance from the subject step in and help this from getting out of hand? (I know nothing about the subject, but I do know this editor from the Fox community, and don't particularly want to be at odds with him.) Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 05:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The AfD-moving came up on AN/I - it's the civility violations that I'm looking for help with.--SarekOfVulcan 05:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Reply: For the record, I was unaware at the time about Wikipedia AfD protocol. I apologize unreservedly for first removing it, then moving it to the discussion page, then moving it to the bottom of the topic page. I didn't know. Mea Culpa. But the besmirching of the credibility of a topic that was barely two hours old, this after it was unilaterally deleted with no recourse -- no way to even retrieve its contents from history -- I consider that to be heavy-handed, extreme, and frankly, odious. You want respect? Then show some basic respect. I remind you: I am here with my name in full. All the people involved here are hiding behind nicknames. Consider how all this might appear from my perspective. I've been an active wikipedian for ages and I have NEVER been abused like I have been abused today. KNOCK IT OFF and let me finish my work. Then judge. StevenBlack 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Steven - thank you for accepting responsibility for your mistreatement of the AfD tag. Wikipedia policies are extensive, and I doubt anybody is familiar with all of them, so we all make the occasional mistake, and admitting it is the only reasonable way of handling these.
I'm not going to deal with the question of whether the placement of the AfD tag was appropriate, because that's really not a Wikiquette issue. Instead I'm going to focus on the issues of user conduct that aren't directly related to the content dispute. Here are some of my thoughts there:
  • While it is your choice to reveal your full name (I make the same choice on my user page), the fact that others choose not to do so in no way devalues their contributions. Pseudonymity and anonymity are both explicitly allowed by Wikipedia policy - it is inappropriate to accuse people of "hiding behind" nicknames.
  • I think that there have been violations of WP:CIVIL on both sides, albeit not critically serious ones (for example, this is inappropriately sarcastic on the part of User:Butseriouslyfolks, while this is slightly uncivil and fails to assume good faith).
  • Since this has gone to WP:AFD, the content dispute over whether or not the article should exist should be resolved shortly. Hopefully that will help resolve the civility issues, since the community will have determined whether or not the article should exist.
  • Steven, since there seems to be some resistance to having the article exist in its present form, you might consider developing it more fully in your userspace, and then posting the content to the article once it's fully-developed.
I hope this has been helpful to all those concerned, and I hope that the incivility ceases once the AfD process is completed (at the very latest). Sarcasticidealist 10:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
In the comment above about "hiding behind nicknames", StevenBlack ignores both that I have my real name on my userpage, and that he should have a pretty good idea who SarekOfVulcan is from previous off-WP association. Also, where does this diff fall on the "critically serious" spectrum?--SarekOfVulcan 14:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
CLARIFICATION: Note that I wrote Butserioulyfolks is acting like an... and not is an.... I stand by that. In this case, Butserioulyfolks was most definitely acting abusively. StevenBlack 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a good example of incivility, despite being totally correct. This user's conduct is inappropriate; however, I believe he is right. We can't seek out new pages and immediately AfD them while others are right in the middle of writing them (including adding the required references, etc). I believe such an action is also fairly disruptive (although incivility may not exactly describe it), and while I'll assume good faith, I'd say that in the case of this AfD, that assumption comes with some reservation. --Cheeser1 15:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
AGREEMENT: I can attest that a wholly premature AfD is VERY disruptive, besmirches the work, AND discourages otrher Wikipedians from contributing at the very moment an article is best subject of input and fleshing. In this case, it turned an article ABOUT Lake Ontario Waterkeeper into a battle to HOST AN ARTICLE ABOUT Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and that just isn't right. Considering Butseriouslyfolks' standing here, I consider this an abuse of power and I am requesting a formal apology. StevenBlack 16:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


Just by way of background, the article was first posted and deleted as a copyvio and per A7. When the article was re-created, a third editor prodded it, I prodded it rather than A7 to give the author a chance to fix the problems but the author removed the prod without fixing. So I AfD'd it rather than A7 to give the author a chance to fix the problems. Then the author went about aggressively removing the AfD template and dropping abusive posts on my user talk page and elsewhere [541]. I'm a patient admin, but I'm certainly not perfect. I do try and rise above, but I do occasionally break down and defend myself. -- But|seriously|folks  15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks to me that he was in the process of cleaning it up and expanding it when you put the AfD on. It was just over an hour since his last edit when you nominated it for deletion. That's really jumping the gun, IMHO...--SarekOfVulcan 16:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, if it was you prodding it, why does the history show a different account doing it?--SarekOfVulcan 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Because I'm wrong! Somebody else prodded it. I fixed my comment above. Also, the author had not been back to the article in over an hour, and I had no way to know whether he was coming back. Stubs are fine as far as I'm concerned, but they still have to meet WP:N from the time they are posted. -- But|seriously|folks  16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The comments that ButSeriouslyFolks brings to light (those on his user page) are very inappropriate. StevenBlack appears to be overreacting to what was a poor, but I believe good faith (now that the back-history of this article was given), AfD of the article in question. Nobody makes formal apologies, nobody besmirches work, etc. It was a misunderstanding, and BSF should be more careful in the future, but Steven began dropping uncivil comments all over the place and removed the AfD template (which is not allowed, without exception), which I believe was disruptive. He could have civilly and calmly made his case at the AfD. --Cheeser1 07:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, nothing in the deletion policy gives a "grace time" to articles before they can be tagged with {{prod}} or {{AfD}}. Doing so might not be the nicest thing to do, but it is neither abusive nor rude. AfDs run for 5 days, and the article can be expanded during this time. The deleting admin is supposed to take into consideration the final shape of the article after the full course of the AfD, rather than the state it was at the begining. While BsF might have been nice and waited a few more hours before sending the article, he was under no obligation to do so (personally, if an article doesn't change for an hour, I believe the user has switched to something else). -- lucasbfr talk 12:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ferns

Resolved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyathea_capensis&diff=prev&oldid=166681442
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alan_Liefting&diff=166706471&oldid=166039490
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emesee&diff=166707458&oldid=166707081
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_24#Category:Ferns

User:Alan Liefting's actions seem like a blatant disregard of Wikipedia:Revert#When to revert, and don't seem appropriate. --Emesee 13:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on this [542] diff you provided, it seems an explanation has been provided, although it should have been in the edit summary. I'll leave a nice note on his talk page saying as much (since I'm willing to AGF that it was an innocent mistake). Since this is already at CfD, I don't think more needs to be done at the moment. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper Cornish?

Following the publication of advice from the Cornish Language Commission to the Cornish Language Partnership at http://www.magakernow.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=38616 on 13 October 2007, here has been some seriously unwikipedian activity at Talk:Cornish language. Any peace-making available would be much welcomed. Some blocks on unregistered users may be needed and at least one registered rhetorical user needs some firm advice. Until persistent vandalistic behaviour is reduced it will not be possible for the article to be properly updated to an encyclopaedic standard. Vernon White . . . Talk 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would favour protecting the article from edits by unregistered users. -- Evertype·✆ 07:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Still unregistered users can edit the articles. If they blocked by the administrator that's the way surely protected from unregistered users from editing.--Jeshermoza 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Golden Stiletto belongs in any discussion about drag

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereComplaining editor is upset about removals of external links. No civility/etiquette violations, and the links are basically spam anyway. Referred to WP:EL and WP:SPAM --Cheeser1 01:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor DeRahier, whose expertise is in putting funny marks on foreign words, is saying that a link to the Golden Stiletto doesn't belong and constitutes spam. The Golden Stiletto is a resource for anyone wishing to learn about drag. It belongs in this encyclopedia as an external link, at least. Here is the headline of the blog. *The Golden Stiletto Suisse Kelly and Elle Beret report on everything d.r.a.g. -- performance reviews, product, illusion, tips, interviews, resources, culture, sexualite, cock soup for the drag soul. The Golden Stiletto is dedicated to building and raising the art and execution of drag. The blog does not sell anything nor is it involved in any profit making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kainoahemolele (talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — Kainoahemolele (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wow. Um, this page is about wikiquette -- and the core principle of wikiquette is to remain civil in your interactions with and comments about other editors; and your comments about DéRahier (t c) strike me as particularly rude. Please take a moment to examine your motivations and tone. Also, please note that "link spam" doesn't mean that the site being linked is commercial or trying to sell anything - it means you're "spamming" the article by adding an undesirable (in that person's opinion) link. Thirdly, please note that the preferred process to resolve this kind of disagreement is to open discussion about it on the article's talk page — don't just jump straight to a form of dispute resolution without first trying to have a conversation about the problem with the person you're disagreeing with.
Regarding the link itself, although we typically don't comment on content here at WP:WQA, see the external link guideline, specifically the links normally to be avoided section, number 12. That guideline specifically states that blogs and similar sites are to be avoided as links unless they are written by a recognized authority in the subject area. Since the site is hosted by blogspot.com, ergo it is a blog.
Someone obviously disputes that the authors of that blog are recognized authorities. If you think they are authorities that satisfy the EL policy, then you need to say why you think that on the talk page of the article, preferably with links to other sources that support your opinion - a news article that mentions the blog authors as being significant, etc. --Darkwind (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, you did not notify the user who is the subject of this alert as to its existence. I will do so for you. --Darkwind (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
As I'm spending my spare time to improve the quality of WP's articles, like reverting vandalism and inappropriate edits, I did find this topic concerning my counter-vandalism before I got Darkwind's alert. The tone of Kainoahemolele aka 66.8.205.91 about me makes me smile rather than offending me, I know better than that. But to the facts : this user anonymously added the same and dubuous external link on not less than 7 different articles, and added it back several times after they had been removed. This is spam and nothing else.
I wish WP having more vandalism-fighters and less abusers.
DéRahier 19:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting vlog but hardly worth including at this time. There are dozens of better websites that clearly are resources for those wishing to learn about drag minus the requirement of watching videos. Benjiboi 22:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the definition of a recognized authority in WP? Can someone provide the link? I was unable to locate it. Darkwind, thank you for coming down on the issue and citing specific provisions that that blog may have violated. The other editors didn't know enough to cite them for a single-purpose user. Also, Darkwind, you know should know that it was WP that said to start here first after a discussion with the recalcitrant editor. I had a discussion with him over the message system before there was a discussion on the talk page. I'll get better at this.--Kainoahemolele 17:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ciao 90 on the Playstation 2 page

Basically, he keeps rewriting the "consensus introduction" that everybody agrees with, and inserting his own introduction (thus deleting valuable info in the process). Our requests for him to stop have been ignored and he just keeps doing it. I've already issued a warning on his talk page, but he seems to have ignored it, and continued his behavior. - Theaveng 20:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the talk page, and I don't actually see that there has been a consensus. It would certainly be preferable for User:Ciao 90 to focus more on developing a consensus than on revert-warring, but it looks to me that the wording of the introduction is still an open question. If I'm misreading this, could you direct me to the portion of the talk page where "everybody" (which I would take to mean you, User:Dancter, User:JTBX, User:Vdub49, and User:Silver Edge) agrees on an intro? Sarcasticidealist 20:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Theaveng claims false consensus and refuses to properly discuss on Talk page what I've made my statement. He also keeps warning me as vandalism not signing their posts on my talk page in avoidance behavior - he wouldn't want discuss and reach conseus, he's just forcing a revert war with insults, weasel words and emotional statements. --Ciao 90 15:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Haukaikela

Resolved.

I have currently had to revert edits on his/her talk page 2 times because he/she seems to be blanking the page in an attempt to hide warnings received. He/she blanked his her talk page again. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 12:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No policy that says a user has to keep or archive the contents on their talk page. The fact the user deleted it shows that it's been read. I further note you reverted the deletion and called it vandalism. That could be seen as a personal attack. Please read WP:VAND to learn what is really considered vandalism. Jeffpw 12:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Jeffpw 12:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that I really didn't know what I was supposed to do. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 12:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Chessy999

Although I have not been able to keep my temper under control at all times, this editor has been quite rude to myself and at least two other editors in a debate about the fate of Enemy (military), see here: [543], [544]. I have advised them to assume good faith, apologised for any out-of-line comments I may have made and tried to assist them in improving the article. My comment on the editor's conduct ([545]) was met with a personal attack - [546].

