Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive32

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.

Contents

User:Domer48

Stuck. User does not appear interested in discussing etiquette/edit-warring, only issues related to the inclusion of the links. That issue can/should be resolved on the appropriate talk page, although I'd encourage people to respect consensus before adding disputed external links. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User is not adhering to WP:CONSENSUS. Two editors have opposed the inclusion of four links as per WP:EL, but Domer48 is ignoring the policy. More specifically, one link is a blog, and three links should be used as refs. Links were added here, and readded here and here. Discussion is at Talk:Segi#Links removed because not neutral. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note asking the user to behave a bit more appropriately. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The links are still included on the page, but if I revert them, I'll be violating 3RR. Should the links remain on the page, or should I revert them anyway? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Let others revert it. I've done one, but I don't care to watch the page so I would expect the others who've agreed with you to revert as well. Crossing the 3RR line is really only appropriate in obvious cases (not disputes about how policy like WP:EL applies, however clear one might think it is). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick glance of both the Talk Page and the Article will clearly illustrate how HelloAnnyong is mixing up two seperate issues. Issues 1) The use of references, Issue 2) Links (which I have added). There is no consensus on issue (1). Now issue (2), HelloAnnyong is trying to use WP:EL to remove the links, while I maintain that the links are covered by WP:EL. Input would be welcome by other editors. --Domer48 (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a content dispute, in which you appear to be both incorrect and opposed by a group of editors with a clear explanation of policy in this matter. Regardless, this is not the place for such a dispute. The links you are adding do not appear to meet WP:EL by any stretch, and until you can establish that they do (by forming a consensus) you should stop edit warring and wait to re-add the links. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Were is this "group of editors with a clear explanation of policy in this matter?" "The links you are adding do not appear to meet WP:EL by any stretch." What, are you not sure? As to your comment on my Talk Page, I've responded there and on your talk page. --Domer48 (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm saying they don't appear to because all you have to do is look. Am I the decision making body that decides what meets WP:EL? No. Consensus is. And until you build a consensus, you should not continue edit-warring to insert your links. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No Diff's to back up your opinion? Not to worrie, I've removed your comments from my talk page, as you could not provide diff's there either. --Domer48 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Trowing the rattle out of the cot, is not how wiki works. You made a false claim on my talk page and could not back it up. Now you say to HelloAnnyong "I would expect the others who've agreed with you to revert as well." Eh, that would be you, and only you! Because you did not bother to read the discussion, like I suggested, and lack the grace to put up your hand and say, I made a mistake. Just for editors who are intrested in this little tat ta te, here is my contrabution again:
A quick glance of both the Talk Page and the Article will clearly illustrate how HelloAnnyong is mixing up two seperate issues. Issues 1) The use of references, Issue 2) Links (which I have added). There is no consensus on issue (1). Now issue (2), HelloAnnyong is trying to use WP:EL to remove the links, while I maintain that the links are covered by WP:EL. Input would be welcome by other editors. --Domer48 (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that User:Domer48 has forked this discussion to my talk page here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jlhess and Jon Hess

Stuck. This has already been referred to the ANI, due to the user's egregous COI/SPA behavior (not to mention over-the-top threats of violence). --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User repeatedly vandalizes the article with unverified, original research and POV material. User appears to be the subject of the article. I've asked user to remove things they consider untrue, but instead user insists on a flatter piece for the article. User also appears to be using sock puppets, and has made threats and personal insults towards me, as well as challenging me to a fight. --Mista-X (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a report on the WP:ANI pending, here. The Wikiquette alerts board isn't here to handle content disputes, only the inappropriate behavior, and unfortunately it can only be of service when the user has good intentions or means to contribute positively. Sockpuppet concerns should be addressed here, and the content issues should be taken care of at Talk:Jon Hess. Beyond that, hopefully the ANI will result in some resolution for this issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


Hu12 abusing his power??

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereThis matter has already been taken to WP:ANI. Reports to multiple forums look like fourum shopping Mayalld (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check and comment on our behaviours in this issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177856023
Hu12 comment: rmv trolling & Disruptive editing

The following comments are censored and edited out by the admin:
WP:NOTABILITY only applies when a webhost wants to create an article on its own, NOT a reference/mentioning in a comparison page

WP:NOTABILITY is set here as absolute rules for entries being added in this comparison page (of course I argue that it is applying the wrong principle in the wrong situations - messing up the article itself and a tiny entry of the whole page).

After all, read carefully. It is just a guideline: “ NOTABILITY is merely a guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. ”

Read the last sentence. Use common sense.

Hu12 says Wikipedia is NOT an internet guide or directory page but... “ "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." ”

This is an comparison page. A reference here is to contribute to the comparison table. These entries are highly relevant. What is the point of having a comparison table if nearly no entry can be added into it?

Another case where a so-called rule or guideline is rigidly applied without some common senses. ;) Odd Master (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177857754
Hu12 comment: remove blatent vandalism/insertion of my post

I realise I made a mistake here. I forgot to sign this message (because I'm talking too much in this discussion). But it is clearly not an intention of a blatant vandalism/insertion of his post. Otherwise it will be done more sneakily. Why adding a block of statements which can be realised easily? Instead of accusing me as a blatant vandal, he may simply fix it by adding my signauture back. But he chose to censor my comments again.

The message censored by the admin:

Sorry I am talking about you guys removing the reference of Megaupload in the comparison page (NOT its article or whatever). Don't mess up between "creating an article for them" VS "mentioning/referencing them in the comparison page". Read again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_one-click_hosters&oldid=177859356
Hu12 comment: rmv unauthorised refactoring of my comment, another attempt by Odd Master editing of other users' comments to substantially change their meaning

He actually edited his own comment. I haven't edit anyone's comments to substantially change their meaning. A complete frame-up!

He banned me after the incident.

I registered as Odd_Master2 and reported this incident.

After all, please comment about the appropriateness of the following:

  1. He is one of the editors in this page. He has a conflict of interest. Is it appropriate for him to carry out the administrative work on this page too?
  2. He censored my comments (Reasons: rmv trolling & Disruptive editing). I don't know why a comment (even if it is critical or may be harsh) can be censored. No comments should be censored even if you don't agree with it? Is he right to censor anyone comments?
  3. He made false claims, eg "another attempt by Odd Master editing of other users' comments". What words did I edit? Feel free to point it out.
  4. He is the one who argued me in the discussion. He has a conflict of interest. But it is him to execute the ban. Is it appropriate for him to do so?

Thank you.

PS: Sorry that the report may look ugly. I found it hard to discuss here. Wikipedia should install a proper forum software to prevent this kinds of problems in future. But I believe it won't be realised in any forseeable future.

