Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive11

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.

Archive index

Contents

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[1]. The removal was reverted[2]. 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: [3], 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 [4]. 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."[5] 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: [6]. 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: [7]
    • 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 ([8], [9], [10]) 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 [11]. 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[12], generalized belligerence towards other editors and repeated [13] personal attacks [14]. S/he has been warned/cautioned on more [15] than [16] one [17] occasion and it is still happening. To make matters worse, the his/her new argument is that it is impossible to have a NPOV [18] 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)