As well as this conduct on talk pages, the editor has also:

  • Removed a speedy deletion template - [547]
  • Removed an orphan template twice - [548] [549]
  • Reverted a constructive edit, made by myself, though I was genuinly attempting to improve the article - [550] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidovic (talk • contribs) 13:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Response
Hello, Davidovic is doing everything he can to get my recently created article Enemy (military)‎ deleted. He insisted on posting a frivolous "Speedy Delete" +tag, which an administrator agreed should be removed and that was done. Not satisfied, then Davidovic posted another frivolous "Orphan" +Tag on an article that was only in existence 10 minutes. The article is now interwiki linked to many articles and the "Orphan" +tag has been removed. Now the article is under AFD and once again Davidovic is participating to enhance the potential for article deletion by deleting information from the article. Not happy still, Davidovic has posted this over-zealous wikietiquette complaint. Based on the facts I believe that Davidovic has reflected that his/her statements are biased McPinions and the editor is a liability to Wikipedia. Thank you. Chessy999 13:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
As user conduct goes around here, I do not consider the initial problems raised by Davidovic very much out of line. (except for the removal of the speedy tag by the author--that's never OK. ) What was a little absurd was a attempt to discuss on the talk page whether a speedy deletion was or was not appropriate. If there is any reasonable case made for keeping the article, it should go to AfD (which is where it is at the moment). Speedy is for unquestionable deletion, and another admin declined the speedy. Just discuss the article at AfD. The consensus will decide. DGG (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to leave the discussion on the fate of the article to the AfD debate, the reason I created this alert was because I think that User:Chessy999's conduct is poor. I have linked Chessy999 several times to the Wikipedia page explaining good faith, and I've tried to explain what it means. The editor has disregarded my advice and the advice of Wikipedia itself and continued to be impolite. I don't have a personal vendetta against the editor or their article, but I think that their attitude is out of line. If noone else sees a problem with their behaviour, though, I'll withdraw from this argument. Davidovic 14:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I feel David is out of line and made inappropriate comments, I attempted to help the User to become more professional, but the editor only keeps on the same path, if the administrators are in agreement, I would suggest this editor be suspended from Wiki-Cop duties for a period of time. Chessy999 14:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I would like to weigh in, in support of Davidovic and to account for my own part in this. I can see that much of this dispute is my fault, and I am cincearly sorry for that. I feel that very early on in this dispute, Chessy999 resorted to personal attacks [551] which were, in my opinion, unwarrented. I do not feel that Chessy's actions towards me require a Wikiquette alert, however I can understand why Davidovic would do this, as Chessy999 has responded heatedly to both of us.
I feel that all parties involved may have become a little heated and argumentative. I do not think that Davidovic has done anything that makes them a "liability". In my opinion, Chessy has made some unfair personal attacks against this user. Lex Kitten 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppet allegation

In an edit summary, GreenJoe made the allegation that I am a meatpuppet. I take this claim seriously and have repeatedly asked GreenJoe to either withdraw the comment or present his evidence at WP:SSP. Thus far, all requests have gone unaddressed. The exchange can be found under the subject "Edit summary" at Concordia University talk page, GreenJoe's talk page, and my own talk page. Victoriagirl 16:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that edit summaries are effectively a write-only medium; it's possible to change them but not always practical. So, retracting the comment is not an option--certainly not within his hands as a user. I think an apology would have been a polite thing to do. It's not inherently incivil to not apologize, but it shows less than an abundant show of good faith in fellow editors.
That said, the comments are in his edit history, and should he start committing other acts of incivility or disruption, it would be weighed by the administrator determining how to deal with him. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I recognize that an edit summary might not be easily changed. In asking that the comment be withdrawn, I am not seeking a deletion or rewriting of history, but an acknowledgement the allegation is incorrect. That said, since filing this alert, GreenJoe has placed a post on my talk page indicating that he stands by the comment. I have responded by again asking that he present his evidence. Victoriagirl 19:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've chimed in on the talk page as well. This seems to be unfounded and in violation of WP:NPA, not to mention WP:CIVIL. --Bfigura (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
GreenJoe has indicated that he will nether withdraw the charge nor present any evidence in support of the allegation. After mulling over the advice offered, I have decided to walk away from the matter and have written GreenJoe as much. My thanks to all who offered council. Victoriagirl 23:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably not a meatpuppet. Definitely a stalker with an agenda. Dominic J. Solntseff 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC) — Dominic J. Solntseff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

While I usually ignore comments by Dominic J. Solntseff (talk · contribs), the irony is of such a level that it is worthy of note. Victoriagirl 18:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A typical non-answer answer by this dishonest and disingenous editor, who works so very hard to push an agenda on Wikipedia while trying to Wiki-fiddle her way into an admin spot. Dominic J. Solntseff 23:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of your accusations against Victoriagirl. We cannot help mediate this situation if we don't have anything to go on. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's "counsel", Victoriagirl, not "council". For someone who does so much wikifiddling, you should be more careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.167.209 (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated insults over a few months

User:Shabiha has insulted me over content disputes on multiple articles for almost two months, despite repeated warnings. This has gone on across the Deobandi, Barelwi, and Mawlid talk pages and also the talk pages of multiple users, and usually consists of calling me a Wahhabi, which I already explained to him/her is a derogatory term, in addition to other things. This has also been through multiple IP addresses signing comments as Shabiha during discussions on talk pages. This is what I dug up of personal attacks from just about two minutes of searching:

And from my previous warnings to this person:

I thought my second warning in particular got the point across, but apparently not. I found this while going to the talk page of a Wiki buddy:

I tried my best to warn this person to keep discussions civil and about the subject matter, and not myself. I really, really tried. They obviously don't take this very seriously, and I resorted to WP:ANI, and they directed me to here, as I wasn't aware of this noticeboard at the time. Any help would be much appreciated, because the person almost seems to disregard any comments I make as "wahabi propaganda" making discussion of articles very difficult. MezzoMezzo 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo

I am forced to re-state my original post here, as Leranedo does not thread his responses although he has been pointed to WP:TALK several times:

Now it is under it. See: Easy solutions. No need to bicker. Leranedo 07:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. So what do I do? Everything was replied to on the talk page already and I thought it finished already? Leranedo 06:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Replying again... Leranedo 07:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo (talk · contribs)'s talk page is a collection of WP:FAC participants imploring him to remain civil, explain his commentary on FAC pages, justify his NPOV claims, explain his copyedits, follow the instructions regarding Supporting and Opposing, and follow talk page conventions. (Tvoz, Karanacs, Awadewit, Arcayne, Malleus, SandyGeorgia; samples only, there are more.) Several editors have reached out and tried to reason with him (myself included, he has exhausted my patience, Tony1 (talk · contribs) reached out and Epbr123 (talk · contribs) gave him a Reviewer's award); several have issued warnings (myself included, worded as politely as possible).[555][556][557] His talk page is hard to read because he unthreads posts, chops up posts, and starts new headings. (SG)

Well, these were all replied to already, unless I missed a person's comment. I never check my watchlist so any comment or changes directed towards me would not have been received.

What more do you want from me? Are you trying to exhausted my patience? This is like a rerun of life. I'm not interested in that. My interest is stated explicitly on the user page. Leranedo 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, my talk page is perfectly fine. Starting new headings helps me reply as they become smaller. How is that a problem? Plus I had already addressed that and received no responds, but I didn't need for everything was peaceful. Leranedo 06:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC is not like an article or talk page where edits are buried in history; comments at FAC remain on permanent record in {{articlehistory}}. (SG)

Then anyone can see my honest comments. I have nothing to hide. Leranedo 06:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be heeding anyone's commentary, no matter how helpfully phrased and in spite of numerous editors having approached him. (SG)

Did I not say "I will try to moderate my sharp and incisive remarks" or something along those lines. And many similar replies. Check the talk page, though not all replies are there, so look around. Leranedo 06:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility
  • All addressed a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggg time ago. Are we still with that? Leranedo 06:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • For full picture, one would need to see the current status. I think I edited some of these, for better or worse, and there were replies afterwards. Leranedo 06:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Finished. Leranedo 07:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
FAC impacted
  • An example can be seen at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Reagan (although hard to follow, Leranedo has deleted comments, moved comments, and has unsigned comments there). (SG)
  • This was deleted and moved, and I had already explained why I did it: The editor of the article did not like off-topic talks.
  • I sign almost all the time, sometimes I forgot. Not a remarkable deal for contention.
  • Finished. Leranedo 06:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Muliple requests on his talk page to please respect instructions at WP:FAC regarding declaring Support or Oppose for candidates there, as his commentary is hard to understand. (He declares articles "Passed" or "Rejected" which is misleading, and opposes on the basis of NPOV without giving examples of why he considers articles POV.) (SG)
  • You are misleading. It use to be No and Yes, changed along the way as the asking of people. Now, it's Reject & Oppose and Pass & support, respectively. Leranedo 07:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

.

  • Multiple requests on his talk page and at FAC to explain his declarations of NPOV at FAC. (SG)
  • All answered to, and I did provide points, and will do so on any other opposes. Leranedo 07:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You must be drunk or something (SG)
  • I had replied already. I seriously thought that person was drunk or something. That person was extremely annoying. Leranedo 07:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
AGF

His first posts as a newly registered user were to FAC statistics pages. (SG)

Oh yes, I remember that so very faintly. I thought it had to do with a infobox that was blocking the statistics so that I could not see. I moved it so it was above the data so the viewer may see both, but apparently, you, if I recall correctly, moved it back to block the view giving some kind of excuse, that we should leave it to be blocked until the infobox was formatted correctly. It appeared, though I do not know, that you work at wikipedia if you were stalking the "FAC statistics page" for no reason I could see. I was there because I wanted know but I couldn't because someone placed it in a way to prevent knowing. Leranedo 07:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Part I: I had edited extensively many articles varying in their respective topics, always anonymously for I saw no reason to create an account. I explored

Part II: So then,

Part III: Now,

Note: I'm finishing my replies. This is too much trouble. Leranedo 07:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo, this page is already a good example of the problems communicating with you. WP:TALK conventions have been explained to you several times, but you still won't thread your replies, so other readers will have a hard deciphering who wrote what. This can no longer be tossed off as inexperience; you have stated on your talk page that you have read several times and understood WP:TALK. These same sorts of editing techniques are making FACs unnecessarily hard to navigate and communication with you on talk pages time consuming. Each time one returns to a page, you've moved, removed, re-labeled, or altered comments without striking, and you don't thread your responses. I have re-posted my original post to the top of this page in a cap; please do not alter it; that means anything up to and including my sig. I have explained to you several times on your talk page that you should never move delete or alter other person's edits, just to make sure that we are clear. I cannot verify that any of the text outside of the cap is what I typed, because of the way you edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Leranedo, this page is already a good example of the problems communicating with you. WP:TALK conventions have been explained to you several times, but you still won't thread your replies, (SG)
I have no idea what you mean by "thread your replies." As I stated, I already went over that and it's not against this format of replying, which is also stated on the talk page, and it received no response. But now I'm confused. Leranedo 07:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
With the amount of text altering and re-arranging, indenting and re-indenting, moving and labeling that I've seen you do in one week, I have a hard time understanding what is confusing you. You thread things on your talk page exactly as you want to, indenting and changing, so I don't know why you are confused. Since you clearly know how to thread replies on other pages, and stated that you've read WP:TALK several times, it's hard to understand where the confusion is. It's simple: do not touch words you didn't type. Put your responses below them, indented for clarity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