Whilst talk pages may lack the structure of forums, they work OK for most people Mayalld (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

70.112.185.154

An editor under 70.112.185.154 used profanity toward another editor (probably me) in the edit summary log of the Dana DeArmond article. The abuse is obvious although the motivation for such incivility is unclear. Vinh1313 (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Gave notice. Reply here or on my talk page if it continues. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Panda

There is an ongoing dispute over the article Swedish language which primarily involves myself and panda, but has lately expanded to include many other editors. It's centered mostly around the content of the Swedish langugae article and to a great extent referencing, but also a lot of other minor issues like date formatting and the likes. The problem as I perceive it is that panda is tackling the business of trying to improve the article by nitpicking certain issues to death. Often there is a distinct feeling that there is an acute lack of experience or knowledge of the linguistic topics debated. When confronted with replies that argue his points, the reaction for the most part has been to keep arguing with new, yet mostly irrelevant ad hoc arguments, or to cite policy over and over again. Another very disconcerting tactic is to simply turn every single argument presented to him around and throw it back at his opponent. All of this is often followed by claims that failure to comply with panda's suggestion (or anyone else's opinions that he happens to agree with) is tantamount to being biased, trying to own the article and breeching guidelines or policies.

There's not so much a problem of name-calling and overt rudeness as a frustrating lack of tact in the fact of counter-arguments, no matter how good or bad they may be. I have lost my temper with panda more than once, but I have apologized for it at his talk page.

Examples of the behavior that I find most problematic can be found in these threads:

Peter Isotalo 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If Peter gets upset at having has comments directed back at him, it may be because they actually apply to him. If someone could show me how this is a breech of wikiquette, please let me know where this is stated.
Peter has been very uncivil to me, see
  1. User talk:Panda#Swedish references
  2. User talk:Panda#Fact tagging
and other editors who he has content disputes with by participating in edit warring/reverting over trivial issues. For example:
  1. date linking in the Swedish language article: see Talk:Swedish language#Date reversion and Talk:Swedish language#Date autoformatting is sick and not being fixed as well as [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
  2. reverting citation templates: [8] [9] [10]
only because he doesn't like them, and removing reference requests without adding references
He's also been known to exaggerate (see Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Can an article lose its FA status?), which he has continued to do here claiming that "failure to comply with panda's suggestion (or anyone else's opinions that he happens to agree with) is tantamount to being biased, trying to own the article and breeching guidelines or policies." He's made it clear that he's the primary editor of the Swedish language article [15] but doesn't give respect to other editors with opposing views, which other editors have commented on: [16] [17] [18]. It's really difficult to take his apology seriously when he chooses to attack me again soon after by claiming that I'm "Hell-bent on altering the sample section to the exten [sic] that you're willing to change your arguments to suit your goals."[19] (Interestingly, he hasn't given me any examples of how I've changed my arguments to suit my goals.) And apparently he's using this wikiquette alert to try to intimidate me by publicizing this in Talk:Swedish language#Wikiquette alert. [20]
I really don't understand why Peter is upset about being asked for more references in the Swedish language article for verifiability. He doesn't seem to believe it's necessary and has been fighting this by arguing in the talk page (or reverting edits that are not incorrect, but he opposes anyway, such as [21]). Instead, other editors have had to help find references or modify questionable text. –panda (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

From my interactions with him, also on Swedish language, Panda is a tenacious editor who will rarely concede a point and will continue to flog the horse far too long. He has a confrontational attitude and is quick to point to his opponents transgressions (as you can see above), while not recognizing that a less confrontational attitude may be more productive. His comments are generally civil and on topic, but often include accusations of bias and quoting of policy, and little or no attempts at deescalation and finding a compromise. Like Peter, I've found this to be frustrating.

I believe that Panda is genuinely trying to improve the articles he works on, but I wish he would adopt a different attitude while trying to do so. henrik•talk 08:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

After henrik's comment, I'd like to add that there is no real accusation of panda acting in bad faith. The problem is rather that panda appears to be seeing bad faith in just about any consistent opposition to many of his suggestions. I think his outbursts[22][23] at henrik's attempt to intervene are particularly unfair. The interpretation of a wikiquette alert as a mere intimidation isn't particularly helpful either.
I'm also worried that panda is slanting the truth of this conflict a bit too much in his own favor (or, rather, my disfavor). He has roundly ignored mentioning that I have respected a lot of his suggestions and padded the references here and there and tried to make occasional clarifications in the prose. The problem is that panda often demands references for things he simply doesn't understand or isn't experienced with, which is not something I find reason enough to add a footnote for.
Peter Isotalo 10:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
His comments are generally civil and on topic, but often include accusations of bias and quoting of policy I'm not going to comment on the alleged accusations of bias, as this matter is somewhat subjective. However, I would like to know why quoting policy is a bad thing. It's not as if panda is quoting policy without giving a reason why the policy should be followed. Lurker (said · done) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
"Alleged accusations of bias?" Did you read the diffs I posted above? "Henrik: Your comment clearly shows your bias." isn't a particularly oblique statement.
Policy citations generally need to be accompanied with a reasonable interpretation or specification, especially if conte<script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>sted. For example, if verifiability policies say that statements "likely to be contested" are to be cited, simply saying "I contest this statement and now you have to cite it or the article is unverifiable" is pretty much gaming the system. When it comes to panda, the discussions of things like verb endings, gender terminology and population statistics were more about refusal to argue sources he wasn't prepared to check out himself or by applying very convoluted logic to prove himself right. For example, accusing me of OR concerning the verb endings was quite un-called for.[24]
Peter Isotalo 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Both Peter and Henrik have made many accusations and I will address each of them below.

For disclosure purposes, Henrik has backed Peter on just about everything in the Swedish language article. Henrik has "collaborated with Peter before and respect him as a good article writer" [25] and has even claimed that I've "made some questionable decisions before regarding this article and has driven the main author to a wikibreak"[26], without any evidence of the so-called questionable decisions and despite the fact that Peter was edit warring with other editors about date linking. Apparently he blames me for asking for outside opinion about the date linking issue (see Template talk:Cite web#Why is the date wikilinked?), which has drawn several editors to the article, with whom Peter has edit warred. Henrik apparently realized how uncivil he was being towards me as he choose to apologize on my talk page.[27] But not so long afterwards he choose to attack an editor who was linking dates by only asking him to stop reverting, [28] even though Peter was also reverting.[29] When I pointed out how biased his comments were,[30] Henrik went claimed that editors who oppose Peter's opinions are participating in "low-level harassment and wikilawyering" and that "he [Peter] shouldn't have to deal with crap like this."[31] So it's no surprise that Henrik is here defending Peter.

Henrik claims that:

  • "Panda is a tenacious editor who will rarely concede a point and will continue to flog the horse far too long." There are several points that I've brought up and not continued to discuss, such as all of points brought up in Talk:Swedish language#Reply to tags that are still not addressed and missing page numbers for text from Crystal's book which was brought up even earlier in Talk:Swedish language#Modifying reference system?.
  • I have "a confrontational attitude and is quick to point to his opponents transgressions", however Peter does this, considering the above diffs. Henrik has even admitted that "Peter can be a bit abrupt at times" and "Unfortunately, Peter has a low tolerance for edits which he doesn't think improve the article, so a revert war ensues." And yet he defends Peter and is here to complain about my actions when I have not been edit warring. Henrik also admits that "His [Panda's] comments are generally civil and on topic", but the comments that Peter has been made on my talk page show that Peter has not been civil or even on topic at times.
  • "His [Panda's] comments ... often include accusations of bias and quoting of policy, and little or no attempts at deescalation and finding a compromise." Bias that is as obvious as this should be pointed out IMHO. I see nothing wrong with quoting relevant policy, such as WP:V. Asking for references shouldn't have to be a compromise, especially considering the primary author is around and knows where he got his info from. Most editors would just find and add the references instead of arguing about whether or not a ref is needed. Since I haven't been uncivil, as Henrik has affirmed, I see no reason to apologize for being uncivil as a deescalation attempt, which is the only deescalation attempt that I can see both Henrik and Peter have done for being uncivil towards me. I have asked for outside opinion from different sources, such as an individual editor [32] and WP:3O [33] but didn't receive outside comments for those issues partly because the editor understandably didn't want to get involved [34] and because Henrik started to reply to the 3O request, which resulted in my request being removed from 3O,[35] even though Henrik couldn't possibly give an outside opinion considering his relationship with Peter. However, Henrik and I were able to successfully resolve one of the issues while Peter was away (the % of Swedish speakers in Finland) which was an issue we both compromised on.

