Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

User:Inder315

This user was blocked for sockpuppeteering and forumshopping but after his block expired he has returned to his old ways and is making personal attacks against me. Here's the list of his insinuations against me on the Talk:Sonia Gandhi page (in reverse chronological order):

  1. Said I was "connected to" Sonia Gandhi [1]
  2. Called me "adamant and spolied person"(sic) [2]
  3. Started a section titled "ReluctantPhilosopher's creditbility"(sic)[3] (Started section through proven sock Mimic2, then supported through Inder account)
  4. Asked me to "go to Sonia and grab a congress ticket ... done enough praise" - by his proven sockpuppet User:Mimic2 [4]
  5. Called me a "big fan of her" [5]

He has previously added content like "she enjoys the company of many men" to the article. He was warned by User:Mezaco before for adding non-biographical political criticism to the article. But he just refuses to stop edit-warring and name-calling. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Inder315 (talk · contribs) for easier access. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide diffs for the other assertions? Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Done that, thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm tearing my hair out here fellas Will someone please help? They guy's providing false references and inserting his opinions into the article!!! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I should reply the allegations on me so that this self proclaimed owner of article Sonia Gandhi scholar does not get benefit of my silence. I don;t know which FALSE REFERENCES he is talking about. If you check the history, you will easily find who started personal attack. He terms "political commentary " to each and everything (including properly sourced material) which he does not agree with or does not like, to be precise. He is also known to find various excuses for deleting a section of part of section which he does not like. Examples of execuses

1. Unsourced or poorly sourced (all the sections which he talks about are properly sourced).
2. Grammatically incorrect (could be, but is deleting a section is definitely NOT a solution to it. Why he does not correct it?)
3. Political commentry (now it is his opinion. What gives him a right to delete a section without a second thought?)
4. Not notable (Who is he to decide it alone?)
5. This does not have a place in wikipedia (Again the same. Is he owner of wikipedia?)

He demands "discuss first, THEN revert" but if one checks his editing history, he had been reverting all sections earlier without any discussion. He started doing it for namesake when he was warned by some senior editors in the very same forum. It is important to note that, he has been cleverly hiding this fact from the wikipedia users.

One day, he raised a query about a section, "I'm going to fix it; if anyone can provide any good reason why I shouldn't, do it now." I answered it in a most elaborate way. Still he removed it without any second though. And looks like in his dictionary fixing means deleting. deletes referenced material.

He is also terming me all the possible terms like ridiculous. He always give reference of events which are telvised but refuse to accept the biggest news of the day as a source. He thinks that a milestone in Sonia Gandhi's political career, is a trivial event.

I personally do not hold any grudge against Sonia Gandhi or anyone. My simple idea behind putting the material in this article is to give a fair and neutral sourced information to all genuine wikipedia users. Seems like this guy has been dominating the article for a while to make the article look like a fan site and a campaigning site. And about the critism section which he always talk about, please check the edit history and you will find that it is me who introduced the section and the above scholar had removed it twice. So Mr. Scholar, do not advocate using that name. Everyone has a right to have an opinion, but the problem arises when you try to impose that opinion on others. And exactly same is happening here.

My aplologies for being so elaborate, but it was important to bring to everyones notice how some people are acting as if they are owner of an article and have started policing, resulting is denial of fair and neutral information to all wikipedia users, for whom wikipedia is just next to bible.

Inder315 (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The false reference is about the Abhishek Singhvi quote which you subsequently retracted. The diffs are there for all to see. And all your content, which consists of nothing more than psephological analysis and a one-day news item, ought to be removed in accordance with WP:NOT, besides WP:NPOV, WP:N and WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 13:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not said false or poor reference only for Abhishek Singhvi quote. You have said it for all other sections mentioned above. The diffs are there for all to see. And I am fed up of answering your comments (may be 1000th time I am telling now), "which consists of nothing more than psephological analysis and a one-day news item" is WHAT YOU THINK. For God sake do not impose it on the entire wikipedia. You may be love Sonia Gandhi, but keep wikipedia out from this. You have converted this site into a fan site and have been dominating the article for a while. It was interesting to see your reaction when i removed the statement "Some people think she is a sanyasi". Who said so? When? Any evidence? If she is sanyasi, why is in politics at the first place. She should be in Himalayas. Why you did not remove this statement if you are so much for evidences and notability? Or was it just because you are happy only when someone praises Sonia Gandhi? I am sure if anyone enters any praise statements without a single reference, you will keep it. So relax and stop blaimng others.

Inder315 (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm perplexed nobody here is saying anything against this user's abrasive attitude. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you have not answered any of my queries (may be you don't have any answers for the same). In stead you have again started personal attack. This shows how badly hurt you are when your dominance on an article is stopped by someone else. You are an irresponsible editor with no respect for others. Now you have started questioning others just because you wanted some action to be taken on me. I don't know why you are not blocked till now. So stop dominating wikipedia for whatever intentions you have. Inder315 (talk)