so other readers will have a hard deciphering who wrote what. This can no longer be tossed off as inexperience; you have stated on your talk page that you have read several times and understood WP:TALK. These same sorts of editing techniques are making FACs unnecessarily hard to navigate and communication with you on talk pages time consuming. Each time one returns to a page, you've moved, removed, re-labeled, or altered comments without striking, and you don't thread your responses. I have re-posted my original post to the top of this page in a cap; please do not alter it; that means anything up to and including my sig. I have explained to you several times on your talk page that you should never move delete or alter other person's edits, just to make sure that we are clear. I cannot verify that any of the text outside of the cap is what I typed, because of the way you edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm finishing my replies. This is too much trouble. Leranedo 07:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lerandeo, this is about the fourth request (counting the ones on your talk page). Do not alter other people's posts.[558] This means do not change anything on this page unless it is something you typed yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Give me a second. I don't know what you're referring to. Leranedo 07:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
But the (SG) is so there isn't any confusion. What's wrong with that??? I already explained in the edit summary.... How's that not a good reason?? What more do you what.... Leranedo 07:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This is my fifth request:[559] if you alter my posts again, I will ask that you be blocked. I do not see what you do not understand: it has been explained repeatedly. Do not touch text that you did not type. It's very simple. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I was replying!! I will not anymore. Too much trouble. Leranedo 07:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Leranedo, multiple people have asked you to follow the FAC format for giving your opinion on articles, either Support or Oppose.[560][561][562][563] but you continue to use your own version,[564] rather than the guideline. As you've replied to most of these comments, it appears that you understand the problem but are deliberately violating the guidelines, with no explanation as to why. Karanacs 13:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I have left a civility warning for Leranedo on his (my apologies if that should be her) talk page; Sandy has covered that, so I won't go back into the details—just mentioning for disclosure. What is perhaps the most troubling to me, is that Leranedo can be dismissive and will not engage in conversation. Often, when an editor stops by to try to help him adjust to Wikipedia culture, he will attempt to shut down the conversation, sometimes directing editors to the top of his user page, which says he is "averse to talking". For example, this reply to Arcayne, as well as his implication that we are wasting his time here. Discussion and consensus are cornerstones of Wikipedia, and I encourage Leranedo to fully embrace that. Pagrashtak 14:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I am glad Sandy has brought these matters to attention. In addition to all of the above, I have seen user Leranedo comment on scores of FACs in a day. A good review of one candidate article takes sometimes 3-4 hours so it is plain to see he does not give the hard-working editors of these candidates the courtesy of even reading them. He cannot even follow simple instructions of stating either oppose or support, and he comments based on his own opinions and not guidelines of what a featured article should consist of. And giving him a review award is completely comical and beyond my comprehension. IMO he is disruptive of the entire FAC process. ♫ Cricket02 20:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I am glad, too; I thought maybe I was just being thin-skinned about his (her?) behavior, which I found to be unnecessarily dismissive and rude. I cam into into contact with him via the Nancy Reagan FAC because I found his usage of Reject (in bold) and oppose (in plain text) to be misleading. As it's presence at the bottom of the page led me - who doesn't have a lot of FAC experience - to initially think that the FAC had not been successful, and had been rejected for Featured Article status. After closer inspection, I realized this wasn't the case, and asked the editor about it. He claimed that its not a problem, that he had been doing it for a long time without complaint,etc. - neither of which I found to be compelling arguments for providing misleading votes. He then moved the entire conversation to my User Talk page, which i didn't immediately have an issue with, as I didn;t think the page needed to be cluttered up with All The Drama™. In retrospect, i would have moved the conversation solely to his page and provided a short note in the FAC noting that the conversation about the incorrect and inappropriate usage by Leranedo could be discussed there. RL and other considerations crowded me enogu that i didn't do so, and wasn't more forceful in asking him to cease and desist with his usage of Reject an Pass.
After reading through his User talk, and the FACs of three other articles hes contributed to, I am struck by two things almost immediately: first, Leranedo is quite intelligent in his commentary when he provides it - and certainly smart enough to know that his alternative choices for voting are going to negatively influence other to vote. The second thing I've noticed about his edits is that he is exceptionally rude and dismissive, both in edit summary and in his actual posts. I have been contributing here long enough and have been dealing with difficult editors long enough to know the difference between a user who is just a sad little monkey using Wikipedia to find a place to vent their frustration and push everyone around with their 'great big brain', and someone who wants to change Wikipedia for the better but has little or no control over their level of sarcasm. Usually I can tell right off the bat which one is which, but I cannot tell this about Leranedo. In either case, his behavior is distracting, disruptive and corrosive to editorial cooperation and harmony. I wish I knew the magic bullet to set him a-right, as I think he has a lot to contribute to the community. However, i am unsure what to say to help this user find his politeness and conformity, and I see a sticky end if he refuses to even try to find it himself. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

user:Sarvagnya's deletion of my Talk:India posts

  • Earlier today I made this post on the Talk:India page about some potential problems I foresaw with the rotation of images being currently tried in two sections of the India page. (I had earlier organized the straw poll for/against this rotation here.)
  • Almost immediately after I made the post, user:Sarvagnya deleted it in this edit, with edit summary, "this is a discussion page. not a blog. blogs are free, go find one and record your idle musings about your "vivid experiences" with encarta or whatever."
  • user:Sarvagnya's edit was soon reverted here by user:Dwaipayanc, however, user:Sarvagnya re-reverted here with edit summary, "rv abuse of talk page. see WP:TALK and WP:NOT."

This is not the first time user:Sarvagnya has done this to my Talk:India posts.

  • He deleted my post there in late August 2007, (see here).
  • He then made a post in early September 2007 on the Talk:India page here, which ended with, "For now, I reject all of Fowler's filibustering as nonsense. Can somebody tell me why I shouldnt delete all his nonsense as rank abuse of a talk page?"
  • This in turn elicited a polite but firmly opposing response here from user:Abecedare.
  • However, when user:Sarvagnya persisted in the very next post here and, moreover, accused me of "defecating all over the talk page," he brought on a more aggressive response here from user:Hornplease, who threatened to report user:Sarvagnya to Wikiquette alerts.
  • I should add that user:Sarvagnya is less than forgiving when he is at the receiving end; my edit once here that merely put his out-of-chronological order interruption in proper chronological order, elicited this response from him, with edit summary, "i will add my comment where I think fit.. stop moving other people's comments around!"

If user:Sarvagnya has some genuine complaint against me, he should pursue it in the relevant Wikipedia forums, but I am tired of his deleting talk page content. His general rudeness is one thing, but this is beyond the pale. Please advise! Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, look who's talking. Mr. Fowler, let's look at these Wikiquette (sic) edits of yours:
To User:Sarvagnya Perhaps you could return to the Karnataka article and start preparing for its next FAR and in your wake spin-off yet another generation of shimmering daughter article ... For an editor, such as yourself, whose ill-humored, carping, and nonsensical comments on these pages (including ones above directed at me), are a legion, it is presumptuous to decide what is nonsense
To User:Gnanapiti what the heck is the matter with you? what is illogical other than you knee-jerk tendency to revert; don't you have anything better to do
To User:Embargo don't know who you are, but you are a new comer to this page, which I am not (see talk page)
To User:Bharatveer you are pathetic! I wrote this article and knew him; you don't know the first thing about the guy, and keep wasting time with your precious little obsessions
To User:Bakasuprman what's the heck is the matter with you dude; read the discussion, there's a link to pdf whhich explicitly says he an athheist; hkelkar still pulling your strings?
To User:Nikkul Don't know what the heck you're trying to pull dude, but you're getting to be tiring...
To User:Szhaider If you can't write grammatical English, then don't.
To his so-called Indian POV warriors Apparently the Indian POV warriors can't write the English Language. May I suggest the Hindi wikipedia
To User:Nikkul Nikkul, you should be ashamed of yourself.
The reason these users have not pulled you to admins for the personal attacks above is that they assume good faith with you. The least you can do is to reciprocate that gesture. So stop feeling tired, pained and grieved if people return the above favour that you have been giving them.-- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've left a note regarding the refactoring of your comments. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
To user:Amarrg: I am assuming the links above are meant for me? Since this section is really about user:Sarvagnya's actions and not mine, you should really open a new case against me here on Wikiquette Alerts or on some other Wikipedia forum. Meanwhile, I have replied to your post elsewhere. I apologize to the Wikiquette Alert volunteers for replying here and adding to their work. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You are not immune from scrutiny here, and your comments to others are certainly relevant to the way others deal with you. -- But|seriously|folks  20:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am requesting user:Amarrg to open a Wikiquette Alert against me. I just felt, given what user:Bfigura gave me to understand in another context (about not increasing the volunteers' work), that this was not the best place for it, but if you think it is, please go ahead. However, please examine both the past and the aftermath of each of those incidents. As I say in my post, referred to above as "elsewhere,"

“ user:Nikkul was banned for sock-puppeteering soon after I made my first remark. user:Szhaider is still banned (although in fairness to him, he came around to see that I meant well, and when I later came to his defense, he awarded me a barnstar), user:Embargo was banned for a couple of months within minutes of that exchange, user:Bharatveer had an arbitration case opened soon after that incident; I don't know what happened, but he too has disappeared. As for user:Bakasuprman, user:Sarvagnya, and user:Gnanapiti, they were all three, but especially the latter two, playing the game of what I called "knee-jerk" reverts without any explanations whatsoever. ”

My point is not to attack the characters of these people, but to make the point that my words were (inappropriate to be sure) responses to their behavior, not vice-versa. That nevertheless doesn't absolve me of responsibility for those words, and for them I apologize unreservedly to my interlocutors. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

PS What I mean by the "past and the aftermath" is this: I am quoted above as saying, "Nikkul you should be ashamed of yourself." I did say those words, but what is not mentioned is that, I made a series of edits and a few minutes later my words looked like this:

Nikkul, you should be ashamed of yourself. After all you've been through on the India page, you go back to the goofy stuff. Why? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PS. Nikkul, I apologize for my choice of words. I didn't mean to be demeaning. You are someone who is clearly interested in improving the image content on India-related pages, and everyone can see that you have talent and drive, so why not use them more productively? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The changes were made of my own volition, not consequent to a response from Nikkul or anyone else. Here is the relevant section of the talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
PPS And now that old memories are being dredged up, an isolated quote from what I said to Nikkul doesn't say that I gave him the benefit of the doubt even after he had been banned for sockpuppeteering on the India page, when I tried to patiently explain to him how to paraphrase an article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Forum-shopping at its worst. Noting what I have seen above:Gimme an H...gimme a Y....gimme a P...gimme a O...gimme a C...gimme an R...you get the point. Violating WP:OWN really accentuates your disregard for collegiality and your tendentiousness. I'm not a civil person myself, so I'm not going to delve into your rudeness, but coming on to this board to whine is rich.Bakaman 23:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User WaltCip

Resolved.

In User Categories for Deletion, The discussuion of removing the category Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer was rather personal when User:WaltCip responded to my comment to "go ahead and delete the category but have you read previous debated archives dealing with this". I noted his first comment was a rather personal slight but I did not attack anyone personally. His next comment clearly equated my actions as similar to anti-semetism which is very offisive and highly personal as the subject at hand (surviving cancer like I did) has zero to do with religion. I ask that the volunteers review this discourse and rener any appropriate decision. Respectfully, Mikebar 07:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

His somewhat personal, sarcastic comment was more likely in response to this comment from you: "The zealots who cannot read previous archived discussions win." In other words, sarcasm begat sarcasm. The point of the analogy regarding anti-semitism had to do with deleting categories, not to call you anti-semitic. It wasn't the most prudent analogy, since it can be easily misinterpreted as a suggestion of racism. But it's possible to assume good faith about it. To me, it looks like just cooling down and taking a break from each other is the best solution. The etiquette violations are on both sides, and relatively minor (assuming he didn't mean to call you racist). Let the personal dispute go. Bsharvy 09:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I basically agree with Bsharvy and would say that this is incredibly minor. Unless this incident has caused some sort of hard feelings or ongoing dispute, you both seem like you'd just as easily let it drop and never have a problem again. That's definitely the way to go. --Cheeser1 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks like that is what has happened. Call this one resolved & thanks to both of you. Mikebar 07:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. I've also agreed both of you guys. Well, For me we better ignore those minor concerns like saying "Do what you want" without directly hit your feelings but with in your senses. It's understandable that all of us have the rights of what to say or what to do but with the attitude without hurting anyone feelings or with no personal intention to hurt feelings. So we better ignore somewhat personal intention and it is just like a comment to accept and to response.--Hannahmarqueza 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


OK, I used to be one of these annoying people and have recently decided to stop being a detriment to such a useful tool as this website. My personal opinion is that someone needs to step up and get rid of the guy or ban him indefinitly. I believe this because your not going to get anywhere with this type of problem unless people that have authority step up to do something about it. THanksWeston 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Recent discussion on my talk page

The entire discussion is 4 pages in word by now, so please refer to this section of my user page for the [complete version]

In short this is what happend(From my point of view, of course):

During my regular vandalism patrol i spotted an edit that,in my eyes, was vandalism. The edit consisted the word "Scumbag" next to the name of an person. Also, the word "Too" was spelled as "Tioo" and the comment was made on a user page, leading me to think this was user page vandalism. I reverted the edit, and placed a level 3 vandalism warning on the users page. About 30 minutes later the exact same edit was made again, and i again reverted it and placed a level 4 warning on the users page(Uknown to me to be precise, as i forgot it was me who warned him before).