Peter claims that:

  • "The problem is rather that panda appears to be seeing bad faith in just about any consistent opposition to many of his suggestions." When I've refuted every argument that Peter has given for why something shouldn't change and Peter still doesn't want it changed, then there must be some alternative reason that he's not stating and I believe I have a right to question Peter's motives. (See Talk:Swedish language#Sample)
  • "I think his [Panda's] outbursts at henrik's attempt to intervene are particularly unfair." Of course Peter would think that my so-called "outburts" were unfair since Henrik was solely defending Peter. Henrik's comment vs my reply and Henrik's comment vs my reply
  • "The interpretation of a wikiquette alert as a mere intimidation isn't particularly helpful either." Then what was the purpose of posting the wikiquette alert in the talk page where everyone can see he is having a dispute with me?
  • "I'm also worried that panda is slanting the truth of this conflict a bit too much in his own favor (or, rather, my disfavor). He has roundly ignored mentioning that I have respected a lot of his suggestions and padded the references here and there and tried to make occasional clarifications in the prose." Few changes to the Swedish language article have been made without opposition from Peter. Despite the many points I brought up in talk:Swedish language#Modifying reference system?, he didn't make any changes for issues I brought up. When I edited the text, he only reverted my changes and removed citation templates [36] plus re-fixed a year that he reverted [37] [38] (I had found and fixed the year error. [39]) It wasn't until after I tagged the article with {{fact}} tags that he started to add any references or clarify the text. Peter added a total three references, (1) the 1976 edition of Barfotabarn,[40] which doesn't match the text (which is from the 1933 ed of Barfotabarn) (2) a link to a specific page at kommunerna.net to replace the link to the main page of kommunerna.net [41], and (3) a ref to an entry in an encyclopedia [42], but there were many more fact tags that he removed without giving a citation, or he removed the tagged text so that no citation would be needed. It obviously upset him to do this as he then went to my talk page to complain that I shouldn't add {{fact}} tags to the article [43], even though when I wrote that I was planning to tag the article in the talk page, [44] his friend Henrik had even stated that I was welcome to do so. [45] Bringing up the topics in the talk page only resulted in endless arguments about why something did not need a reference (see talk:Swedish language#Modifying reference system?) as well as accusations that I didn't state what needed to be referenced [46] even though several points were brought up in the very beginning, such as [47] [48]. (There is text quoted from a book called Barfotabarn that I've asked Peter to give page numbers for several times. Peter claimed that he told me that "I [Peter] don't have the book at hand" [49], when in fact he never did so.)
  • "panda often demands references for things he simply doesn't understand or isn't experienced with, which is not something I find reason enough to add a footnote for". It's irrelevant if I understand or have experience with something. Anyone can ask for references, whose purpose is to make the text verifiable. Why Peter doesn't want the text to be verifiable is beyond me. Another editor already commented in April 2007 about how Peter has been disrespectful to other editors who ask for references/tag the article [50] [51] [52].
  • "When it comes to panda, the discussions of things like verb endings, gender terminology and population statistics were more about refusal to argue sources he wasn't prepared to check out himself or by applying very convoluted logic to prove himself right." That's another exaggeration as I did check my source for the gender terminology issue [53] and the sources Peter eventually listed for the population statistics [54]. I was justified in calling the verb ending issue WP:OR as I was able to give many examples of it not being true,[55] which contradicted that it was a "very productive method of creating new verbs". That another editor reworded the text [56] shows that my concern was valid.

–panda (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter has also claimed:

  • "simply saying "I contest this statement and now you have to cite it or the article is unverifiable" is pretty much gaming the system." I have always given reasons for why I have contested a statement when asked, such as [57] and [58], which is not gaming the system. Peter has even changed the text for some of the contested statements, such as Swedish being "officially recommended for local and state government."[59] So claiming that it's "gaming the system" when someone requests for citations is ridiculous but does explain why he reacts so negatively when editors ask for citations. This is obviously a bad faith accusation.