Anybody?? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so panic? May be someone is putting an information which you do not like? I have told you several times, you are very good in English (that is why you delete sections giving reasons like grammatical error), why you don;t start a blog on Sonia Gandhi. That way you will be able to broadcast any information which you like and no one else would be able to modify it. Inder315 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've created an RfC for this at [6]. Neutral editors are implored to comment thereat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, some user has deleted the above sections. I am also advised to respect the community's opinion. Ok, I would love to respect the community's opinion (community of 2 scholars or may be sockpuppets), but only when I get satisfactory answers to my following queries. 1. Sonia was eligible to get citizenship in 1974 but she accepted it in 1983. What is wrong in this statement? This is a fact. 2. Sonia was in Italy with Rajiv in 1971 during the war. This is a fact. She was also critized for the same. 3. She took shelter in Italian embassy in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost election. This is a fact. 4. She is always critized for her role in letting Quottrochi run from Argentina. What is the problem in putting it in critism section? 5. She could not make Congress win a single election after 2004. This is a fact. Why it is removed? 6. Her entry in politics itself was motivated to hide charges against her husband. Many people say that (including Secular and neutral respected people). Why this statement is removed? 7. She did mass rallies in Gujarat and Congress lost almost all seats where she did rallies. Why this statement is removed? If her contribution to win of Congress in 2004 can be part of this article, if her sacrifice can be part of this article, if she resignation can be part of this article, then why not above statements? You can correct them if you think they are not grammatically correct. I would like to hear an explanation. Otherwise, I would revert back to original version. I hope senior editors will help me and stop this. Inder315 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping. This needs to stay at RFC for reasons given, and your accusations of others being socks is not assuming good faith in the process. Let the process go through, and if community opinion again bears that your text has no relevance or importance to the article, then it should be removed unless you can garner consensus. Edit warring is not an advisable move. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Did you seriously just accuse someone else of abusing sockpuppets? Last time you were on this board, filing a complaint of your own, it turned out that you have three sockpuppets. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked the comments. They are "rv POV essay, recentism, allegations over-dependent on single 1999 op-ed". ReluctantPhilosopher had been saying it for ages. What about my questions? Are there any answers for the same? Or does wikipedia is a mean of deleting something which you do not like?

Given below for your reference once again. All of them are sourced, you can go to the article and check it.

1. Sonia was eligible to get citizenship in 1974 but she accepted it in 1983. What is wrong in this statement? This is a fact. 2. Sonia was in Italy with Rajiv in 1971 during the war. This is a fact. She was also critized for the same. 3. She took shelter in Italian embassy in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost election. This is a fact. 4. She is always critized for her role in letting Quottrochi run from Argentina. What is the problem in putting it in critism section? 5. She could not make Congress win a single election after 2004 barring Goa and Manipur. This is a fact. Why it is removed? If that is the case we should remove the win of Congress inf 2004. 6. Her entry in politics itself was motivated to hide charges against her husband. Many people say that (including Secular and neutral respected people). Why this statement is removed? 7. She did mass rallies in Gujarat and Congress lost almost all seats where she did rallies. Why this statement is removed?

If her contribution to win of Congress in 2004 can be part of this article, if her aam admi slogan can be a part of the article, her role as wife of prime minister (don;t know what does it mean) can be part of it, if her sacrifice can be part of this article, if she resignation can be part of this article, then why not above statements?

You can correct them if you think they are not grammatically correct. Or modify them to make it look more ornamental English. But is deleting a solution?

I am reverting back to the original and unbiased version. Please stop this.

And I read the policies WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:BLP. Nowhere it talks about not entering facts in a biography. The problem is that you don't like facts and so the user User:Relata refero (may be your sockpuppet), the way you answer on his behalf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder315 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, policies do tell us that Wikipedia is not a place for you to stick whatever facts you like: WP:SYN, WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Furthermore, continuing to threaten edit wars and ignore consensus (or the lack thereof in supporting the contested material) is highly inappropriate. You could be blocked for such behavior. Finally, keep your sockpuppet accusations to yourself. Unless you have some evidence, I suggest you (a proven sockpuppeteer) keep the sockpuppet issue off the table. --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if the project is served by keeping this chap around. Relata refero (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If we talk about policies, how come the following statements, modified/removed/added by me were reverted. Please explain.

Following is the explanation of my edits.

Added by me: She was eligbile to become Indian citizen in 1974 but she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. (This is a truth, how does it violate any policy)
Removed by me: As the Prime Minister's wife she acted as his official hostess and also accompanied him on a number of state visits. (No such reference). This is POV. How does it continue to stay in the article, just because someone likes it?
Modified by me: In stead of 'she', I have modifed to 'her party'. If one knows the civics, one should know that a party recommends a person not a person recommends other person. Why it was removed?
Removed by me: There has been considerable media speculation about their futures in the Congress. If we go by your opinion, what is the base for this statement? It is indeed a political commentry. And POV
Removed by me: The 'general view' was that the action could be seen as part of the old Indian tradition of renunciation. What is this? Whose general view is this? Clear example of a POV. Has no place in wikipedia.

I would like to have answers from all scholars who advocate wikipedia policy. And even if we assume that I am a proven sockpuppet, that means what? I can not edit on wikipedia? If that is the case how does wikipedia allows me to edit? So stop this.

Also, to answer Relata refero's argument, I have started wondering whether you guys have joined the philosopher (supporter of a party) in maintaining this article as a fan site. I have not seen worse use of wikipedia than this (using the site for campaigning for someone). Inder315 (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Inder315, you come across as a bully. Your insistence on harping on "could have been a citizen in 1974" is original research unless you produce a source. Please find a source for that assertion (and for any other disputed issue) or leave the page alone. Leadwind (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

ReluctantPhilosopher

Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereThis is not a wikiquette issue. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This user is dominating article Sonia Gandhi and is not allowing anyone else to edit/add/delete any information. I had made some recent changes which were reverted by him without any discussion. I had asked hat is disruptive about it? I had already given valid reasons for the same. And in fact, according to him, Political commentry and POVs do not have any place in wikipedia. So why is he worried? And his problem is not anything else, but someone is opposing him with facts.

He is maintaining this article like a fan site and monitoring it daily and immediately reverting any edits which he does not like (I am talking about valid edits). He has also threatened me a lot of times that I will be blocked when he does not hold any such rights.

Following is the explanation of my edits.

Added: She was eligbile to become Indian citizen in 1974 but she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. Removed: As the Prime Minister's wife she acted as his official hostess and also accompanied him on a number of state visits. (No such reference) Modified: In stead of 'she', I have modifed to 'her party'. If you know the civics, you should know that a party recommends a person not a person recommends.

Removed: There has been considerable media speculation about their futures in the Congress. If we go by your opinion, what is the base for this statement? It is indeed a political commentry.

Removed: The 'general view' was that the action could be seen as part of the old Indian tradition of renunciation. What is this? Whose general view is this? Clear example of a POV. Has no place in wikipedia.

I request someone to help me adding.modifying valuable information to the article on most powerful lady politician in India. The article needs a lot of cleanup and should be saved from editors like ReluctantPhilosopher.