The response i got to this was the fist post in the long discussion on my user page. I deemed the response rather, if not very rude, and responded with a "more annoyed then polite" response to the users inquiry. Minutes later the owner of the user page comes around, and claimed (Again rather rude, in my opinion) that i made a wrong accusation here. I also made a response to this user, which was certainly more friendly then the previous one. When actually reading it thouroughly i decided to leave a little notice stating that i thought it was getting rather personal.

The responses after that can be described as a "Name and Blame" from the editors side, and a "Defend and counter" from my side. Claims from their side began to include that i threated a respected editor with blocking, something that was appaling, and that the origional commenter obviously had the right to feel insulted. The counters from my side mainly were that it wasn't intentional, and that (in more polite words) there shouldnt be such a fuss about it.

The next comment was actually the most(And anout the only) useful one, and came from a colleague reverter, Philip Trueman. Philip took a very neutral stance and indeed noted that i made a misjudgement here, but also offered advice that could prevent this from happening in the future. For me this was actually a big cheer up, which caused my next comment to be a lot more like my usual "Happy Dappy" style of commenting. The last two responces are actually the ones that caused me to post here:

*There's no need to cut slack. He made a mistake. When I pointed it out, all he had to do was check it and say "oops, sorry" instead of reverting me again and issuing a second template. This debate is really pointless, and a real waste of time. Sure, busy vandal-fighters will make 1-2% mistakes, whatever. All they need to do is be humble enough to acknowledge it when it happens, and move on. It's the self-righteous twiddle and the "no one understands us vandalfighters, we're the front line" crap that gets me. Most of us old hands, myself included, were fighting vandals before you knew what wikipedia was. Move on.--Docg 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(Responce transcluded from users take page, where it was removed in [This ] revision) I have not got the time or patience for this nonsense. While working on a serious project to reduce libels on this encyclopedia, on a user's talk page, I happened to express my subjective opinion that a neo-nazi was a scumbag. Well yes, I think neo-nazis are scumbags. I think Le Pen is an idiot. I think Nick Griffin is positively evil - a prat, a dangerous lunatic. Are you going to call that vandalism. Now go away, play with your scripts, follow your logic with your brain in neutral, and stop wasting my time.--Docg 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC) '

Since this involves 4 editors, i have a few questions, mainly to question my own behavior and handling in this:

 (Yes, i understand that my vand3 warning at once was not the best move, and was actually not justified)
- Were the two "attacking" editors comments ok, a little rough, or just plain rude?
- Did the origional editor really have the right to react like this, especially at the last two comments?
- Was my first comment along with the vand3 to strong, and was it perhaps the reason this ignited into a flame war?
- In my opinion i stayed rather polite. But thats just me judging myself. Whats your thought, did i stay polite, or were my responses also flames?

Thanks in advance for your assistance!
--Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole thread would have stopped right there if you had admitted that you did make a mistake. I like how you were able to stay polite (and use smilies haha), but it really was a misunderstanding that everyone could have avoided. In a similar circumstance I think you would have responded as Doc did. ALTON .ıl 21:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not a neutral editor, but I'll give my 2 cents for the next time: when you use Lupin's RC Tool, reverting from it is okay, but then always double check your revert before issuing the warning. If you're not 100% sure, don't template (especially when a quick glance at the user talk shows that this is not some child vandal). Yes this is sometimes a loss of time, but it's a small price to pay compared with all the time you "lost" here arguing. Keep in mind that for a newbie, a non warranted template can be very bitey, and we don't want to drive contributors away, do we? (By the way, NPA is for attacks against editors, not people outside WP). -- lucasbfr talk 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I thank you both for your advice regarding this matter. Its indeed true that i should have been more careful when posting the templates. The warning level was way to high for a "First vandalism", which is something i still cant explain. I still believe that Doc should have posted a more polite first responce, but then again: My responce to his post was also not exactly the most polite post ever. I think that if we both kept it a little more professional this would have been very easy to avoid/solve, but alas, we didn't. Guess this is just a nice example to remember for the future :) --Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 17:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between users regarding pages on Korean Universities -pers. attacks, incivility

Resolved. Patriotmissile has apologised. Conflicts have been resolved.Jame§ugrono 11:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Users: Epthorn and Patriotmissile

Pages involved: Talk pages of users, and following articles:

1) Korea_University (talk page and very recent edits)
2) Sungkyunkwan_University (talk page)
3) SKY_(schools) (Talk page, bottom)

I do not want to go into detail here (for neutrality's sake) but this is a conflict I am afraid my end up moving from the talk pages to the actual articles. I hope this will provide some help of an informal nature. Especially useful would be some help from users who cannot be accused of puppetry, etc because of their long wiki histories. I would be tempted to just leave the issue alone but since there are few users interested I think there is little chance the articles would be improved.

I apologize for the general scope of the request, it does stretch across several articles- if someone would like me to explain reasoning or establish a better timeline, please let me know via my talk page. Thanks for any help you can provide. Also sorry for the format, I'm not yet particularly good at linking within wikipedia. Epthorn 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Epthorn - I'd like to help, but I would really appreciate it if you would summarize the conflict, and maybe provide some representative diffs. It's pretty overwhelming to jump in there without context. If you're worried about neutrality, just be as neutral as you can; we're pretty experienced at cutting through non-neutral content summaries anyway. Sarcasticidealist 18:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a calm down message here to see if people will stop slinging around blatant insults. I'll wait on a summary before doing anything else though --Bfigura (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I will try and summarize the situation as best I can, and then see if I can figure out the diffs (I've not had to do this before)

-I read through Korea University's wiki page and thought it looked like an advert and was not NPOV. Overall I considered the article to be a poor example of what an encyclopedia should look like, so I decided to remark this on the talk page. I also added a "POV" tag to the page.

-User Patriotmissile seemed to immediately believe I was a puppet of another user, "Brincos." He continues to accuse me of this, despite my requests for him to take it up with an admin. Believing that I am from another University in Korea trying to vandalize Korea University's website, he has made several veiled threats to "edit" that article in kind (my characterization of 'threats' is, of course, my own).

-Patriotmissile also brought me up on the Sungkyunkwan_University page. At that point I got annoyed that he was misquoting me as an excuse to make edits there.

-Patriotmissile and I also clashed on the SKY_(schools) page even though I basically agreed with him (at least insofar as I thought the page should exist). He still remarked that I was a puppet for Brincos. I'm not sure how much of this is miscommunication, but I haven't had much luck clearing it up and it's making editing difficult.

Now that you've heard my 'side', please give me a few minutes and hopefully I can provide the specifics in terms of "diffs" Epthorn 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Okay, sorry if this is a poor format, but here is one example I found particularly unnecessary as P.M. tried to misquote me on a page and then tried to blackmail me by threatening another University's article (which he has since marked as POV in the last few minutes). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASungkyunkwan_University&diff=166315966&oldid=157049751

Here is the infamous "dog" statement. Please judge for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APatriotmissile&diff=165811617&oldid=165361250

Finally, if you look at this page you can see what started all this. I cannot quite get the diffs right for this one, sorry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Korea_University#POV.2FNeutrality_redux

Those are somewhat extensive diffs, and there are more. Many, many more. All basically follow the same pattern though... I'm a puppet from some other Korean university who should leave the country. Anyway, I hope this helps a little. Epthorn 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


And now, since it's 7am in Korea, I should be getting to bed. Please let me know via my talk page especially if there's anything further I can do later. Hopefully I've roused enough 3rd parties that a consensus will eventually be possible (it's hard with 2 people who simply don't agree). Epthorn 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs - those are very helpful. I agree that User:Patriotmissile has been behaving uncivilly. I'll leave him/her a polite note, and see where things go from there. Sarcasticidealist 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope that is the end of it. The user apologized for the allegations of puppetry. Hopefully this will result in a more productive edit discussion, especially with some new blood. Unless it attracts sharks. This was a useful board, hopefully I can pay it back as I gain experience. Thanks again, Epthorn 05:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing and meatpuppeteering

Several users: ForeignerFromTheEast, Laveol, GriefForTheSouth, Lantonov and Jingiby are jointly involved in a systematic pro-Bulgarian pov pushing, specificaly in the articles related to Republic of Macedonia or Ethnic Macedonians. Also, in numerous cases, they provide (or advocate) highly questionable sources like private Bulgarian nationalist websites, such as in Krste Misirkov, or private blogs, as in ITRO, or in many cases- no sources at all. Some "sources": private website, again, personal blog, geocities page, some strange word document etc. One of the most blatant cases, is what can be seen at the National Liberation War of Macedonia which almost turned into their political pamphlet. Some of the statements that they've added there can be considered as espousing neonazi ideas ("the German and the Bulgarian WWII armies were greeted by the population in the occupied areas" and such), and a blatantly biased book published by the Axis Bulgarian military in 1941 is used as a "source" there. They have also turned the corresponding talk page into a mockery of the subject the article deals with. Another important case is what is happening with Kiro Gligorov. They insist on keeping some highly controversial Bulgarian nationalist sources in a living persons biography. I've also noted tendentious behaviour in Tose Proeski and on its talk page. In certain cases there is also a mild level of personal attack or cynicism. Another problem is Makedonsko Devoiche, a song article created a while ago which they have rewriten to suit their agenda. I contested their unsourced statements, and in return, ForeignerFromTheEast having no valid counter-arguments decided to nominate it for deletion. However, before i showed up to contest the article and while it represented a Bulgarian POV, he didnt have a problem with its existence. Same scenarios have already happened in the past. Also, numerous times some of these editors revert some valid edits, and sometimes their edit summaries are fake (for example rv vandalizm when there is no real vandalizm, probably to mislead an eventual recent changes patroler). Once I was reverted for "forking" in Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo although I provided sources and explanation to justify the renaming (redir) of the page. Also, some of them frequently move their usernames to new ones: ForeignerFromTheEast has been formerly named Mr. Neutron, while GriefForTheSouth has been formerly Jackanapes, Wickedpedian and Vulgarian. I contacted one the editors on these issues already. Dzole 10:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthon Eff: Name calling and general bad faith

Anthon Eff seems to resort to name calling, general bad faith, and violations of WP:Wikiquette when he gets into disagreements with other editors.

I have been involved in a content dispute in the Nobel Prize and Nobel Prize in Economics articles over the prize in economics not being a Nobel Prize. Even though the Nobel Foundation [565] and the Secretary of the Economics Prize Committee (the committee that selects the laureates for the economics prize) [566] have stated that the prize in economics is not a Noble Prize, there are editors who still believe it is. Disputes involving Anthon Eff related to this topic are:

  1. (2007-10-03) accusation of an "ill-concealed political agenda": Anthon Eff claimed that "some editors on one side of a debate have an ill-concealed political agenda", directed towards Tkynerd who also concluded that the economics prize is not a Nobel Prize. [567]
  2. (2007-10-12) accusation of having a sockpuppet: Anthon Eff accused Lensor of being my sockpuppet, since we held the same opinions and brought up similar arguments. [568]
  3. (2007-10-29) accusation of being a communist: Anthon Eff has claimed that those who change the articles to reflect that the prize in economics is not a Nobel Prize are on a "campaign to make the English WP conform to the position of the Swedish Communist Party." [569] Lensor approached Anthon Eff on his talk page about being called a communist and how it violated WP:NPA, and Anthon Eff clarified that he specifically meant me.
  4. (2007-11-03) removal of cited text: Anthon Eff removed a large portion of cited text stating "There was no consensus for the change in introduction, despite extensive talk page discussion".[570] However, there is also no consensus for keeping the text as is.