–panda (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Battleground
I see the discussion on Talk:Swedish Language as unconstructive, and after studying the page, I have to agree that Panda, no doubt a well-meaning editor trying to improve the article, gives few constructive responses; s/he is very defensive and embattled. I will give just one detail to illustrate how that affects other editors: citation templates, which Panda insists be used, per WP:MOS. Now The Manual of Style isn't the word of God, it's a guideline. More urgently, in this case, WP:MOS doesn't actually especially recommend citation templates, but is scrupulously careful to presenting different legitimate alternatives in a neutral way:
  • The use of templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline. Templates may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Some editors find them helpful, arguing that they help maintain a consistent citation format across articles, while other editors find them unnecessary, arguing that they are distracting, particularly when used inline in the article text, as they make the text harder to read in edit mode and therefore harder to edit.
Panda accuses Peter of reverting citation templates "only because he doesn't like them",[60], as if not liking citation templates is disgraceful in and of itself. But it's really not. Many content writers don't like these templates. They require much coding and (comparatively) high-level coding skills, compared to the simple <ref></ref> system. The templates make the footnote, as seen in edit mode, opaque and impossible to add to for new users. And not only newbies have trouble with them, they certainly defeat for example my own coding skills. It's true that I'm exceptionally stupid, but I have nevertheless written 9 FAs using the simple ref code, that anybody is free to add to, and most people ar able to add to. The templates are probably fine to use once you've learned how, but most content contributors of my acquaintance never did learn how. And why should all writers be forced to learn to play with programmers' toys? I emphasize again that it's not as if WP:CITE expresses a preference for templates. Peter Isotalo has argued on the talkpage and in edit summaries for the advantages of non-template citing as more convenient. It's frustrating that Panda has not responded or offered arguments of his/her own, but only reverted and pointed to the mere existence of citation templates, as if that existence in itself carried the force of a compulsion to use. So, erm, which of the editors is it that lives by WP:ILIKEIT? This is just one minor example--I don't have time or indeed inclination to go through all the small, medium, and large bones of contention between Peter and Panda--but it's a telling example. Panda, please take part in a bona fide discussion on the talkpage, instead of laying down what you take to be law. To hear and reply to the other person's arguments is the way forward. The battleground is not. Please. Bishonen | talk 00:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC).
Bishonen claims:
  • "I will give just one detail to illustrate how that affects other editors: citation templates, which Panda insists be used, per WP:MOS". Please provide a diff for this as I have never insisted that citation templates be used. When Peter asked "Also, is it really necessary to use all that excess code for web citations?"[61] I replied "The web references don't need all of the excess code if someone wants to rewrite it with all of the info that is now included. Previously they were missing a lot of details and not formatted uniformly."[62], which obviously contradicts what Bishonen claims.
  • "Peter Isotalo has argued on the talkpage and in edit summaries for the advantages of non-template citing as more convenient." Peter has not "argued on the talkpage and in edit summaries for the advantages of non-template citing as more convenient." He has, however, claimed that they are "huge swathes of wikicode for very little benefit" and that they lead to "staggering redundancy".[63] In edit summaries, he only writes "reverted unnecessary citation templates"[64], "Same result without the huge template"[65] and "Same result with less code is always preferable; templates aren't mandatory."[66] It's apparent that Peter doesn't like them because of the extra code they introduce, not for the long rationale Bishonen is claiming.
  • "It's frustrating that Panda has not responded or offered arguments of his/her own, but only reverted and pointed to the mere existence of citation templates, as if that existence in itself carried the force of a compulsion to use." Please provide a diff. As already stated in the first bullet, I obviously responded when asked about citation templates and haven't insisted that they be used. I have never "reverted and pointed to the mere existence of citation templates". When Peter removed the templates, I didn't add them back. I may have modified the dates though, for consistency purposes, which I explained in the talk page.[67]
If Bishonen wants to critique my behavior, then he should at least not make up stories.
Also, for disclosure, Henrik, Peter Isotalo and Bishonen are obviously friends since Henrik and Peter Isotalo have complained about me on Bishonen talk page.[68] [69] So it's easy to see why he chose to side with his friends, even if it means using false claims to attack me with. That said, I welcome any critique that can be backed up. –panda (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who is viewing this WQA for the very first time, who doesn't know any of you, and who has not yet taken the time to read any of the referenced conversations or diffs, it looks to me like you're proving the points of Henrik, Peter and Bishonen. They've all pretty much said that you're indicating bad faith in the comments of others when there doesn't appear to be any, and based solely on the way this conversation is going, I find myself agreeing with them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Then I would recommend that you read the referenced conversations and diffs before judging. Drawing a conclusion from the discussion here in which the two sides (Peter et al and I) are in disagreement is very likely to give a slanted view of the entire situation since they are obviously here to accuse me of wrongdoing. –panda (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, KieferSkunk, I think so, too. This is the first contact I've had with Panda. Panda, I don't think you can realistically expect outside reviewers to pay for the pleasure of commenting here by first making themselves masters of all the battleground and "no, you are!" on Talk:Swedish language. For my part I unfortunately couldn't spare the time for more than random dips there, so (like KieferSkunk) I've assessed the situation more by what I see you write on this Wikiquette alert page. For instance, I commented on your remark above that Peter is "reverting citation templates: [70] [71] [72]
only because he doesn't like them". I'm a little taken aback to be told, for my trouble, that I "make up stories", and that I'm in an anti-Panda conspiracy with Peter Isotalo and Henrik. (Yes, btw, I do know them, to the extent of being Swedish myself, which has brought us into some interaction—I think I may even, scandalous intimacy, have supported Henrik's RFA.) Bishonen | talk 08:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC).
panda, I have a question that I think is rather relevant to the complaints about your behavior: could you point out even a single in<script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>stance where you have openly conceded a point in a discussion where you have been opposed?
Peter Isotalo 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Bishnonen- No-one is saying you should be familiar with the "battleground" before commenting here. But if you are not familiar with affairs, you should not make sweeping statements like It's frustrating that Panda has not responded or offered arguments of his/her own, but only reverted and pointed to the mere existence of citation templates, as if that existence in itself carried the force of a compulsion to use. Even a cursory glance at the talk page in question shows that to be untrue. Panda has given good answers to the questions asked of him/her, and even gone to other pages to get advice. For example, I got involved in the article because panda came to the talk page for cite:web and asked why the date was wikilinked. On the other hand, Peter seems to be mainlt interested in reverting and arguing (looking at the edit history, Peter seems to have reverted about as many times as everyone else in the edit war put together; and he has at least as many aggressive comments as panda). Who exac<script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>tly is turning the article into a battleground.
Kieferskunk- Speaking as someone who is viewing this WQA for the very first time, who doesn't know any of you, and who has not yet taken the time to read any of the referenced conversations or diffs, it looks to me like you're proving the points of Henrik, Peter and Bishonen. Is this a joke? Lurker (said · done) 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
panda and I clashed over a dozen other factual matters which had infinitely more relevance to the actual content of the article than those dinky dates will ever have. The edit war over the date linking (which is pretty close to being a candidate for WP:LAME) was at best a sideshow that happaned to attract a slew of editors who otherwise had no interest in the article or my dealings with panda. Considering the date issue isn't the reason that I filed this report, I would appreciate it if you didn't muddle the issue by dragging that conflict into this arena as well. The moral high ground you indirectly claim by lambasting Bishonen and ridiculing Kiefer isn't helping either. It seems more like an attempt to force everyone to dig trenches and avoid reconciliation at any cost.
Peter Isotalo 18:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
In reply to Lurker: I think you missed my point. I stated that I'm not an interested party in this dispute, and I have not gone into depth into the specifics of the dispute, but I'm seeing the very pattern that is being disputed playing out right in this WQA. Panda seems to be very defensive and very willing to say that everyone is ganging up on him, and I'm pointing out that it's not necessary to go into the article talks and diffs to see that pattern. I believe it would be to everyone's benefit (most particularly Panda's) if he were to ease off the trigger a little and realize that easily-recognizeable patterns of behavior can be easily addressed with a very small attitude adjustment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

All of my comments above having been said, now that I have had a chance to read through some of the conversations, I believe all parties involved in this dispute should take a step back and cool off for a little while. The pattern I'm seeing right now is the result of a personality clash mainly between Peter and Panda. I'll address both of you in turn.

Peter: The initial dispute appears to have grown out of a content dispute - very common here - but I found your way of addressing Panda to be fairly antagonistic. While I can certainly appreciate when people are direct, you appeared to be accusing Panda of bad faith toward the beginning of the dispute, and when he responded in kind to you, things started to get blown out of proportion. Remember, folks, attack the content, not the editor. I would suggest that you read back over your messages to Panda and look at them as though they were directed at you - that will generally help to keep things civil. In particular, commenting to an editor about their modus operandi is generally a bad thing, as it sounds accusatory, even if it wasn't meant to be.

Panda: Likewise, I saw a tendency for you to jump to conclusions fairly quickly about what other editors were trying to do, and/or whether they were trying to gang up on you, as well as defending your work almost to the point of raising ownership concerns. I'd recommend that you ease off the trigger a bit - content disputes are going to arise virtually everywhere, because different people have different ideas of how an article should be written and organized, how citations should appear, etc. I am not in any position to speak on this particular dispute or to take sides, since I have no knowledge of (or interest in) the subject, but from a policy standpoint, I think you owe some responsibility in this dispute as well.