I would like to ask everyone whether it is ok that someone is dominating the article everyday and no one bothers to look at it?

08:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. If you two still have a legitimate content dispute, you should be able to discuss it using the dispute resolution process. You made this exact complaint a few weeks ago, which ended with arguments about who's a sockpuppeteer until it came out that you were the one using sockpuppets and then the discussion promptly died down. Do you think people have forgotten that? Stop coming here to hash out your content dispute. There are no etiquette violations here, at least none that exist outside of a bitter, pointless content dispute (in which you two seem endlessly entangled). The WQA is not the place for this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cebactokpatop and John Zizioulas article

Resolved. User blocked and warned about edit warring; parties now seeking mediation.

DanielEng (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite repeated requests to cease, User Cebactokpatop repeatedly bad faith, incivility and several times has mounts unwarranted personal attacks against me:

  • 'I have not detected even the smallest desire on your side to learn that there are people out there who do not agree with either JZ or his followers. If you were expecting arguing from my side in typical internet forum fashion - one by one sentence, you are badly mistaken about the mind of the Traditional Orthodox. How low you can be is in the fact that you even modified my own text adding quotation around the first word in the title on this page - Unproven Claims by Seminarist. If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself. In the end, followers of JZ cannot be any better, as the spring they are drinking from, is tainted. ' (01:17, 18 February 2008)[7]
  • 'Just because he is the fan of the JZ, his personal orientation should not be emphasized on the Wiki's article. Seminarist needs to learn that other opinions are valid on Wiki, as well.' (20:28, 17 February 2008)[8]
  • ' This below is for your own benefit and speedy revival from the falsehood of Zizioulas, Afansiev, Shmeman, etc. "Even if false hierarchs, while being in heresy, will succeed in deceiving and enticing a certain number of ignorant ones and in gathering even a considerable number of followers, then they are outside the sacred walls of the Church just the same. But even if very few remain in Orthodoxy and piety, they are in the Church, and the authority and the protection of the ecclesiastical institution resides in them. And if they should suffer for true piety, then this will undoubtedly contribute to their eternal glory and salvation of their souls." - St. Nicephorus the Confessor' (05:56, 17 February 2008)[9]
  • ' You are continuing with the vandal approach putting unverified claims "pro" while removing references to the voice of those who recognized in JZ - a faulty man with heterodox ideas.'(14:25, 16 February 2008)[10]
  • 'you are trying to push down the Traditional Orthodox View, by creating numerous sections' (21:32, 15 February 2008)[11]
  • 'Nope. You came as vandal and backed off only after my reaction.' (21:08, 15 February 2008)[12]
  • 'Your constant quoting attitude whenever referring to the term - traditional, explains who you are and where you come from.' (21:05, 15 February 2008) [13]
  • 'Your attempt to hide the fact that many people disagree with his work is obvious. What is very low is the way you are tying to do it.' (20:11, 15 February 2008)[14]
  • 'This person is trying to quiet down the voice of the traditional Orthodox people who do not see the work of JZ as Orthodox. That is precisely what we call vandalism, and that is why you deserved tag - vandal.' (20:06, 15 February 2008)[15]

(The context of these remarks is a dispute in which I wish to have removed POV material from John Zizioulas article - see Talk:John Zizioulas.)

I do not believe such comments are acceptable on Wikipedia.

Seminarist (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai

Stuck. If administrator attention is required, you'll have to go to an administrator's noticeboard. In general though, posting repeated warnings isn't helpful - if you're complaining about someone's behavior at a place like this, it's best to let others warn him (and only once). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a situation where an editor (who is also an admin, for what it's worth) is exhibiting unprovoked rudeness and belligerence. The user is also expressing an attitude in clear defiance of WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS.

Mikkalai's response
Mikkalai's response
Mikkalai's first response
Mikkalai's second response
Mikkalai's response (he posted this same response to each instance of that template)

As far as I can surmise, Mikkalai took issue with my first post, in which I agreed with someone else's opinion (someone with whom he appears to have already been arguing) on a simple matter of style, and from that point on appears to have decided that nothing I say is worth any of his time. Everything I've suggested with regard to the articles in question and his conduct has been met with rudeness and an attitude that says, effectively, "Go away, you don't know what you're talking about, I own these pages and I'm making the decisions". I don't think that this is appropriate behavior for any editor, much less an admin. -- Hux (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the above edits, User:Mikkalai is being unnesecarly rude to you, and is not appreciative of Wikipedia's policies. I will leave a warning with this user. (Note to anyone: This is my first case, so if I am doing anything incorrectly, just say.) Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting help from others as User:Mikkalai is levaing me rude messages now. I will leave User:Mikkalai another warning. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Mikkalai is deleting any and all warnings left by me. As I am now being attacked, I shall no longer be a mediator in this case. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Mikkalai's responses to my warnings As you can see from the link, User:Mikkalai is attacking me more. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Case is now at an administrator's noticeboard. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I posted a response on Mikkalai's talk page regarding his Wikilawyering accusations, the nature of which suggested that he didn't fully understand what the term meant. -- Hux (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that now he's simply deleting all record of communication regarding this issue from his talk page. For example, Southern Illinois SKYWARN's warning about personal attacks and a violation of WP:OWN was reverted by Mikkalai one minute after it was posted. The same user's notice that he'd opened a case at the admin's noticeboard was reverted five minutes after it was posted. A few minutes after that the entire talk page was blanked and replaced with an attacking message that clearly refers to this alert and the ANI case. He also did the same thing with his user page. This latter action is kind of interesting because of what was blanked out: a story that appears to lay bare his general attitude of how Wikipedia should work.
Taken together, I think it's obvious that he has no intention of being part of this process (indeed, he appears to be actively trying to cover up its existence on his talk page, along with any other criticism) so I doubt this alert will solve the problem at hand. -- Hux (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Users are allowed to remove messages from their talk page. As much as this does or does not demonstrate a willingness to participate in the WQA or whatever, he is allowed to remove such messages. I will not comment as to how that reflects on the current dispute, but you should be aware of the fact that users are free to remove whatever unwelcome messages they want from their talk page (whether or not they should be unwelcome is another matter). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that users can never remove messages from their talk pages. (If you inferred that then that was my mistake.) However, I believe I'm right in saying that removing such content when it is relevant to an ongoing dispute in order to cover up one's actions, or otherwise influence the resolution of that dispute, is considered bad form. That's the reason why I made note of Mikkalai's user/talk page activity above. -- Hux (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Generally speaking, that is true. However, since it's Mikkalai's talk page, he is entitled to remove the comments whenever he wants, with no explanation. Removing warnings and blanking the page are, for purposes of this type of issue, taken as a sign that he has read those warnings and acknowledges having received them - at that point, if he continues doing the things that the warnings are being given for, further action can be taken, and a reviewing admin will be able to see the prior warnings in the edit history. Meanwhile, it sounds like you're right to take this to the Admin Noticeboard - we can only really help you here by providing guidance on how to resolve disputes, but that can only help so much when one party is unwilling to cooperate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification - I appreciate it. And yes, I agree that this WQA isn't going to accomplish much unless Mikkalai chooses to take part which, given his recent actions, is unlikely to happen. -- Hux (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Prester John