Anthon Eff has also been in a content dispute with Nastykermit about slanderous text in the biography of a living person, Johan Galtung. Nastykermit has removed the slanderous text while Anthon Eff has restored it.

  1. (2007-11-02) "angry boy alone in his room in Norway": In one edit summary, Anthon Eff stated some snide comments in Danish [571], which another editor translated [572] as "Reinstating text extinguished by an angry boy alone in his room in Norway". The comment was directed at Nastykermit.
  2. (2007-11-04) accusation of stalking: I noticed the Johan Galtung thread in the BLP noticeboard and checked on the dispute. After posting my comment to the noticeboard, Anthon Eff claimed that I was stalking him [573]

I don't know what can be done about this editor's behavior. Suggestions? –panda 05:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

He has also been canvassing for support for his views[574]. // Liftarn

I have left a note asking him to be civil. I will point out that changes require consensus, while "keeping the text as is" does not. However, this does not excuse incivility. --Cheeser1 16:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the notice. I also noticed more bad faith towards the editors who are simply trying to keep the facts straight in the Nobel Prize in Economics article from his canvassing note:
(2007-11-07) accusation that "the apparent aim of making the prize look illegitimate" and "it is clear that they dislike mainstream economics".
Only one editor (SlaineMacRoth) has written a criticism about mainstream economics in the article and that editor isn't even involved in this issue with the first paragraph. Also the Nobel Prize in Economics article has always contained that it "is awarded each year for outstanding contributions in the field of economics. The prize is generally considered the most prestigious honor in economics". So I have no idea where those accusations came from. –panda 16:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Judaism dispute and possible POV fork

There is an ongoing dispute over whether to use "Progressive" or "Reform" Judaism terminology. Three active editors are advocating for Progressive Judaism. (Egfrank, Jheald, A Sniper) They are knowledgeable and well-intentioned. They have raised their concerns in several settings, including WP:JUDAISM and WP:CSB. However, they have recently started adding to the Progressive Judaism article with content that, I believe, properly belongs in Reform Judaism. Regardless of the outcome of the discussion, I've tried to explain (at Talk:Progressive Judaism) that it is important to avoid a POV fork and not duplicate content and coverage on this topic. However, I need some outside assistance in either explaining the POV fork issue with them, explaining to me that I'm wrong, and/or ensuring that they discontinue the effort to gain their objective via (arguably disruptive) editing. Most recently, Jheald just created a new POV fork by outright copying material from Reform Judaism into German Reform movement (Judaism). Plus, now the moved materials is deleted from Reform Judaism. I did an AfD and will revert, but this is time consuming. I'm sure they mean well, but it's very disruptive that they don't believe me about POV content forks. HG | Talk 18:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Posted some concise evidence at the AfD on the article. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) The "outright copying" HG refers to is not a POV fork. It's a straightforward start at moving to "summary style" for article Reform Judaism. There are some very valid reasons for "summary style" there:
  • The article was considerably over-length, so summary style is recommended.
  • Summary style allows the Reform Judaism article move much more quickly to where things are at today, as WP articles on religious movements should do, rather than many many screens of history first.
  • Having a separate article on German Reform movement (Judaism) is a good idea in its own right, as there are a lot of articles on e.g. German reformers which can now link to the appropriate subject matter directly.
  • This is entirely orthogonal to any question of whether to call anything "Progressive" or "Reform". Creating German Reform movement (Judaism) makes sense in its own right. Jheald 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I second User:HG's request [for some external input -JH]. HG clearly means well, but HG's current behavior is coming across as disruptive to a clean-up process that had the agreement of 3 editors who carefully research and cite sources and have a good feel for the scope of the material and what is needed to manage it effectively (see [[575]]). In addition to the AFD, User:HG has
We need help so that edits can proceed without disruption. Egfrank 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the second. I now want to add that the "Progressive" editors also removed from Reform Judaism and created Reform Judaism (United States) without discussing this, for instance, on WP:Judaism where such major moves are reviewed. HG | Talk 20:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
HG - take a look at the WP:CSB page - I think you even agreed to it over there - though to be honest right now I'm too tired to check... But really - don't you think it is a good thing that Reform Judaism (North America) has some breathing room to grow? Egfrank 21:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The creation of these articles is legitimate at this time when there are active editors who wish to expand and research the articles. There is no need to raise the decibels here. Let everyone get on with editing and writing. Thanks, IZAK 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, though perhaps this might be a good locale to discuss issues of cooperation and relationships, while we pursue content dispute on the relevant article (or project) talk pages. HG | Talk 01:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Lactose_intolerance

Specifically, here. User:Tallard started out running against guidelines and editing and using strikethrough on my comments, and then has continued to claim what he did was right and now claiming that my comment should be deleted. After being warned about WP:CIVIL and this specific section things are only getting worse. I don't want this issue to continue and want to step out, but I'd also like it to be clear to him that this is unacceptable behaviour so that he doesn't continue with someone else. Therefore I'd appreciate if someone outside of the situation would take a look and weigh in impartially. --Kickstart70-T-C 13:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have left him a note. --Cheeser1 16:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Odd. He removed my note from his talk page but then added it back by undoing his own edit. I don't know what to make of that. --Cheeser1 20:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
He's deleted it again, without comment. --Kickstart70-T-C 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:LtWinters

Resolved. The user appears to have been blocked indefinitely, no need to have this hereJame§ugrono 04:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


This user who no longer edits Wiki continuously adds personal attacks against Wiki editors in general and the Wiki project into his user page and user talk page. I have removed them several times and given WP:NPA warnings as well as citing WP:USER but he logs back into his account solely to revert back to the personal attacks. See the attacks at: [576] and [577] --Strothra 00:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This user appears to have been blocked indefinitely. Jame§ugrono 04:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Corticopia

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

This user is abusive, adopts a confrontational stance at all times, and makes the experience of editing Wikipedia less enjoyable for others. This is a long-running low-level irritation at the Cyprus page, and I would ask interested editors to refer directly to both the talk page and to the edit summaries on the article history: similar issues can be seen at Geography of Mexico, Metropolis, North America, and so on. It is not a question of accuracy, but of incivility (and, on a side note, an insistence on incorrectly marking changes as "minor"). I and others have repeatedly requested that the user abide by the usual WP:CIVIL guidelines, but he refuses to do so. I note from his contributions history that he is engaged in similar low-level unpleasantness on several other geographical articles, involving many other editors: this reassures me that, while my own behaviour is certainly not perfect, I am not alone in finding Corticopia a disruptive and aggressive presence. An experienced administrator's intervention would be useful here. Thanks, Vizjim 10:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, since he created that account he's being contributing mostly to Mexico-related topics, for reason that couldn't explain in one paragraph but if you check his record you'll see what I mean, I myself have had countless confrontations with him, usually reverting my changes with the excuse of NPOV, and it's not just me, users Jcmenal and AlexCovarrubias (who's been absent for a while) have had the exact same problem, Alex even suspected he was a sock of a previous user that was banned, he even has some evidence but for some reason nothing happened, I would really like the intervention of an administrator here, he uses profanity[578] and uncivil manners [579] and it should not be toletared in Wikipedia, there has been too many warnings for him. Supaman89 16:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This should be at either WP:AIV or WP:AN/I, this user has been blocked far too many times for this to be simply a matter of incivility - there are plain, obvious, disruptive edits.Jame§ugrono 05:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

User: Fridae'sDoom

Resolved. Per my comment below Jame§ugrono 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When doing my new page patrol I checked one article out and found that this new user had posted this in a article he/she had created. I then moved it off of the article to the talk page, I think the user should be given some type of warning, but I don't know which one to give him/her VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 03:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be here. A simple message on the user's talk page, outlining where and why they made a mistake should suffice. In the event of ongoing vandalism, give them sufficient warning and then refer to WP:AIV. Jame§ugrono 04:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive, bad-faith edits by Gene Nygaard

Resolved. Disruptive editor indef blocked via ANI intervention. --Bfigura (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Help. I need assistance with editor User:Gene_Nygaard. He disagrees on factual disputes on the Kilogram article that are totally beyond any debate in science. His arguments have been debated to infinity and back and he ignores reason. For instance, he continued to argue that “weight” does not mean “force due to gravity”. When he was told the following:

Encyclopedia Britannica very simply defines “weight” as “[the] gravitational force of attraction on an object, caused by the presence of a massive second object, such as the Earth or Moon.” Wikipedia’s Weight article defines weight as follows: In the physical sciences, weight is a measurement of the gravitational force acting on an object. World Book (print edition) says this under Weight: Weight is the gravitational force put forth on an object by the planet on which the object is located. Further, the Kilogram article adheres perfectly to Encyclopedia Britannica’s discussion of the distinction between “weight” and “mass”. The article also gives proper and fair treatment to the fact that the term “weight” in common vernacular can occasionally mean “mass.”

…He responded with “There's no reason for us to stoop to Encyclopedia Britannica.” He also said “Wikipedia is not a reliable source” and then linked “reliable source” to Wikipedia’s own Wikipedia:Reliable sources. His point was that the link in the Kilogram article that linked to weight wasn’t suitable. He didn’t agree with either Wikipedia’s definition nor Encyclopedia Britannica’s. With regard to World Book, he responded only with “Now World Book too?”

One of the editors who disagreed with him is a professor of astrophysics. This would normally carry extra weight but Gene Nygaard argued with him too and had his question properly answered (again). When his arguments didn’t get any traction on the kilogram article, he went to the Mass article and engaged in the same sort of edits there. The editors there had to deal with him (account here). After other editors weighed in with edits in an attempt to appease Gene Nygaard, he did this to the article. Another editor User:Enuja, who does her best to seek consensus and accommodate others, told him that "Disputed" and "Misleading" tags were not suitable (account here).

Please help. Greg L (my talk) 18:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had a similar experience with this editor at Talk:Enzyme_kinetics#Molarity_is_obsolete, he changed the article to replace a set of units with an incorrect set of units diff then edit-warred to retain the error diff. On the talk page he stubbornly maintained that his preference for units were used in biochemistry, and quoted obscure journals on inorganic and organic chemistry to try to support his argument. It was only when faced with overwhelming evidence of multiple citations from biochemistry journals that he accepted the actual usage. This is verging on disruptive editing. Tim Vickers 19:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems to stem from a content dispute. Has an RFC/U been considered? --Bfigura (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Bfigura, please briefly explain the distinction between this forum and the one you are suggesting. The spark that lit the fuse on all of this was originally an argument over the definition of “weight” and the proper, encyclopedic treatment of the topic. The real issue, IMO, has become one of not accepting the consensus of others after hours of tirelessly explaining to him what the facts are, only to ultimately have him do stuff like this…
While the weight of objects (their gravitational force) is often given in kilograms,[dubious – discuss] the kilogram is, in the strict scientific sense,

[vague] a unit of mass.