I'm pretty certain that later portions of this dispute have their genesis in the beginning part of it - after initial hostilities, both sides are likely to just automatically dismiss each other as hot-headed jerks without really giving much thought to the discussion, because they're both mad at each other already. Again, I think the best thing is for all of you to disengage for a little while and come back when you've cooled off and are ready to address the content and put your personal differences aside. You're all good editors, and we want to encourage you all to keep editing Wikipedia, but it's important for you guys to do so in a way that avoids edit wars and personal conflicts - otherwise, we're going to get nowhere.

Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this, and I'm glad to see a little more balance now in the commentary, prompted by Lurker's observation of some conclusions that appeared hasty. I haven't followed the issue closely, but I have been aware since almost the beginning. In very good faith, and acting very civilly and appropriately, panda has posted many places asking for help and advice on how to approach the issues with this article. The first post I saw was at the talk page of WP:FA, and s/he later posted several times to my talk page seeking advice. I counseled panda to not put the article up at WP:FAR, rather attempt to first work the issues out on the article talk page. Panda apparently followed my advice, and began good faith negotiations on the talk page. Of greater concern, Isotalo then put the article up at FAR, in a move that was labeled by others as pointy and bad faith. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Swedish language/archive1 The end result was that the article was removed from WP:FAR because of what was called Isotalo's "bad faith" nomination, leaving panda without the normal recourse for featured article review. I've observed uncivil commentary directed at panda throughout, although s/he appears to be only acting in good faith and attempting to resolve issues with the article, and unfortunately followed my advice to go this alone on the talk page. I'm disappointed that Isotalo's pre-emptive pointy nomination at FAR means that a review with outside input couldn't be conducted. My advice to panda is that this is a lose-lose situation, and it's time to walk away; his/her good faith is apparent and it's falling on deaf ears. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (outdent) Reply to Bishonen: If you hadn't fabricated a story to support your statement, then maybe I would have taken your comments more seriously. There's also a big difference between claiming that you've studied the talk page and only taken random dips.

If you want the quick and short version, then read the comments Peter made to me on my talk page: User talk:Panda#Swedish references and User talk:Panda#Fact tagging. Things don't happen in a vacuum and if you claim that I've been behaving badly, then it's very likely that the opposing side has provoked it. Don't forget that WP:AGF states that This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. To illustrate, here's an exert of an exchange between Peter and I:

  • 18:49, 25 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang panda): "I removed the following sources as they are not cited in the article: ... Statistics Finland ... Please replace if they should be listed for some reason."
  • 09:01, 26 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang Peter Isotalo): "Please reinsert the souces you removed. For anyone that reads the article through in its entirety, it's obvious what those sources have been used for..."
  • 10:56, 26 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang Peter Isotalo): "Also, is it really necessary to use all that excess code for web citations?"
  • 15:24, 26 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang panda): "Statistics Finland: ...no clue why it was cited. Doesn't matter if you read the article. Please explain. ... The web references don't need all of the excess code if someone wants to rewrite it with all of the info that is now included. Previously they were missing a lot of details and not formatted uniformly."
  • 17:21, 26 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang Peter Isotalo): "kommunerna.net is and Statistics Finland are as far as I know the sources for the first paragraph of "Geographic distribution". ... Web references do not require cumbersome code masses to be uniform; all we need to do is correct the notes that aren't conforming. There's also the very annoying date linkage that serves absolutely no practical purpose. The date that one looked up a website is in no way relevant to the articles about those dates or this article."
  • 04:01, 27 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang panda): "...then there should be a specific URL that is cited, not just a general link to the main page of those websites. If you can find the specific URL, then please add it. In the mean time, I can add them to External links as I haven't found any relevant information on those web sites. There are also other references that can be used instead for that paragraph, such as [73]."
  • 04:04, 27 November 2007 (SweLang panda): added general Statistics Finland link to External Links.
  • 09:19, 27 November 2007 (SweLang Peter Isotalo): reverted citation templates
  • 15:57, 27 November 2007 (Talk:Cite web panda): "Why is the date automatically wikilinked? Is there some way to turn off the automatic wikilinking of dates?"
  • 16:41, 27 November 2007 (Talk:Cite web Lurker): "According to the Manual of Style, all dates with a day, month and year should be wikilinked. See also this page. ...and it shouldn't be turned off as it is useful and mandated by the MOS."
  • 17:21, 27 November 2007 (Talk:Cite web panda): "It would be much nicer to have a flag that allows you to turn off auto wikilinking of dates. At any rate, I'll see if bringing up the MOS changes this other editor's mind about wikilinking dates."
  • 17:27, 27 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang panda): "It turns out that full dates should be linked, according to the MOS and WP:OVERLINK, for preference formatting purposes. So I'm changing the references that you modified back to reflect this."
  • 16:56, 27 November 2007 (SweLang panda): fixed US Census info (data is from 2000, not 2004) + dates in refs modified to international format (because the date formats were inconsistent)
  • 17:44, 27 November 2007 (SweLang panda): fixed Kuosma ref and linked full dates per MOS (as stated in talk page)
  • 18:09, 27 November 2007 (SweLang panda): added specific Statistics Finland link to article
  • 18:29, 27 November 2007 (SweLang panda): removed general Statistics Finland link from External Links since more specific link added to text.
  • 19:21, 27 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang Peter Isotalo): "MOS is a recommendation, and not every single aspect of it is a requirement. The date someone looked up a web reference has has absolutely nothing to do with the article topic and is there for nothing but a distraction. Insisting that they be linked serves no encyclopedic purpose."
  • 19:25, 27 November 2007 (Talk:FA Peter Isotalo): "...it is disturbing to see how many of panda's complaints are merely over-zealous demands that certain aspects of the MoS be followed slavishly. ... I should also point out that panda has actually been removing references merely because they aren't specified with a footnote (but clearly cited in prose)."
  • 20:02, 27 November 2007 (Talk:Cite web panda): [To Lurker] "I mentioned your points [about date linking and MOS guidelines] and the editor [Peter Isotalo] doesn't seem convinced. Could you please make a comment about this in Talk:Swedish language?"
  • 20:27, 27 November 2007 (Talk:FA panda): [To Peter Isotalo] "Let's not exaggerate. I moved the references to the talk page until there was a clear reason for why they should be included. There was only one case of a reference mentioned in the text that I removed since I didn't see it when I skimmed through the text, but I have since then replaced it."
  • 23:46, 27 November 2007 (SweLang Peter Isotalo): reverted all of my edits (6 total), which included removing the specific Statistics Finland ref from the text and re-adding the general Statistics Finland link to External Links. edit summary: "revert irrelevant date linking, removal of sources and de-clarification of the number of immigrants and ethnic Swedes"
  • 00:05, 28 November 2007 (Talk:FA Peter Isotalo): "I had to revert your last edits because you just kept removing the same reference over and over, even after being explained how it was referenced in prose."
  • 00:09, 28 November 2007 (Talk:FA panda): "I have no clue what you're talking about so diffs would be helpful."
  • 00:39, 28 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang panda): "Regarding the last set of reverts: Besides the date linking issue, you've now removed the reference that I added from Statistics Finland that supports that 5.5% of the Finnish population speak Swedish [74]. And no, it's not the same one you replaced it with. What's your rationale for that?"
  • 01:55, 28 November 2007 (SweLang Peter Isotalo): reinserted specific Statistics Finland ref
  • 01:58, 28 November 2007 (Talk:SweLang Peter Isotalo): "That the insertion of all those citation templates obscured the addition of a footnote. It's been reinserted."
  • (Edit warring about date links starts around 19:00, 28 November 2007 between Peter Isotalo and other editors.)