Resolved. Capitana (talk · contribs) indef. blocked as sock of Lancastria (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Prester John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Prester John seems to (for lack of a better word) "follow" articles related to Islam around and suck the life out of the and insert images and content obviously intended to portray Muslims badly.

I will counter-claim that this brand new disruptive user is a SPA sock designed to harass me with baseless personal attacks. A checkuser request soon should re ban this user. For clarity my responses shall be in bold' Prester John (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This "brand new disruptive user" will quote "Checkuser is not for fishing" --Capitana (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs_and_antisemitism&diff=190695993&oldid=190642446 - Ignores consensus and adds an image because he wants to (without a coherent edit summary).
    A blatant falsehood. See the relevant consensus at the talkpage here. Prester John (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Hicks&diff=prev&oldid=190524982 Removes chunks of text without a summary.
    Quite funny this one. Sock originally deleted a whole slew of my edits in one go here with no edit summary whatsoever. Prester John (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs_and_antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=190701033 Undoes my reversion of his image citing WP:Stalk
    Well, It is obvious, Prester John (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prester_John&diff=190526378&oldid=190347374 Removes simple warnings from myself and another user with the edit summary "trolling".
    Which they are, and which I'm entitled to do.Prester John (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shama&diff=prev&oldid=191989588 Removes adjectives in an Islam related article this time citing WP:PEACOCK - a welcome change from WP:MOSISLAM. This is a fine example of Prester John rigidly quoting policy to further his own ends.
    User seems to unable and unwilling to follow the rules and regulations laid out by wikipedia.Prester John (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. His username itself! See Prester John. Apparently Prester John was a king responsible for "resisting Muslims". An obvious indicator of PJ's contempt for the religion and (in my view) his sheer racism.
    A coment that should get this user indef blocked for WP:NPA. How he thinks he knows my race is very interesting.Prester John (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=176736988#User:Prester_John_on_another_delete_rampage Prester John's previous community backed block (for reference).
    Is digging up a previous block relevant to the Wikiqette alert section?Prester John (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stolen_Generations&diff=prev&oldid=105742385 Insults the victims of the "stolen generations" (just look at the edit summary!)
    Keep in mind this edit is over one year old, this dude is totally stalking me.Prester John (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=88774784 An early edit of Prester John's - one of many where he insults the previous user's edits.
    This edit was made in 2006, hardly relevant to Wikiquette alerts.Prester John (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Wood&diff=prev&oldid=88782647 "Morons should not create articles" says Prester John.
    Another edit from 2006.Prester John (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prester_John&diff=prev&oldid=170663669 Here Prester John shrugs of admin advice "boring, I know what a sources is"
  12. Prester John has previously been reprimanded for referring to "left wing scum" - still trying to find the link I had it five mins ago!

In my opinion, Prester John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is behaving in a racist manner - however as I have stated in the talk page of David Hicks - as a human rights activist it would be a Conflict of Interest for me to get involved. I therefore request comment here. Also if you look through his contribs he seems to make niggly little edits at every corner to Islam related articles such as removing "holy" from Koran, changing "makkah" to "mecca". He basically uses WP:MOSISLAM to the letter (the parts he agrees with) in order to make nasty edits where they are not needed! His block previously seems to have done little or no good at all as he is still exhibiting the same behaviour as always.--Capitana (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the user has repeatedly interfered with this report (see history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=192345406&oldid=192197739 ). --Capitana (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You are being a dead horse into glue at this point. Many of these vios. date back to 2006 or 2007 and some are really not specific to wikiquette. Further, some are content removals without edit summaries, hardly the work of a vandal -- although if it continues on and is persistent, then an issue can be raised regarding that. I noted that Prester John was blocked previously for prior vios., so including those vios. that date to 2006 and 2007 into this report is pretty much voided as a result. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And although inserting comments into other user's replies may be considered bad form, it is by far not interference or incivil. I made a notice on the user's talk page regarding this, and he has corrected it by adding in signatures to note that the inserted comments were made by him, and not by someone else. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A CU request has been made under Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Capitana. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And... Capitana (talk · contribs) == Lancastria (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

USER:Andyvphil personal attacks

Stale. Incivility on both sides, and clearly no willingness to work through the WQA constructively. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user has become increasingly incivil and the personal attacks, including Straw Man discrediting attacks, failure to WP:AGF and generally hostile comments have recently culminated in this edit. More diffs available if needed. WNDL42 (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional Diffs:

More as time allows.WNDL42 (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit perplexed at how an editor can make a personal attack, and strike it through originally. Strike-through is almost always for comments retracted later. To make a personal attack, strike it through, and say "oh sorry, forgot about WP:CIVIL" doesn't seem to respect WP:CIVIL at all. His talk page indicates that he's had issues mislabeling his reverts as "rvv," making personal attacks, not assuming good faith, edit-warring, etc. I've left a warning, however, this incivility seems to be a piece in a bigger picture (the bias/agenda that are quite transparent in his contributions regarding Obama). I'm not sure what kind of attention is necessary here, so I'm hoping somebody else has a better idea. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
WNDL42 keeps accusing me of being a Moonie MEATPUPPET for User:Jkuhner, better known as Jeffrey T. Kuhner, editor of the online magazine Insight. I debunked this when he first did it a week ago but he keeps doing it.[16] And he's been giving me bogus 3RR warnings for about a month. You write of similar activity "This kind of bullshit (and that is what it is) le\d me to stop contributing so actively to the WQA and has made me reconsider the value of spending my time here at all", and I suppose I could follow suit. Buit for now I will continue to undo WNDL42's attempt to transform any mention of the Insight/madrassa controversy into an assertion that Kuhner lied about being told lies about Obama, a BLP violation if I ever saw one. Outside of Insight (magazine), that is, where I am POINTily letting him have his head in the expectation that the stink level of the POV may finally reach the nostrils of someone who will object to it.
And, no, I'm not a Moonie and have had no contact with Kuhner outside of Wikipedia. And he didn't respond to my comments when he objected,[17] to a much less tendentious (pre-WNDL42) version of his bio and the Insight article. Do I really have to say this?
Let me emphasize: I don't know if Kuhner is telling the truth about what he was told. But I know I don't know, and I know WNDL42 doesn't know, and I know the various (non-principal) sources we quote don't know, and that any assertion to the contrary is a falsehood directed at Kuhner, a "smear" at least as mendacious as that directed at Obama by (party uncertain). And I won't stop writing and rewriting the necessary distinctions into articles where they are not made.
Btw, I searched my user page for "rvv" and didn't find it anywhere. What are you talking about? Andyvphil (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Almost the entirety of your response has nothing to do with the civility complaint lodged against you... --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Neither was your assertion that my bias was transparent. I chose to respond to that rather than deny the obvious, which is that WNDL42's POV-pushing "bullshit" (your word) has sorely tried my patience. So, tell me: what is my bias/agenda if it's not what I've said it is? If it's so transparent it shouldn't tax you much to describe it. And the description will tell us a lot about your biases and suitability to sit in judgement on this matter. Answer my question before you change the subject. Andyvphil (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You've decided to incorporate personal attacks based on decontextualized and unrelated items from my userpage into this discussion, which should have nothing to do with me and everything to do with your inappropriate conduct in the middle of a content dispute in which you, as I said, appear to be adding nonNPOV material. Because you've decided to lash out at me in an inappropriate fashion, I am going to discontinue responding to you in this complaint. I've made my assessment of the situation, and your opinion of my userpage has nothing to do with that. I will point out that the users who've made a habit of personally attacking WQA respondents, third opinions, or mediators, they don't get alot of help around here, so maybe you should try changing your attitude about the dispute resolution process. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Now I've made a "personal attack" on you??? Where? Quote me. Or, if you won't reply any more, anyone please quote the "personal attack" in question. I don't see it. What I do see is someone who's accusing me of adding non-NPOV material (no specifics or diffs specified) and having a "transparent agenda/bias" (which he refuses to specify), and who sees evidence of my having "issues mislabeling his reverts as 'rvv'" where none exists and who feels free to call the actions of other editors "bullshit" (which indeed they may have been) telling me that when I do the same I'm supposed to be contrite. nb: You can't "discontinue responding" to me if you never responded in the first place. But, no, I see no evidence that I should welcome your input. Andyvphil (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's break this down to a bit more simple level: 1) Complaint is filed. 2) I warn you and mention here that these are serious complaints and make a parenthetical remark about how the underlying content problem, in which you appear biased, is the real issue. 3) You respond by quoting decontextualized remarks from my userspace back at me, and question my "suitability to sit in judgement [sic] on this matter," despite the fact that the only issue here is your incivility. You have demonstrated that you are clearly unwilling to participate in the WQA in good faith, so I don't see the point in explaining this in any more depth. Stop making demands about diffs too. When you were given a 3RR warning, for example, there is no requirement that you be provided diffs (not to mention four of them - the 3RR warning comes before revert 4). --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What part of "bogus 3RR warnings" didn't you understand? When faced with bogus 3RR warnings I will ignore your instructions to me and continue to demand the diffs that don't exist. And civility does not require that I pretend that your opinions, still less your instructions, have any validity. I'll reconsider if and only if (a) you identify what I said to you is a "personal attack", (b) you identify a non-NPOV edit such as you assert I've made and defend your characterization of it as such, and (c) describe my "transparent agenda/bias" in specific terms. Barring that, it's not my "good faith" that's in question. Andyvphil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is. That's what a WQA complaint against you entails. I'm not going to defend my tangential/parenthetical comments about the larger content dispute because (despite you flying off the handle, and yes you did, about it) that is not what the WQA is about. You've made some rude comments, attacking other editors. Stop making them. Those aren't my "instructions" - it's policy. Follow it or don't. I'm not interested in being dragged into your content disputes. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No, what WQA is actually supposed to be is intervention by neutral paries to provide "perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." Read the damn box. When you start out by announcing that my "talk page indicates that [I've] had issues mislabeling [my] reverts as "rvv," making personal attacks, not assuming good faith, edit-warring, etc.... incivility seems to be a piece in a bigger picture (the bias/agenda that are quite transparent in [my] contributions regarding Obama)" and then compound the offensiveness of your attacks by refusing to substantiate them I don't think I need pretend that that you are someone whose intervention I ought to welcome or whose judgement(what was that "(sic)" about? That is thea way the word is spelled.) I need respect. Andyvphil (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
So you want neutral third-party advice and mediation if their opinions suit you? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying. And "sic" means you misspelled judgment. It's a part of how one quotes another. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong about that too. Both spellings are acceptable.[18][19]. And, no, I'm not much interested in "mediation" by purportedly neutral third partys when their "parenthetical comments" indicate a preexisting hostility and they proceed to do things like demanding that I not respond appropriately to bogus 3RR warnings spamming my talk page, etc. Judgment or judgement, you haven't demonstrated either. Andyvphil (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been contributing to the articles in question, mainly to be sure that they are not used to attack Senator Obama unfairly. I have found that Andyvphil is basically fair-minded and constructive, although he does lose his temper sometimes WNDL42 does seem to be sincere, however he sometimes goes overboard about trying to make the articles express his own opinions. Redddogg (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

another contributor here- i think that Andyvphil is not using personal attacks in any problematic sense, but they need to work on making their edit summaries more clear and using talk to resolve countering proposals, rather than instantly reverting which is a behavior I see too often from this user. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