…and this:

The unit of force: kilogram-force

 The neutrality and factual accuracy of this section are disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (October 2007)
The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed.
The information may have been removed or included by an editor as a result.
Please see discussion on the talk page considering whether its inclusion is warranted.(October 2007)

When an object’s weight (its gravitational force) is expressed in kilograms…

…again, this is all after lengthy and tedious debate had transpired far beyond what any administrator would put up with (due to lack of acceptance of reality) and his arguments didn’t get traction with any other editors. In short, the issue is one of being disruptive. Tim Vickers’ problem with this Gene (see above) seems to be the same basic issue: ignoring clear facts he simply choses to ignore and incessantly doing the same edits anyway. I don’t know how many other editors weighed in on Tim Vickers’ article, but Gene totally ignored others editors too on Talk:Kilogram (not just me) and does what he wants anyway the moment anyone stops responding to his circuitous and ever-expanding arguments or it has become clear he won’t get his way.
Do you see this as being the central issue, and if so, are you saying the RFC/U would be a more suitable forum? Greg L (my talk) 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I'm not entirely sure. If you want to form consensus on an issue (ie content), you should use a request for comments (or RFC). But if you want to establish consensus on an editor's behavior, then you want an RFC/U. Basically, you list the places where you think the editor has gone against policy, or been disruptive, and invite comments (which includes responses from the editor in question). The idea is to try and establish if a certain behavior is or isn't acceptable by the community.
As far as the above, those tags would seem needlessly disruptive, although I'm hesitant to say that with any certainty since I'm not entirely familiar with the dispute. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Will go to RFC/U. Thanks. Greg L (my talk) 20:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Drop me a line when you list it, and I'll be glad to give my outside view. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Bfigura, after looking at the RFC/U process, it looks like a daunting process that is too great of a hurdle. I think if we can just address the suitability of the “dispute” tags that should suffice for the problem at hand and will serve as a lesson-learned. User:Slashme has done lengthy and excellent edits (recent history) trying to reach a compromise. Some of Slashme’s edits were painful for me to see because Slashme’s treatment of the issue was to delete entire paragraphs I had written (like this one). But I accepted them and understood they were a reasonable compromise. I actually expected that all that would satisfy Gene too. Nope. User:Enuja has patiently explained why the article doesn’t merit them (here). I’ve given him ample warning of his disruptive edits (here). Now he’s got the “disputed” tags in the article again. Please help. Greg L (my talk) 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I deleted the STUCK tag at the top thinking it might somehow interfere with your ability to note that this is back to being active. Sorry for being presumptive. Greg L (my talk) 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Quite ok. I shouldn't have stuck them in yet :). I'll go poke my head into the article though. --Bfigura (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Bfigura, I don’t know what the proper remedy would be, even if you do find that the tags are unwarranted. But if you conclude that the article should be restored to some other state, this was the state I last had it in. And this is the state the last known other contributor had it at. That contributor User:Timb66, whose real name is Tim Bedding, is a professor of astrophysics at the School of Physics, University of Sydney. I can’t make a case that Professor Bedding is unbiased regarding Gene’s behavior, since he wrote “I agree with the comments by Greg L” (Talk:Mass#Disruptive edits) after I laid out a clear case regarding the scientific nature of “weight” and how Gene’s behavior was disruptive. Note however, that Professor Bedding made his edit to the Kilogram article after he posted that comment. Accordingly, he wasn’t a party to any disputes on Kilogram before reading that one was raging on Talk:Mass. Only then did he take an interest in the Kilogram article. I think it is fair to assume that Professor Bedding found nothing else he felt was worthy of correcting and find it noteworthy that his edit was only to change an occurrence of “and” to “or” (edit difference here).

    After studying the Wikipedia policy some more, I believe the proper charge in this forum would be that his incessant arguing on the discussion pages after finding that his arguments don’t get traction with other editors, and his resorting to the use of {{disputed}} and {{misleading}} tags, are all aspects of tendentious editing. Greg L (my talk) 21:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Update regarding expert help: Bfigura, during the writing of the Kilogram article, I exchanged over forty e-mails with a physicist at the NIST who works on the kilogram in order to check facts, clarify issues and obtain additional information. That NIST physicist directed me to various papers published in Metrologia and Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards (some of which I used as citations in the article). As a favor, he has previously reviewed specific portions of the Kilogram article for accuracy. I asked him if he would review the entire last, non-Gene, historical version (this one by Professor Bedding), and to comment on its accuracy. I also asked him to compare it to the current version and take note to the sections that Gene tagged. On Friday he agreed to do so and said it will take a few days. Given that this dispute originated over technical issues, I hoped you would appreciate the outside help as it might make your job a little easier. Regards, Greg L (my talk) 18:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Gene_Nygaard has a long history of problems in this area. See his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Gene_Nygaard block log. He was informed of this Wikiquette alert on 25 Oct on his talk page. Yet he has not participated and continues in this behavior, even calling one user and "ass" and referring to at least one other's lack of intelligence; see User_talk:ArielGold#Improper_use_of_conversion_templates.2C_and_problems_with_what_they_do, [580], and [581]. Based on this, I am blocking him for 72 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine anything more likely to sabotage what is intended to be an informal first step in a dispute resolution process, anything more likely to exacerbate this dispute, more likely to fan the flames and to create more hard feelings and anything more counterproductive to the spirit of cooperative editing, than what you have done here, User:Rlevse.
Your actions, Rlevse, (and perhaps equally important or more so, the actions you have failed to take) fly directly in the face of the spirit of this entire process.
But your actions are not merely contrary to the spirit of this entire process. It is much more than that.
In fact, they are contrary to very black-letter rules of this process, as set out in a big honking box at the top of this very page:

"This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.

...

"Wikiquette Alerts depends on the help of interested editors to provide neutral viewpoints. Everyone is invited to participate in responding to alerts."

a "non-binding noticeboard"; and in the opening paragraph:

"Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors. This page is not part of the formal dispute resolution process, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate."

and further down the page:

"Responding to alerts is also a good way to learn more about Wikipedia policies and even more, about how to work with other users to calm situations without resorting to formal procedures."

and you can't get much clearer than without resorting to formal procedures.
The ball had already been picked up by one of the regulars here Bfigura, who had already said that he was going to look into it. Rlevse grabbed the ball right out of his hands, with no discussion whatsoever. (The fact that Bfigura some time afterwards tried to pick it up again, but fumbled the ball himself, is irrelevant, though at that time it might have been appropriate for him to call for some backup help. But that hadn't happened until after Rlevse's disruption here).
If my participation on this page were important, and there is no evidence whatsoever that you, Rlevse, know beans about how this is supposed to work, then you should have invited me to come here and comment on it. An out-of-the-blue, totally undiscussed block, for not doing something which I am not in any way obliged to do, is not by any stretch of the imagination an appropriate response. To instead prevent any comment from me is about the most illogical, irresponsible action anyone could possibly imagine.
The only possible explanation for it is that it was somehow deliberately intended to give Greg L the advantage of unfettered, one-sided discussion.
That this process's integrity was in fact the primary target of your (User:Rlevsa's) attack is also evident from your posting of your notice about blocking me here a few minutes before you even posted a notice to me about it on my talk page, as well as from the fact that you had not done the same at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade, nor had you done so at User talk:ArielGold. It is further evidenced by your placement of your notice on my talk page under the existing User talk:Gene Nygaard#Wikiquette alert header halfway up my page, not in a new notice at the bottom (and you didn't add the subheader, I did that later). There's no disguising of the fact that the additional charges laid were intended as nothing other than red herrings.
Especially when
  1. There is absolutely nothing on this page instructing me to offer a response.
  2. What is here, in fact, actively discourages such discussion, by saying "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page" and "Do not continue your discussion in detail here".
I am at a total loss as to why you might have done this, Rlevse; however, once again, no possible explanation offers itself other than the clear implication that this was, for whatever reason and motivation you had, deliberately designed to give User:Greg L an upper hand in this dispute.
Purpose, and future, of this process
I've never seen it used anywhere, either successfully or unsuccessfully, that I can recall. Does it ever work? Is it even used to any significant extent? (Rlevse doesn't know, either, I'll bet.)
I don't know if there is anybody who even cares about this Wikiquette alerts process any more. Hello! Anybody home here?
If there is no one here willing to stand up to a rogue administrator, one who has never once in the 2½ year history of this process ever made any positive contribution to making it work, never once participated in it, who comes barreling in out of nowhere and intentionally disrupts it, then maybe it is time face facts and to admit the obvious. If it doesn't work, whether it was just a bad idea in the first place or has out lived its purpose or has just withered away from a failure to advertise it and a lack of participation or whatever, just throw in the towel, and officially declare it dead. Is there anybody left who even cares enough to go through the steps to officially place this page up for deletion? Gene Nygaard 13:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This alerts page is not the place to see help attacking or otherwise censuring a "rogue administrator." --Cheeser1 20:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
That administrator blocked me specifically for not replying on this page. I have now done so. So why aren't you taking him to task for telling me that I was supposed to be here? Maybe what you need is better instructions as to exactly what is and what is not expected on this project page, because User:Rlevse obviously does not know that, and now you are telling me that I do not either. Gene Nygaard 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, while you do have explicit instructions to "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page", you have let User:Greg L fill the page with hugely excessive discussions, so you also need better policing of the policies you do have. Gene Nygaard 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Bfigura, I’m still waiting on the opinion from the kilogram expert at the NIST. I must say, that after writing that previous sentence, I am struck by the preposterous number of hoops we other editors have had to jump through in order to accommodate Gene Nygaard’s outrageous behavior. Anyway, besides the kilogram expert at the NIST, I also asked Professor Bedding to carefully review the historical version before Gene Nygaard’s last wave of edits and dispute tags (version, here). I asked him to comment on the accuracy of the version and to give particular attention to those sections in the current version that Nygaard tagged with DISPUTE, DISPUTE! I asked him to comment as to whether he found the historical version accurate, balanced, and informative. I received his opinion several days ago but it took until today to receive his permission to quote him. He wrote “feel free to quote my reply in full.” His comments on the original version are quoted in their entirety as follows:


From: [e-mail address redacted]
Subject: Re: Kilogram
Date: October 27, 2007 1:41:36 PM PDT
To: [e-mail address redacted]

Hi Greg,

I am sympathetic to your problem. I am not an expert in the definition of
the kg, but I do know basic physics and I know how things should be
explained. I have looked through the current article and don't see
anything that is worthy of a dispute tag.

Thanks for the effort that you have put into Wiki editing. I don't have
the time for such diligence and am grateful for your efforts.

Best wishes,
Tim
Bfigura, I think it is safe to assume that since Professor Bedding teaches astrophysics at a university, that he 1) is being slightly humble in stating he knows “basic physics,” and 2) I believe it to be obvious on the face of it that when he wrote “I know how things should be explained,” we can assume he is very familiar with textbooks and the proper encyclopedic treatment of subjects.

I’ll let you know when I hear from the kilogram expert at the NIST. Greg L (my talk) 17:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your actions (I think, work prevents me from doing a complete review), in as much as I don't think there's a need for a dispute tag here. I'm not sure there's a need to contact experts (any such material couldn't be included as it'd be original research), although I do recognize it as a good faith effort to settle a dispute. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Very well. I see from Gene Nygaard’s talk page, where he is arguing against being blocked, that he claims my contacting the NIST amounts to “original research”. Of course, this is patently baseless and false. As I clearly stated in my above writings, those communications were to “check facts, clarify issues and obtain additional information.” And by “additional information” (as I also wrote above), I was referring to obtaining numerous scientific papers published in Metrologia and Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards—not baby food from Popular Mechanics. Of course, I cited these papers throughout the references section in the Kilogram article.

    It was this very same NIST employee who also e-mailed me a free picture of the NIST’s electronic kilogram after the one used in the NIST’s own press release was yanked from Wikipedia because it was copyrighted. I uploaded it to Wikipedia and used it in the article. Does this picture also constitute “original research” since it came through me via private communications with my contact at the NIST? Obviously not. Wikipedia and its readers are the beneficiaries.

    Any quick reading of the Original research page reveals a clear and unambiguous policy: that “material must be verifiable and backed by reliable sources.” It isn’t “original research” to contact the experts at the NIST and get directed to the original scientific papers and to cite them throughout the article, nor is it original research to ask the NIST expert to review some of what I wrote to make sure I gave the subject proper treatment; it’s called “researching the subject thoroughly, making sure I understood it accurately, and citing the writings extensively while contributing to a Wikipedia article.” Wikipedia and its readers are, again, the beneficiaries.