If we examine the above exchange, Peter reverted text I added in good faith twice. He accused me of:

  • making "over-zealous demands that certain aspects of the MoS be followed slavishly" when I had actually mentioned the MOS only once, and only because another editor mentioned it to me.
  • "removing references merely because they aren't specified with a footnote" when I only moved them to the talk page until it was clear what they were for. I re-added them when requested to External links, and moved them to appropriate locations in the text when I found the specific link.
  • "removing the same reference over and over, even after being explained how it was referenced in prose", which I had actually never done. I had found a more specific reference and added it to the text, thus there was no longer a need for the general reference. This was also made clear in the edit summary.

This is an exchange from the very beginning of our interaction. Considering all of Peter's exaggerated claims and bad faith comments made in those 2.5 days, I could have easily posted a wikiquette alert about him, but I didn't see it as possibly being helpful.

Reply to Peter Isolato: I already have, not only in a previous reply but in the exchange above. Why don't you point out a single instance when you've openly conceded a point in a discussion where you have been opposed?

Reply to KieferSkunk: See my reply to Bishonen. If you don't want to go read the talk pages and diffs, then an excerpt is now posted here for you to examine.

–panda (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To KieferSkunk: You commented that I'm being "very defensive and very willing to say that everyone is ganging up on" me.[75] When the accusing editors are attacking me with false accusations and they all know each other, am I not allowed to defend myself and disclose their relationship? Should I ignore them and assume that you and everyone else will figure out that there are many false accusations be thrown at me? Please explain how you would react. –panda (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I can only really go on what was posted, so I don't have the entire history available here. I based that comment on what I was able to see, which did appear to be mostly hasty reactions. Based on feedback from other editors addressing this WQA, it appears there's more to it than that, so I apologize for misconstruing what's going on, if that's indeed what I did. My point was not to also accuse you of wrongdoing, but rather to point out that the argument here wasn't going very well and to try to suggest a different approach.
I've been accused of acting in bad faith before as well, and generally what I do is ask the person to calm down, back away and explain their reasoning, as well as to explain mine. Usually it helps, though there have been a few cases where it hasn't gone so well on both sides. I do think you've remained pretty civil through all of this - I don't see any evidence of you leveling personal attacks against the other editors, for instance. My main concern is an apparent perception of bad faith on the part of multiple parties in this dispute, and that's the main thing I was trying to address. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
panda, "false accusations" might actually be how others view your behavior, and even if that's not your self-perception, it doesn't automatically make it pathological lying and conspirative slander. I was impatient at the beginning, because I felt you stomped in on the article while completely refuting most of my arguments and I made reverts that were too hasty. But other reverts were merely instances of you simply removing detail that you weren't aware of. You appear to have seen that as mere hostility and ownership, but I don't see that it was.
What I feel is the biggest hump in reaching a truce here, though, is the issue of WP:DEADHORSE. It's difficult not to bring up the specific fact disputes here, but the issues over the gender terminology, the verb endings, the sample dispute and most of the exchange over the Finnish statistics were completely blown out of proportion and this is a major reason why I felt that panda's involvement wasn't improving the article.
Peter Isotalo 10:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
In an exchange on panda's talkpage concerning another future attempt at a featured article review, where the discussion was primarily on that issue, panda dropped this unprovoked comment. This is exactly the kind of snide remark that brought on this deadlock to begin with, whether it was from me or panda. As long as these kinds of attitudes keep being voiced, it's very difficult to focus on anything substantial.
Peter Isotalo 11:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes the truth can be hard to accept. One only needs to take a cursory glance at the archives of Talk:Swedish language and the history of Swedish language to see how many well-meaning editors you've reverted. Even if you consider "Reverts are only as hostile as your [sic] perceive them",[76] WP:Wikiquette says "Avoid reverts whenever possible". So if you believe you've had to write the Swedish language article on your own,[77] it may be your own doing. If you think you're innocent of making snide remarks to me or that you haven't provoked me, then you should re-read your comments on my talk page. Regarding blowing things out of proportion, perhaps you should consider re-reading Talk:Swedish language#Colon to see who has blown such a small issue out of proportion. That you continue to come here to complain only shows who is beating a WP:DEADHORSE, especially since we have an offer from Marskell for informal arbitration on my talk page [78], which I'm happy to accept. Can you accept it and start moving forward? –panda (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I haven't been clear enough. I have admitted that I've been too hot-tempered with you and I haven't claimed that I'm innocent. I even apologized[79] at your talkpage, and I can do it again if you're not convinced: I apologize for making personal remarks when I should have addressed the issues you brought up with factual arguments and calm discussion.
I don't see how we're going to get a decent dialog going, though, if you keep taking potshots at me.
Peter Isotalo 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You commented that I was beating a WP:DEADHORSE, blowing issues out of proportion and making snide remarks and when I say the same back to you I'm the only one who keeps taking potshots...? That's interesting... If you don't want me to use your remarks back at you, then don't make them to me.
Personally, I'm just interested in moving forward, which I've already indicated to Marskell. We're just waiting for you. –panda (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
We're back at "no you are" again despite my apology and a request that you simply stay focused on factual discussion. If you think insulting me into cooperation is a valid strategy I recommend you request formal mediation.
Peter Isotalo 08:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no I'm not. I'm simply giving you a taste of your own medicine. If you feel you've been insulted by your own comments, then don't make such comments to others. What you've missed here is that KieferSkunk said to you "Remember, folks, attack the content, not the editor. I would suggest that you read back over your messages to Panda and look at them as though they were directed at you." –panda (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Panda, a question. I don't think anyone is happy with the current situation, you, Peter or anyone else. What do you think you could have done differently to have avoided this? What can you do to avoid getting into situations like this in the future with other editors? I mean this as honest questions, not some kind of rhetorical device. henrik•talk 16:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but my main issue with your question is that you've directed it only at me. Conflicts don't occur with only one person. –panda (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you feel it is unfair I only asked you? If I asked Peter the same question, would you feel differently about answering? henrik•talk 17:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If you ask both sides, then I have no problem with answering it. It's a perfectly valid question. –panda (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. henrik•talk 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
While we're at it, why don't you also answer your own questions since your involvement has only aggravated the situation. Regarding my answers, I don't think they will make Peter (or you) any happier so unless someone insists, it may be best that I don't answer. –panda (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
panda, you and I are the primary participants of this dispute, not henrik. The question, whether you think henrik overly favorable to me or not, is very relevant in the sense that it's supposed to encourage self-criticism and movement towards middle ground. If you decline to answer that question, particularly after I showed a gesture of good faith by answering it first, I don't see how a compromise can be reached.
Peter Isotalo 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Your reply, as usual, is full of bad faith. As I've stated, my reply won't help and won't move us towards a middle ground. If anything, it will only aggravate you. However, if you insist, I'll post a response. But, you should first re-read the critiques you've been given by KieferSkunk, seriously consider if anything good can come from it, and whether or not you could accept what I write, instead of continuing to attack me. Also, I do believe Henrik should reply as the dispute is about the disputes in the Swedish language article, which he was a key participant in. –panda (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe the dispute resolution will advance far more rapidly if you answer henrik's question.
Peter Isotalo 07:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Personally, I consider the dispute over. You and Henrik seem to be the only ones who want to continue it. But since you asked for it, here goes.