ENOUGH. Andyvphil, the only topic that is being discussed on this page right now is your conduct toward other editors. Not your content disputes, not your bias, not the Moonies, not what another editor has on his or her personal User Page, not whether or not a particular editor tries your patience. Your behavior. That's the basis for this WQA. Nothing else. Even without looking at the diffs (which I did), the way you flew off the handle and snapped at Cheeser1 above would make me think that this particular complaint has some merit.

You're editing an article on a controversial subject, we know. I'm sure discussions there can get heated and editors with conflicting opinions can get frustrated and ornery after a while, all the way around. Fair enough. Conflicts from Insight have been dragged in here before, in fact. All the same, commenting on the user and not the content, and lashing out, is not a way to win allies here. If what is happening at the article is pissing you off, back off and take a break. If there are BLP violations going on, there's a noticeboard you can consult for help. If there's an issue you can't resolve, take it to someone for a third opinion. It's that simple. You have options. Turning into an angry mastodon won't help you and it won't help the article, and it might drive away those who would have been willing to help you before. Best, DanielEng (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Further instances of Andyvphil's incivility can be found at this AfD discussion, as well as these diffs from Talk:Insight (magazine): here, here, here, etc., not to mention the (deleted) talk page of that deleted article. User misrepresents and disregards arguments made by other editors, employs abusive and unhelpful language to describe the comments of others, and disrupts by moving goalposts, semantic games, and failure to assume good faith. - Tobogganoggin talk 06:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
He's already been admonished--all the examples really won't do anything else at this point. We can't do blocks and bans, and if you feel there's a more serious issue with the user, it will need to be addressed through the proper channels. The advice I gave above goes for everyone working on this article, FWIW--disengage if necessary and take a break before the warring gets out of hand. Insight seems to have a lot of ongoing issues among the same group of editors, and WQA really is not the place to find counsel for ongoing disputes (see "What WQA CANNOT do" at the top of the page). You might as a group want to try to find a neutral third party editor to step in on that article to mediate the discussions and edits, as is done on some other controversial pages around Wiki. Best, DanielEng (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Lessee, Cheeser1 mischaracterizes the contents of my talk page and volunteers that I'm editing with a transparent agenda/bias and you characterize my stiff but civil inquiry as to what he specifically means as "flying off the handle"? And the only question is my behavior and not that of the other editors involved? Well, those are your opinions, and given that as a sample I think I've had ENOUGH of them. Btw, WP:3O evidently doesn't apply (someone did ask and was turned down) and a BLP noticeboard posting got no input from anyone not already involved. The next step is actually a RFC, but I haven't had time to put it together. It's already on my todo list, though. Andyvphil (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I never used the words "flying off the handle." --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Didn't say you did. "You" in the relevant sentence is DanielEng. Andyvphil (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil (talk · contribs) for easier access. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Breach of incivility:
Outside of that, I can't find that much (dating back to 17 February). Wndl42 (talk · contribs) has been far more incivil than Andyvphil. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe it's not only my behavior that deserves attenton here, DE's assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. Andyvphil (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As you'll notice, above I said that the advice I gave applies to everyone working on that particular article. This complaint however was specifically posted about you, so yes, that means we're talking about your behavior, not anyone else's. The article disputes don't excuse you from having to be civil. Even if you thought your reply was "stiff but civil" that is not how it came across. Telling someone "If it's so transparent it shouldn't tax you much to describe it..." is going after the user and straying from the issue. Perhaps other editors are also interpreting what you're writing as being uncivil and lashing out, even if that's not what you were trying for. And I don't see the phrase "flying off the handle" in my reply anywhere either, for the record. Best, DanielEng (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"you flew off the handle"--Daniel Eng, initial post, the one beginning "ENOUGH". And the purpose of WQA is not "to to discuss the behavior of the person complained about, severed from the context in which it occurred". Among other things, that Wndl42 (talk · contribs) (the complainant) "has been far more incivil than Andyvphil", according to User:Seicer. And if you are going to transform this into a kangaroo court, I am damn well not going to be silenced about the evident biases of one kangaroo just because another yells ENOUGH. Andyvphil (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope. You seem to think that because there are comments about your behavior, we're siding with the complainant. Not so. As I've said numerous times, many of the editors on that article need to completely chill out and stop bickering. If you look a little further up the page, you might notice that Wndl42 had another complaint here that didn't go so well. I can't speak for anyone else, but I doubt that any of the WQA editors care in the least about the content or political nature of the dispute, your personal biases, or if the article implodes from all the edit warring. We're looking at the complaint as it's filed, and the observations have been that you're behaving in an adversarial fashion.
Again, whatever the other person is doing, it doesn't give YOU the right to level personal attacks or be uncivil. Even if you're dealing with an IP vandal troll, if you start personally attacking them and being rude, you'll get blocked too, because the rules apply to everyone, regardless of context. Step back and look at how you've acted just in this WQA...you've been openly hostile to everyone who has responded. And why? None of us really know you from Adam, do we? What reason would we possibly have for any sort of grudge or skewered viewpoint?
It's really your choice. You don't have to listen to any of the WQA editors, or anything anyone else says to you. It's of no consequence to me. You'll just have to decide what kind of experience you want on Wiki: getting angry, making personal attacks, arguing and possibly getting blocked, or trying to calm down, being more civil to other editors, and having a more productive time here. Every single minute you've spent fighting other editors here could have been spent elsewhere, editing. Perhaps that's something to consider. Best, DanielEng (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"I can't speak for anyone else, but I doubt that any of the WQA editors care in the least about the content or political nature of the dispute, your personal biases, or if the article implodes from all the edit warring. I willing to believe that of you. I think you merely decided to jump in on the side of a fellow WQA editor when he complained of a "personal attack" without thinking enough about whether one had actually taken place. But Cheeser1's unjustifed attacks make it quite clear that he has a dog in this fight. And you need to reconsider any line of argument that leads you to think that you can look at my conduct in isolation from that of the other editors involved. Get real. In the real world of Wikipedia the civility police aren't so active and effective that standing up for yourself isn't usually the best policy. Notice that the implication of your comment is that you can waste all your time in fora like this, otherwise. Andyvphil (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The point of the WQA is to examine the editing of the editors in question. The fact that I responded in a way that was critical of your "dog" in this "fight" does not mean I have some horrible agenda against you as you seem to think (a "dog" of my own). Responding to a WQA complaint is not a personal attack (bizarre, coming from someone who's perfectly willing to parrot the instructions at the top of the page to me, but doesn't notice the big one at the bottom there explaining that contributing to a discussion about people involved in WQA disputes does not itself constitute a personal attack). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
When your "contributi[on] to a discussion about people involved in WQA disputes" began by declaring that my "incivility seems to be a piece in a bigger picture (the bias/agenda that are quite transparent in [my] contributions regarding Obama)" you announced your adherence to one side of a content dispute. It's too late for you to pretend neutrality. And I'm not the one who squealed "personal attack!" without being able to back it up. I haven't used that phrase at all, except when referring to your misuse of it. Andyvphil (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing to reinforce my assessment of this situation. This discussion has degraded and is no longer serving to address the problem at hand - your incivility. I'm closing this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rokus01 (concerning article Nordic race)