    Nygaard’s transparent attempt at taking my effort in doing my homework to track down all the original scientific papers—something that probably fewer than one in a thousand Wikipedia contributors make the effort to do—and trying to turn it around to his own advantage is nothing more than a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium. Greg L (my talk) 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my comment may have come accross wrong. I applaud all the work you're doing. I was merely saying that we can't cite communications with experts in the article itself. Material obtained from them (images, references, etc) is perfectly fine. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I understood that. Sorry, I wasn't railing against you. I precisely understood your point and why you wrote it. I perceived (perhaps erroneously) that your feeling the necessity to write it suggested that Nygaard’s arguments on his talk page (while trying to get unblocked) might be gaining traction with others. So I thought it best to preempt that trend. He may eventually try to argue his case here. His arguments absolutely never end, even in the face of overwhelming opposition. As of two days ago, he was still arguing about the definition of mass and weight. Note how endless his arguments are with the editors over on Talk:Mass. Scroll down and note that, throughout the length of it, both the other editors don’t agree with him. Note too, the appeal at the very end to somehow put the issue out of its misery. Greg L (my talk) 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand. At this point, it seems that his behavior seems to be verging on tendencious editing that is starting to outweigh his positive contributions here. --Bfigura (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Concluding this
  • Bfigura, I received the response from the NIST contact. Not surprisingly, there were zero problems with “weight” being “force due to gravity.” Unfortunately, I can not quote him nor even name him without getting his first getting NIST Public Affairs involved so I don’t know if the wait for his input was worth it. I think we just have to go with the arguments provided above. The only person who feels the disputed and citation needed tags are warranted is Gene Nygaard. Can we fix this? Also, I expect the removal of the tags will not change Gene Nygaard’s opinion on the issue of “mass vs. weight”; how can we avoid disruptive editing on Kilogram in his usual forms just because the tags are removed? Any remedies you think will work would be much appreciated. Greg L (my talk) 07:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • To get some idea of how much needless effort would be invested in trying to make good-faith answers to Nygaard’s objections, please see Sorting it out on Talk:Kilogram. There, I provided detailed responses to the two easiest-to-answer issues he raised. A proper treatment of all Nygaard’s objections would simply be too tedious and, in the end, would result in circuitous arguments that go nowhere, as others have discovered on Talk:Mass. Greg L (my talk) 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the best solution would be to make the changes, indicate why on the talk page, and try and build consensus That seems to be done already. I'd just remove the tags. If Gene continues to revert against consensus, I'd start an WP:RFC/U. If he's violating the 3-revert rule, you could report him per WP:3RR. Other than that though, I'm not sure what the best solution is. --Bfigura (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should reconsider your advice, and rethink what you role is supposed to be here. Have you done anything consistent with a "first step" in dispute resolution here?
Please also address the issue of why, despite the explicit instruction "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page", you have let User:Greg L ramble on unfettered here, will you? Gene Nygaard 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Greg L's comments, though extensive, (much like yours!) are still valid. Jame§ugrono 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • At risk of making this post prematurely, it appears to me that this issue ( {{disputed}} tags, as well as tendentious, disruptive, and POINT editing) is resolved. Thanks to you, Bfigura, and all the admins. I am sincerely grateful for all your attentions to this matter. Greg L (my talk) 17:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI people here on the Wikiquette alerts board are not (necessarily) administrators. --Cheeser1 18:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yup. Although being confused for an admin is sort of a compliment :) I'm going to mark this whole thing as resolved. --Bfigura (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I thought “…Bfigura, and all the admins…” wouldn’t be interpreted as “…Bfigura, and all the other admins…” but I was wrong. Indeed, I understand Bfigura, that you are not an admin. I am also quite keen as to how well you are doing at your “internship” here. I don’t know enough about the process of nominating someone for admin-hood to feel confident in taking the initiative to do so. But please let me know when (that’s “when,” not “if”) someone else nominates you; I would be pleased to second the motion. Greg L (my talk) 05:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sudden Disruptive behavior

User:IvoShandor has taken to bothering recently. Yesterday, he tried to come down on my signature, which is not a big problem.

Today, he became disruptive: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Today's featured list & [582]--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like IvoShandor is leaving the project. I've seen some of his work and he's been a good contributor in the past, but some of his edits the past few days appear to have seriously violated WP:CIVIL. I hope he's just taking a wikibreak and will come back rested and in a better mood, but that type of behavior isn't acceptable.Karanacs 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I looked over it, and it seems like he might have something bothering him lately. He has been a really good contributor. Drop him a note on his talk page, saying you care about him as a person. Tell him something like "I understand you don't like my signature, but I would rather keep it. If consensus truly want's it gone I will remove it. Aside from that fact, it seems something has been bothering you lately. YOu need someone to talk to at anytime, let me know, just remember your not alone." Something to show him he has his brothers/sisters here at wikipedia to talk to, should the need arise. Perhaps as karanacs said, a wikibreak or something similar. PS, I am not watching this page (on my watch list), if you need something urgent, put it on my talk page, as I likely won't run across this specific page again for a long time (if at all).--businessman332211 06:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(The way he came down on your signature does not appear to be Disruptive and incivil to me. He seemed to treat you politely in that regard.) 99.230.152.143 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree - I think IvoShandor's comment to you regarding your signature was quite civil. His more recent comments about "douchebaggery" and such are definitely out of line, but I also agree (looking over his past contributions) that he seems to have snapped recently, and/or someone has been abusing his account - those comments seem very much unlike him. One can only hope that it's a temporary issue and that he'll come back at some later time feeling better. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Coz 11

There has been a disagreement over including the Seattle SuperSonic's owner's declaration of intent to move the team to Oklahoma City on three pages: Oklahoma City#NBA in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma#Sports, and Seattle Supersonics#Ownership change and potential relocation. Discussion is mainly here, but also on User Talk:Coz 11 and my user talk page. Coz 11 has threatened me on my talk page [583] and reverted my attempts to discuss our dispute on his talk page [584]. I am weary that I will be unable to work things out with this user, as he seems to have an obvious bias in favor of the Seattle Supersonics and against the Sonics' ownership. Frankly, I fear he is a disgruntled fan who is angry over the prospect of his team moving, and, as such, any attempt at reasoning with him is failing. Also, Oklahoma is set to appear on the main page on November 16, so I am anxious to get this dispute settled by then so important information can be available to readers. Please let me know if there is a better place to put this dispute. This is a sock puppet of User:Okiefromokla 18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This user has created a sock puppett account to be used to insert rumor and speculation on a possible future relocation of the Supersonics on many articles. I have directed this user to take this issue to the Supersonics talk page and allow those that edit that article to resolve this issue. Instead he has decided to make this a personal attack. I prefer to allow this issue to be resolved in one location rather than dragging all of wikipedia into it. --Coz 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I have brought this here because the user has displayed incivility and no intention of rational discussion, reverting my attempts to contact him on his talk page with uncivil edit summaries like "reverting rants" and "remove attacks from vandal." My efforts to reason with him have failed, as he reverts sourced edits with unreasonable claims: (see the following edits in question:[585],[586], [587] ) Based on these actions, his posts on Talk:Seattle SuperSonics, his incivility towards myself, and the "Save our Sonics" banner on his userpage, I can only conclude that the user has a strong bias on the subject and a rational resolution is impossible. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 22:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, from what I can see, both of you need to cool down and back off from each other for a little while. You're both interpreting things each other has said as personal attacks and threats when it doesn't appear that there have been any. In fact, I see both of you engaging in rather civil attempts to talk to each other, and then reacting to each other as though the initiator had just leveled a serious threat. (Coz: You in specific did threaten to get an admin to block Okiefromokla, which does not seem warranted in this case - when it comes to content disputes, there are other avenues to follow first.)

So, here's what I see: You two are in a content dispute. That's fine - that's what WP:3O and WP:RFC are for. Please explore those routes and try to come to consensus. Keep yourselves focused on the content and refrain from personal attacks. Keep your cool, and I'd suggest also reading WP:POT, since I see both of you engaging in pretty much the same behavior toward each other.

Coz: While you are entitled to maintain your User talk page however you like, I disagree with your edit summary that stated that Okie was attacking you. He appeared to be asking you to work with him and trying to discuss the issue openly. Your reversion of his comments seemed a little out of place there.

Unfortunately, I gotta run for a bit, so this response is a little sketchy. But I hope it'll help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it does help a lot. I have been a little hot as well, I admit and apologize for. Thanks for taking the time to read through all of this mess. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 23:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Icelantic

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereNot a civility/etiquette issue, just a user who has no idea how to use Wikipedia's space properly. --Cheeser1 01:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This user's only activity has been to make a user and user-talk page that violate Wikipedia:Userpage, and then make many user-subpages containing only personal writings that are not at all related to the encyclopedia. Examples include what are apparently elementary or high-school biology lab reports, similar-level essays on the causes of the American Civil war, and a very verbose summary of the last Harry Potter book. I have warned the user on their talk page and tagged the pages for speedy deletion. Please advise: is this a suitable response? I require a better understanding of consensus on this matter. Michaelbusch 01:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This really doesn't have to do with incivility or breaches of etiquette (at least, I don't see anything). I believe what you're doing is fine - the pages are an abuse of userpage space and are definitely nonsense/irrelevant to Wikipedia. This is an issue, perhaps, to raise at the administrators noticeboard, if you believe administrator intervention or action may be necessary. --Cheeser1 01:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think this was at a level to flag for admin intervention. I was more concerned with my own etiquette. Thanks for the advice. Michaelbusch 05:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Should I put a "resolved tag" on this one? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 11:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It's already been tagged as a non-issue. ---- Cheeser1 (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Insults on Elihu Root article discussion page

Stale-no activity Stale

Mateo SA has been insulting another user on the discussion page of the Elihu Root article, thereby violating several Wikipedia behavioral standards. Mpublius 15:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed the Talk:Elihu Root page, and the only violation of policy I can find by User:Mateo SA is a big of a failure to WP:AGF on copyright violations. I'll drop him a note about that. You said that he had violated several behavioural standards, though - would you like to elaborate in case I missed something? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Hammersfan

I and others have been updating the route boxes of UK railway services, in my case reflecting the new existence of the London Overground. User:Hammersfan is blatantly reverting them en bloc, also losing other edits in the process, rather than discuss them with others. Similar reversions of others also making route boxes more accurate are at this diff and this diff. The point in having proper templates is to use them and improve the usability and readability of our content, not to retain old and incorrect versions that are more difficult to use and maintain. Review and comment please. --AlisonW (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

While Hammersfan's lack of discussion does seem like a breach of Wikipedia etiquette, I don't necessarily agree with AlisonW's assertions of "accuracy", "correctness" or "improvement", or her understanding of London Overground's status (which I have tried explaining on her talk page, but she hasn't responded to me). Nor does it appear that she has read relevant discussions about these succession boxes at WT:RAIL. So I want to make clear that Hammersfan should not necessarily be portrayed as the villain here. --RFBailey (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
See responses at User_talk:RFBailey#London_Overground (I've only just seen your second comment so dupe my response here for completeness):
I disagree with you in part, and completely agree in another! If we are permitting the existence of 'London Underground' route boxes then 'London Overground' is an entirely accurate and logical extension of that practice; we *are* depicting services/routes in both cases. Where I agree with you is that splitting all the clearly national (ie not a part of TfL or similar body - eg. Newcastle, Manchester, Glasgow underground, etc Metro services) to their constituent operating organisations is not necessarily the best way to go, though the use of the s-rail tamplate system provides for a far easier maintenance and less 'code' within each page having a route box. We're here to provide information to the general reader imho. --AlisonW (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of specific discussion on the London Overground, I've now added Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#London_Overground. --AlisonW (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I blocked Hammersfan for 24 hours - (a) blind reverting (b) with no discussion - is just disruptive to the process of writing an encyclopedia - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Angli Cado Primoris and List of female metal singers

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereRefer to WP:AIV or WP:AIN for follow-up if the abuse continues.
  • User:Angli Cado Primoris has been repeatedly inserting the name of a non-notable into the List of female heavy metal singers. I have left information on his/her talk page explaining him/her that wikipedia has certain notability criteria for including musicians on it, but s/he has not responded and has continued to reinsert the non-notable into the list, and has not responded to my attempts to reason with him/her. Can somebody please help me straighten this out?Asarelah (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say you've handled the situation well so far. I'll add my two cents to the user's talk page, but assuming we're dealing with a non-good faith spammer here, which seems likely at this point, you'll probably wind up having to take it to WP:AIN. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
S/he did it again. I'm going to go to WP:AIN. Asarelah (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That's probably wise (alternatively, you could go to WP:RPP and seek to have the page protected, but if it's just one user doing the damage that might be overkill). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my mistake - you probably want to go to WP:AIV rather than WP:AIN. 23:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs)
Well, if s/he won't listen to me, maybe s/he will listen to an admin giving a warning. Who knows. Asarelah (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Awotter