Let's first consider what I did: For issues which conflicted with Peter's opinions, I asked for outside opinions in several different forums and then I brought those comments to the article and asked others to also comment in the article's talk page. Those comments conflicted with Peter's opinions, and he attacked me with many exaggerated claims in the article's talk page, my talk page, and in other talk pages. So the only recourse I had was to either:

  1. file a WQA against Peter or
  2. to leave the article

Considering what I know about Peter today, a WQA early in the conflict probably would have been the more effective resolution since many other editors have instead chosen to leave the topic, possibly helping to create Peter's current apathetic attitude towards fellow editors. Peter also typically does not agree with a single editor with a conflicting opinion, but is more willing to listen to multiple editors who do not agree with him, although even then he can sometimes continue to edit war, such as the case with date linking. So a WQA where outside editors could point out Peter's uncivil remarks may have been useful in reducing the conflict early, and would have very likely prevented me from becoming so provoked that I felt it was time to reply back to Peter in the same manner he addressed me with. In the future, I'll probably use the WQA route much earlier when an editor is ignoring outside opinions, making personal attacks, and assuming bad faith unnecessarily.

Regarding ownership issues, this isn't something that I use lightly. Peter is the second editor that I have accused this of. After having read WP:OWN several times, I feel I am justified in accusing him of this. Next time, I should list my rationale for accusing an editor of WP:OWN, instead of only stating it. I'm also happy to list them here if someone insists. But Peter should just read WP:OWN since many of his actions are reflected in that article, especially in WP:OWN#Ownership examples.

I suspect this won't make you happy, but you were warned.

-panda (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

panda, the point was not to rehash your old accusations against me, but to do some soul-searching concerning your own behavior. Instead you basically stick to the old politician's trick of avoiding to answer the question posed to you, and instead to answer the question you wished had been asked of you. That's very good if you're into PR and politics, but when it comes to writing good encyclopedic article it really just amounts to imposing your views on others.
We agree on one thing, though; this WQA has pretty much been one big waste of time. I have nothing more to add.
Peter Isotalo 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Another bad faith accusation, as usual. I'm not rehashing old accusations, I'm answering Henrik's questions as requested. That you can't accept it, I already expected and stated earlier. But if you're finally done here, then let's move on towards mediation of the content in the Swedish language article. I'm ready whenever you are. –panda (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I'll post the same question for you. What do you think you could have done differently to have avoided this? What can you do to avoid getting into situations like this in the future with other editors? henrik•talk 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I voiced my disagreement with panda's edits too brusquely and I got too annoyed with his/her resolution instead of merely replying to the concerns over fact statements in the article.
I will try to be more patient with reverting changes the usefulness of which I don't immidiately find constructive, like trying to clarify statements rather than reinstating them in their intirety. I'll also try to be more patient with users who apparantly don't have experience with the topic and try to explain the matter to them instead of merely advising them to do their homework. I'll also try to work for more compromises concerning expanding referencing, though I will keep acting on my belief that footnotes are primarily research tools, not verifiability talismans.
Peter Isotalo 15:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Zorgness

Resolved. User has not edited for several days. Bring this back up in a new thread if it continues in the future. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User has engaged in a number of uncivil and hostile edits. He first called me a "revert whore" and I warned him about being hostile. Additionally, he refuses to follow citation methods, and is openly against it. After my warning him here and here, he was openly defiant by saying that references are "a low priority job that can be done at a later date" (ref), and was defiant again in this edit summary. The user has been warned a number of times about following Wiki policy by me and an administrator. On a side note, the user seems to have an attitude problem, calling himself awesome here and here, where he cleared his talk page. I've tried several times with this editor; can someone lend a hand? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User made another edit with a hostile edit summary. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
User was warned of this WQA here, but has since removed it (and redirected his talk page to Awesome). — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention his outright refusal to use proper citation templates. See the following edit summaries: [80], [81]. — EagleOne\Talk 18:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I applied an appropriate note on his talk page. Note that per WP:CITE#Full references, citation templates are neither encouraged nor discouraged. If a user encloses a link inside reference tags, and the link is a valid citation, then that is acceptable -- although I would encourage any user to expand upon that into either a citation template or one with Harvard referencing. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
My mistake. I only glanced at the WP:CITE page, and didn't see the part that proper citation templates aren't required. I was referring more to Zorgness' attitude towards the guideline, as expressed in the edit summaries, than the lack of citation templates in his edits. I should have made that more clear. — EagleOne\Talk 19:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I have left the editor a note regarding his editing of your prior notes, Seicer and HelloAnnyong. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

HardyPlants

I feel that I have been falsely accused of vandalism in a content dispute with this user regarding edits which I made to Separation of Church and State and evil. I made 1 edit to each of those articles, both of which were reverted by this user. I just joined Wikipedia and I have no desire to vandalize Wikipedia. Muhammad Cthulhu (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

For easier access: Muhammad Cthulhu (talk · contribs) and Hardyplants (talk · contribs) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Your edit to Separation of Church and State was reverted because Cthulhu is a fictional being and organization and not a religion. The same can be said with your edit at evil in this edit. It's a nonsense edit at best and really has no importance to the article on the whole. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and honestly, inserting such dubious/fictional content into serious articles is often vandalism. The fact that your edits may have been well intentioned would be, to some, quite surprising. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Wetman

Resolved. Per WP:TALK, a user may remove messages from his/her talk page with no recourse. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have to report this, but user Wetman has chosen to insult myself over a post on Wetman's personal page in which I stated that I found Wetman's last edit to be "interesting". I then demanded an apology from Wetman, who ignored my request and dismissed my request for an apology as "ravings".