The conduct of User:Rokus01 in the talk:Nordic race needs to be brought to attention. The controversy is about the question whether the sentence: "For example, the later Nazi minister for Food, Richard Walther Darré, who had developed a concept of the German peasantry as Nordic race, used the term 'Aryan' to refer to the tribes of the Iranian plains." This statement is sourced to a biography of Richard Walther Darré by an accepted historian. Common sense as well as wp:NPOV would mandate the mentioning of Darré's theory on the Nordic Race in this article. Rokus01 objects this, but from his writings on the discussion page I personally cannot perceive if has has actually understood wp:reliable sources and wp:NPOV. His opinion is unsupported by the two other editors who participated in the discussion. More importantly, his conduct has left the limits of what is acceptable within the guidelines of wp:civil and wp:assume good faith. In the edit summary I have been asked to " Go to the nazi pages please" [22] and been named a Troll [23] and Extremist [24]. In his last message on the talk page, Rokus01 accused me of conveying "Nazi POV" [25].

In the discussion so far I have avoided any political viewpoint, and I have the intention to continue this. I am only concerned about depicting Nazi ideology (and it's connection to theories about a "Nordic Race") correctly. That I have an interest in Nazi ideology OF COURSE does not allow the conclusion that I would be an adherent thereof, and I totally object these presumptions by Rokus01.Zara1709 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like Godwin's law applies on a much shorter timeframe when a discussion is already about Nazis. Most of what you describe is a content/source dispute. I'd recommend a third opinion, request for comment, or possibly posting on the reliable sources noticeboard. His conflating your agenda or intentions with Nazism is inappropriate and I have left a warning. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I still think that the ARTICLE ISSUE is below a RFC. Darré has written a book with the title: "Das Bauerntum als Lebensquell der nordischen Rasse" (The Peasantry as Live-Spring of the Nordic Race). Usually there should not be an argument about whether it is appropriate to mention a known politician who has written a book on a topic WITH ONE SENTENCE in the article on the respective topic. That is what I meant with common sense. However, since we are talking about a Nazi politician here, this would also be mandated by wp:NPOV. In anyone else on the discussion page does seriously search for a reason why this wouldn't be relevant, I guess one would have to put up an article rfc, but otherwise the only subject for an rfc here is the conduct of User:Rokus01. He continued his allegation that I would convey "Nazi POV" [26]. He now is of the opinion that the sentence in question would be prohibited because "WP:RS also protects Wikipedia from extremist sources". This is most likely related to an edit war he started at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and in which he broke wp:3RR, about which he was informed by Francis Schonken [27].Zara1709 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits of Zara1709 involved the point of view of a Nazi (Darré). Thus, the edits of Zara1709 are Nazi-POV. Moreover, the Nazi-POV was brought in by Zara1709, so it is linguistically correct to say "your Nazi-POV". Why it would be different, because it is Nazi-POV we are dealing with here? Did I say "your Nazi-PPOV"? I don't know Zara1709 at all, nor do I know anything about his personal beliefs or the state of his mind. I did NOT make a statement on his PERSONAL point of view. Nor did I break the WP:3RR rule. That would hardly apply to revert vandalism and undue Nazi-POV anyway, as far as I am concerned. Rokus01 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mrg3105 and articles with accented characters in their titles