  • User:Awotter has been making a number of bad-faith edits to the World War II Online page. His initial edits seemed in good faith but have been escalating and are becoming increasingly il-tempered, disruptive and in bad faith.
This spurs from a dispute where he cited a number of paragraphs in the article for removal based on missing references. It was unclear (and still is) if he thinks the text is inaccurate, but I provided references anyway. He subsequently deleted all the text, claiming the references were insufficent. Another editor User:KCMODevin reverted the deletions, arguing that the references were reasonable and User:Awotter had no reason to delete them. Awotter took this to a revert war, and subesquent discussions on the talk page became very personal and heated.
I stepped in, trying to calm things down but also arguing that the citations were reasonable. I also asked for disinterested opinions on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Acceptable_video_game_reference_material page. Two third parties, User:Nifboy, User:Anomie also felt our references were reasonable, and we continued to revert his deletions.
In a failed attempt to lock his edits in the page, he requested a page lock - but fortunately misunderstood the procedure and locked the original version of the page. See User_talk:East718.
With the page locked, he continues to vent by changing the assessment of the article to Start class, which really isn't reasonable since the article was not under the process for peer review, and he was really not a disinterested third party that would typically be doing a peer review.
There is an open mediation cabal case, but it has not been accepted by an administrator, and Awotter isn't showing any interest in trying to find common ground (see the mediation case), and his attempts to disrupt the WWIIOL page show he's really not interested in mediation anyway. His escalating disruptiveness really requires administrator action.
Hoping someone can take a look and provide a little oversight and guidance. Thanks!
Warthog32 (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this has progressed beyond being a wikiquette issue. It also looks like a member of the mediation cabal has agreed to take on the case, so I'd suggest that you pursue that route and see what comes of that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Wwerawrocks

Stuck.

This is an early warning about this user. This user has been pushing an opinion on both the Chris Benoit and WWF Fully Loaded pages in violation of WP:OR. His edit summaries have been in violation of WP:CIVIL (referring to me as an "idiot") and have in general been rude and unacceptable. I have posted an informal warning on his talk page. Another user has noted a possible WP:3RR violation coming but at this point in time the user's online conduct is the biggest concern. We may need admin involvement if this keeps up. His comments are solely based on his presence at the event, and have no back up. !! Justa Punk !! 21:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional - one of his edits was when he was not logged in and he edited as User:69.123.30.159. It was in this edit that he called me an "idiot". This may have been a deliberate act to avoid connection with his WP ID. !! Justa Punk !! 21:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Justa Punk - could you provide some diffs to these incidents? Also, what makes you so sure that User:69.123.30.159 and User:Wwerawrocks are one and the same? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Never mind the diffs; the user's edit history is short enough that I was able to find all the relevant bits myself. I've echoed your warning at his talk page; hopefully that will help cool things off. Let us know if the behaviour continues. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was about to point you here, where the obvious similarities in edit history and CAPSLOCK-malfunctions make it clear. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
If someone would do a checkuser on this user, you'll find it comes back with the same IP. I'm sure of it. He just reverted an edit on the Fully Loaded page under that IP - I changed it back. That's not an continuation of the etiquette problem, but it shows this user is still around. Sorry about not providing the diffs. !! Justa Punk !! 07:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I've now taken this to WP:ANI as this user is (under his anon IP) continuing his edits against WP:OR and WP:V. !! Justa Punk !! 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think that was the right move. Marking this as stuck. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl

Stuck. referred to RFC/U

This user has been causing disruption for some time across a number of articles, such as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, British monarchy, Second city of the United Kingdom, Canadian monarchy, Commonwealth realm, and various others. In my personal experience with this person, I have noted a strong POV, which wouldn't be of much consequence if this user didn't disregard consensus and content verified by reliable sources in order to push his personal views on a certain subject.

The drive tends to be passionately pro-United Kingdom and relatively derogatory to other Commonwealth realms. In essence, he is convinced that a monarchy shared amongst sixteen countries is not only dominantly, but solely British, and the other countries which are under this shared crown are simply still colonies subordinate to the UK and its sovereign. This POV goes against that which has been decided upon through consensus and properly sourced material, and thus tends to start edit wars which spill into disruptive discussions on related talk pages. Though some of the following were valid discussions and/or raised valid points, and I have been involved and sometimes proven wrong, forced to concede, or swayed, TharkunColl's comments in them reveal much of his POV and general demeanour:

A look at the edit histories - over the past year or so - of the associated articles will also generally reveal edit wars breaking out as TharkunColl attempts to remove information that does not suit his POV, sometimes even that which is directly sourced. Exactly that type of behaviour came to a head with his most recent attempt to do so at List of Canadian monarchs, wherein he blatantly deleted both the material and the reference it was almost directly quoted from. When notified more than once that he had deleted referenced material, he stated on his talk page that the cite was of little matter and explicitly promised he would revert one more time; and did.

This is only a selection of that which I personally know of; his talk page shows a long list of vandalism and civility complaints, and his block log shows a number of entries.

I would like an independent party to review this editor's actions in the hopes that something can be done to ensure more smooth editing in future, for many people. --G2bambino (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - I think there's already been a Wikiquette alert about this user for this behaviour. I'll dig through the archives and see what I can find - not that the previous alert and whatever conclusion may have come from it invalidates this one, but it could provide some useful context. Or it could convince us that this needs to go beyond here. Either way, let me see what I can find. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes, here's the old alert: [588]. It looks like everybody involved just resolved to try to get along better, which would be great except that it doesn't seem to have worked. For what it's worth, User:TharkunColl does seem to be ignoring consensus on this central question. I'll let him know that this is how I see it.
(Full disclosure: I'm a Canadian who sort of halfheartedly supports a transition to some sort of republican system.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Sarcasticidealist. It does seem as if TharkunColl is getting somewhat tendencious on this issue. (Note: I'm referring to this discussion mainly). --Bfigura (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This statement of G2bambino's says all that needs to be said about his debating tactics: "In essence, he is convinced that a monarchy shared amongst sixteen countries is not only dominantly, but solely British, and the other countries which are under this shared crown are simply still colonies subordinate to the UK and its sovereign." It is a complete and under lie. I have always made it clear that the realms are absolutely sovereign, and retain the British monarchy of their own free choice. The problem is G2, who has developed a POV based on a selective reading of the evidence, and ignores evidence to the contrary (such as a recent statement by the Secretary General of the Commonwealth that the realms retain the British monarch). G2's POV has led him so far from reality that he cannot even see the supreme irony in accusing me of having a pro-UK agenda, whilst he himself is a staunch supporter of the UK's monarchy in Canada. If there is any genuine nationalist bias here it is G2's, who has convinced himself that the British monarchy does not reign in Canada. He has spread this POV to countless articles. He will use any possible technique to defend it, such as reporting his opponents at every opportunity, mind-numbingly long winded argumentation, claiming false consensus, ignoring consensus he doesn't like, and misrepresenting my arguments to others so as to cynically gain support from people who mostly oppose the monarchy. TharkunColl (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for further evidence of your stance; the talk pages and your edit history provide show of the generally negative reaction of other users to your claims, meaning your view is not supported by consensus.
For the benefit of those looking at this case, the following offer some further insight:
I allow the data to speak for itself. --G2bambino (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet again you are bamboozling people with masses of irrelevant data. This is further evidence of your techniques. TharkunColl (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's allow others to decide what's "irrelevant" and what isn't, shall we? --G2bambino (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You expect people to read through masses of rubbish, ancient arguments brought about by your own intransigent POV in the first place? Or more likely, you probably hope they won't, and will just take your word for it. You are a single-issue fanatic. You only ever make edits to articles relating to the British monarchy, and those edits are almost always tendentious. TharkunColl (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I did look through several of the linked pages, and they seem to support G2bambino's claims. I'd be happy to take a look at any diffs or links that you think would support your point too though. (Providing such would be much more productive than making unsupported assertions that someone else is bamboozling people). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree entirely with User:Bfigura. Besides that, the issue here isn't your position in the content dispute, but rather your tendencious editing and evasion of consensus.
We can't force you to change your behaviour. But this should be an early warning sign to you that it's not just editors with whom you're engaged in conflict disputes who find these things problematic. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to harp on this, but, despite this alert being made, Thark is still causing issue that's either confounding or aggravating a number of people:
Should this go to a higher level? It's getting really out of hand. --G2bambino (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not threatened any reverts! Your vendetta against me is getting out of hand. TharkunColl (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I refer reviewers here. The rest of the commentary doesn't demonstrate much in the way of good faith, in my opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You've made it clear that if consensus moves an article against your wishes, you will create a new article under that name regardless of the consensus against it. It may not be a revert, but it is just as bad.--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 16:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
As this behaviour is continuing, and suggestions he present his accusations and arguments before ArbCom or some other reviewing body have been dismissed, I'm considering filing an RfC/User for TharkunColl. Would that be the appropriate next step? --G2bambino (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
An RfC/U is generally the next step. Good luck with resolving the issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Regertfully, Tharky has gone against consensus at talk: Commonwealth realm for all monarchy articles to be moved to Monarchy of X, by repeatedly reverting Monarchy of the United Kingdom. He also threaten to create a new article called British monarchy (the Monarchy of the UK articles' former name). I've tried to steer Tharky aways from these latest actions, but was unsuccessful - I feel he has a OWNERSHIP issue with monarchy articles relating to the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There was never a consensus, merely two editors pushing their POV. But I really can't be bothered with all this any more. TharkunColl (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
What a joke; two editors plus eight others who all-together supported one of seven presented options. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --G2bambino (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Ten editors called for movement to Monarchy of X, I find Tharky's attitude regretful & apparently self-distructive. This (his actions) is so frustrating, so unproductive. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Fuck off, Bambi. I hope you're satisfied. TharkunColl (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This alert has been marked as stale. No more commenting in it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with user

I have a problem with a user user:71.106.173.211. I was reverting vandalism a couple of days ago, and posted a vandalism note - which was subsequently deleted - on the IP's Talk page after reverting an edit. In retrospect, the edit was misguided rather than vandalism, but I used the vandalism template after seeing a previous vandalism warning.

Since then, the user has attempted to engage in argument in increasingly accusatory postings. I've requested that he stop, and think I've been patient and cool so far, despite the accusations and talk that I feel is becoming a personal attack. You can see the postings at my talk page. I cross posted my replies to the IP talk page. Opinions would be appreciated. CMacMillan (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You should also note that I've been reverting the most recent post. CMacMillan (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think your exchange has become pretty uncivil on both sides. At this point, I would suggest that both of you simply disengage, since there doesn't appear to be any point to your arguing. I could analyze who's been uncivil where, but that seems less productive than both of you just cutting off this poisonous exchange.
(Tengentially, users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages; doing so signifies that they have read and understood the warnings.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur with SI, except for misspelling tangentially :p - you should let it go (maybe he's not a troll, but the point is the same). I've left a warning asking him to cool it. I'd suggest you just let him do whatever. If the content dispute persists, handle it as calmly/professionally as you can, and if need be, just ignore that part of Wikipedia for a while. Responding by getting to into a more heated type of argument (ie the piss and vinegar comment) isn't going to help much. Take the high road. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that if the IP user continues to introduce bad changes that are consistently reverted, he may be in violation of WP:3RR and other edit-warring policies. If you see a genuine violation, please feel free to report it at the appropriate admin noticeboard. If it's just a matter of this person harassing you, I'd recommend what SarcasticIdealist and Cheeser1 have suggested - disengaging - and let us know if the situation persists. If you make a good faith effort to resolve the situation by letting it fizzle out on its own or working proactively to bring focus back to the articles, it'll be that much easier for people here and on the admin noticeboard to intervene. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)