I hope that this was not a pattern of behavior for user Wetman, nor a developing pattern of rudeness and insult. Oroblanco (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For easier access: Wetman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Oroblanco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide diffs? If this event occurred solely on his talk page, there is not much that can be done, per WP:TALK. Best just to forget and move on if that's the case, unless it is widespread. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur. You (Oroblano) posted something sarcastic, he (Wetman) replied sarcastically, and you took a huge deal of offense. I'm not seeing it. Is there something else? --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved? In what way? It doesn't matter, now have a good understanding of Wetman and Wiki. Incident forgotten.Oroblanco (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In the sense that there was no issue here to resolve. You snapped sarcastically at him, and he responded. What do you want from us? --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai (Administrator), 2nd this month

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereThis complaint consists mostly of repeated previous complaints and a single, very weak personal attack complaint that is not a matter worth considering. Complaining editor does not seem to assume good faith. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In this past week, this administrator has name-called [82], deleted references without checking (then lying about it) [83], and knowingly given misleading instructions [84]. These events started on Dec 11th, four days after the previous wikiquette alert regarding this administrator [85] and under two months since he was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and personal insults [86]. Mikkalai is learning to game the system and I suspect that he will try to cover his tracks better in the future. I'm not seeking an apology. Mainly, I am seeking to equip the many other good wikipedians that might be tempted to bow to the undeserved tactics and authority of this admin. BitterGrey (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Sometimes, disambiguation pages belong at the main topic name, e.g. his choice for Digraph. Other times, they belong at a differently named page, usually when the main topic is the main use for that term: see, for instance, RSA and RSA (disambiguation). Also, cut and paste moves are not the right thing to do, just like he said. There is nothing wrong with the comments he made; the "name-calling" thing especially is you being way over-sensitive. Frankly, your report here and your accusations of him being purposely dishonest and trying "game the system" are far worse than anything he's done. Mangojuicetalk 16:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for giving examples, Mangojuice. Since RSA (the encryption algorithm) is by far the most common use of the acronym, it is appropriate that it be at the root term, with a link to the disambiguation page. However, that is not the case with infantilism. A quick Google search will show that when most people mention 'infantilism,' they are referring to 'paraphilic infantilism.' Furthermore, 'paraphilic infantilism' is commonly contracted to 'infantilism,' as it was on CSI and others. The conflict started because Mikkalia was unwilling to accept the disambiguation page at the root term, which I set up[87]. (This part may be a little hard to follow, since the reasonably placed Infantilism (obsolete usage) page used to be at infantilism, the root term.) The ongoing issue involves the tactics he used to try to get his way, and my desire to ensure that he doesn't use them on other good wikipedians. BitterGrey (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
While I must admit that I had a difficult time trying to follow the some of those sources and determine if something wrong was happening, I could find no evidence of name calling on the first link provided [88]. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I just don't see it. I followed the link to the previous issue earlier in the month[89], and found that the incivility issue was also questionable. I don't have enough background on the factual aspects of the articles to see whose side may be more correct about the editing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it was the "if you weren't so bitter" thing. Mangojuicetalk 17:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Calling User:Bittergrey bitter? Honestly? This is the basis of the complaint? --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Only the first of three points.BitterGrey (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no incivility here, nor in the previous complaint. Nor do I see any abuse of power or administrative misbehavior. Anyone can delete a reference, and anyone can make a mistake, and if you think he made a mistake, you should assume good faith and move on. I'm concerned about the fact that your attitude towards Mikkalai is highly suspicious, prejudicial, and cynical. Bringing up resolved or prior instances of problems makes it sound to me like you're fishing to start a problem or a conflict. Try to move on. He made no personal attack, he's editing in good faith, and if you have a content or sourcing dispute, resolving it shouldn't involve compiling a background check on the guy you're disagreeing with and then reporting him here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just passing by, but a review of the diffs leads me to agree with the above assessment by Cheeser1. The complaining user has already advertised themselves by their username choice as being "bitter", jokingly or not, and one instance of word play with that advertisement an incivility complaint won't make, IMO. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

On the assumption of good faith, I set up a disambiguation page at the root term [90], moved Mikkalia's new article to another location[history deleted], and initiated a discussion about the disambiguation[91]. Mikkalia replaced the disambiguation page with his own article, with no disambiguation links, twice.[92][93]. This demonstrated a lack of good faith.

I can't give a dif regarding the other location. medical_infantilism was deleted along with its history by Mikkalia. Tracks were covered in a way that only an administrator could do[94].BitterGrey (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, you're supposed to assume good faith. Page deletions are normal for admins. You can't honestly expect us to automatically believe that he was "covering his tracks" or that his edits are apparently and immediately bad-faith edits. I've marked this complaint as closed - the issues you've raised that have any merit aren't WQA issues, and have already been taken up elsewhere. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not expecting you to "automatically" believe anything. I am asking you to check what facts can still be checked before reaching a conclusion. Making my case is more difficult because part of the history has been deleted. Now you and I have access to only part of what happened. Couldn't that page have been moved instead? Neologism, the excuse[95], is explicitly listed as not a valid reason for speedy deletion[96]. If he had deleted a few more pages, I would have no case at all.
However, it seems that a conclusion has already been reached. This issue is referred to somewhere else. I suppose that even this is a small victory. Perhaps next week, another user will be dealing with Mikkalai. Hopefully he or she will be able to find this complaint, the previous complaint, the 48-hour block, etc. Then he will know that Mikkalai has a history of not working in good faith, documented by multiple wikipedians. Hopefully he will then be encouraged to discuss, to ask for justifications, to stand up for Wikipedia.BitterGrey (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest that you move on. Having a chip on your shoulder or having some bad-faith assumptions about another editor are not going to help you be a productive contributor. This complaint may be a "victory" to you, but it's really frivolous and lacked any substance beyond issues that don't belong here or that were already resolved/done. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Bitter: what you did in creating Medical infantilism was called a "cut and paste" move. In other words, you copied all the text from one page and added it to another. Cut and paste moves are strongly discouraged because the Wikipedia free license, the GFDL, requires that we keep track of page histories, and a cut and paste move doesn't preserve that. What you're supposed to do instead is to rename a page instead of creating a new one with a cut & pasted copy. See WP:CUTPASTE; note that cut and paste moves are a royal pain to repair if they stand for a while. If you had done this, I doubt Mikkalai would have intervened. I agree with his actions and he seems to have treated you appropriately. (oh, and BTW, admins can see deleted revisions of pages.) Mangojuicetalk 05:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser1 marked this as closed. I added my last comment, and then Cheeser1 resuggested strongly that I move on. I thought that was the end of it. He is probably right about the uselessness of further discussion here. However, if this topic is closed and we're being strongly suggested to move on, why are people still adding to it? Should I answer Mangojuice's comments (If the 'bad' disambiguation page had been replaced with a 'good' disambiguation page at the root term, there wouldn't have been any issue. As it was, the conflict started with the removal of _all_ disambiguation, and the complaint is about the tactics used to prevent disambiguation from being restored. If there is any interest, I can go into more detail about the progression of events and what the actual problems are. LonelyBeacon was correct in that they can be hard to follow. ) However, continued debate seems pointless unless the group is willing to reconsider the conclusion. I'll accept further discussion as a sign of willingness to reconsider the conclusion already posted. If this isn't going anywhere, why not let it end here?BitterGrey (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not a formal process, it is a place for people to discuss issues and incidents. The fact that this complaint has been resolved due to its being more-or-less frivolous does not mean that one cannot continue to comment here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Neo-Jay

Is it really necessary to put up with comments like this?

This is a falsehood; You are trolling and just repeating your so-called Google Scholar research that fails to prove Ta-Hsia is more popular than Daxia. Please read carefully my analysis below. --Neo-Jay (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Regards, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The accusation is a bit extreme and not entirely correct. On the other hand I can understand how this can happen in the heat of a discussion on a problem where none of the answers is clearly preferable. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)