This user has been adding "disputed title" tags on dozens of articles (mostly Romanian cities/regions), arguing that any article whose name contains diacritics (such as the Romanian letters Ă, Ş, and Ţ) indisputably violates WP:UE and must be changed to an accent-free form. See, for example, Chişinău (the capital of Moldova), and its talk page, where prolonged discussions of the issue seem to be going nowhere. Could we please get some outside input as to whether Wikipedia policy really demands that all articles in the English Wikipedia must have diacritic-free titles? Richwales (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify that my tagging was intended as an exercise in trawling and not trolling, to see if anyone other then User:Eurocopter tigre will join the discussion --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not disrupt Wiki to make a point. Placing dispute tags for no other reason than to try to drum up editor attention is inappropriate and can be considered disruptive. I'm sure there's a Wikiproject Romania, so if you want to get other editors interested in certain pages, why not try asking there? Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I accept your advice. I have replaced the tag on the one article with a suggested alternative title to reflect ongoing discussion on the dispute. I have also requested advice on the 3RR rule. I am also in an ongoing discussion elsewhere on a related issue. Thank you --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 09:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Glad to help. I would suggest that the titles remain with the proper accents, FWIW. There's nothing on the English Wiki that prevents accents being used in proper names. On a lot of Wiki pages for places and people with accents in their names, the unaccented title is a redirect to the proper accented one (for instance, Andreea Raducan leads to Andreea Răducan). You could always do the same thing for Chisinau, et al. Best, DanielEng (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you are not suggesting we discuss this here. If you wish to join into the discussion in Wikipedia:Naming conventions, I'd be glad to explain to you why the Wikipedia editors were mistaken during previous discussions, and how your proposal can not be applied. I strive to use only Wikipedia policies, guidelines and conventions and not to use my own POV to arrive as the conclusion that accents are not something that should/can be used in Wikipedia.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 10:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not even remotely interested in joining any content dispute. I was just offering a suggestion you might not have been aware of. If you wish to debate this, I suggest you do so at Wikiproject Romania et al with the relevant editors. In the meantime, please be reminded of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT. Best, DanielEng (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT. I will soon be submitting a proposal for policy change on Village Pump which has Worldwide consensus, not on one, but two points of Wikipedia policy. By the way, would you agree that Wikipedia policy is there to make a point? Administrative enforcement of Wikipedia policy is therefore not same as WP:POINT? Am I correct in this?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't. Wiki policy is a set of rules developed through consensus, trial and error and any applicable laws (as in BLP) and they are there to keep the project in some semblance of order, not to prove a point. At the moment, you don't have any official policy or consensus to back you up--only your belief that the current consensus is wrong--and so yes, you are trying to prove a point. You've already stated that your reason for tagging so many articles was to 'trawl' for user response. If your naming convention is accepted by consensus as policy, that's fine. If it's not, you'll have to accept that the majority does not agree with you and move on. It really won't be the end of the world and there will be plenty of other articles to edit. Best, DanielEng (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Verita & User:Subhan1

This is my first time using the alert system, so let me know if I am doing something wrong. User:Verita & User:Subhan1(same person) has been editing the page on Prof Hamid Dabashi, with excessive peacock terms and constantly removing any cited information that he sees as unfavorable. This person lashes out at anyone who disagrees with him, accusing them of being "zionists" and "losers". In fact, I suspect he might even be Prof Dabashi himself, since his entire editing history is about 99% on that page alone. I, and others, have warned him about his uncivil behavior and to stop removing the material. If you look at his comments on the history and talk pages they speak for themselves.BuboTitan (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For various and sundry reasons, the OWN implications make me queasy. I am going to post this to An/I Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:BuboTitan

It is laughable that BuboTitan who has been obsessing on Hamid Dabashi's page for months gives himself the psychic authority to declare who people are and aren’t and what information are deemed universal truths and thus worthy of putting up on wikipedia. I User:Verita have not lashed at anyone who has been decent enough to contribute truthfully to the page. But yes, obsessive and consistent vandals (obsessed to portray him as a racist) have heard what I think of them. I have used the Talk page, provided sources and explained my actions. I hope for his own sake [User:BuboTitan|BuboTitan]] will stop his accusations and slanderous projects on wikipedia and get out of sites where he has nothing to contribute! His projects are sinister, abusive and unsubstantiated by any mainstream and decent source.

User:Dahn and User:AdrianTM

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved. This complaint duplicates an issue above, and the concerns in this section appear to be only content-related. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like the users User:Dahn and User:AdrianTM, or any other editors of the article Chişinău to stop persistent removal of {{Disputed title|alternate title=Chisinau}} on Chişinău.

  • The title is disputed based on interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on use of non-English language article titles.
  • The issue was discussed in the article talk page, but there was a failure to cite verifiable and non-exceptional sources by User:Eurocopter tigre (or anyone else), and the discussion was discontinued by user:Eurocopter tigre
  • However, to solve the issue definitively, a more global approach to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on WP:NC was deemed required.
  • The issue was being discussed in appropriate WP:NC talk pages, however the two users were not participants
  • The issue is a subject of imminent presentation at Village Pump policy review/amendment
  • It is an informal convention of good faith in Wikipedia that dispute templates are not removed until the dispute is resolved as per Template:Disputedtag which is itself disputed!
  • I would appreciate if the template was replaced on the article until all issues related to it are resolved

Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the thread a few sections up. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Before you put that {{Resolved}} on the request, you will note that this complaint does not relate to the previous complain, and is not content related! Because of this, I am not exactly sure what it is that you refer me to in the previous section.
Please note that the previous section objects to me
  • 1. adding "disputed title" tags on dozens of articles
  • 2. arguing that any article whose name contains diacritics indisputably violates WP:UE
To summarise for you
  • I agreed with desisting in the case of the first part of the complaint Resolved
  • I advised that this issue is outside of the scope of a single article, and is being resolved elsewhere (WP:NC). WQA in progress
I refer you to the section in this page which defines what Wikiquette alerts can and can not do, one of which is Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility
  • Do you think that removing a {{Disputed title}} template without the dispute having been resolved (or indeed participated in) is a civil form of behaviour? If so, I will be sure to included it in the template use guidelines.
  • Do yo think that 3RR policy applies for longer then 24 hours? If so I will advise the relevant policy administrators to amend their content.
Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been given a neutral perspective. In addition, since you yourself stated that you put the tags on the articles solely to 'trawl' and didn't protest when they were taken off other pages, your argument that they were critically related to a discussion in progress is null and void. And you can't dispute non-adherence to a policy that currently doesn't exist. Not to mention that none of these issues are WQA matters. You seem to have missed this part of the guidelines: What WQA CANNOT do: Intervene in content disputes, extreme personal attacks, vandalism or 3RR incidents. Please stop Wikilawyering and trying to get WQA to intervene in your content dispute. We don't replace tags. If you don't like the response you've been given here, you're free to look elsewhere. This discussion is closed. Best, DanielEng (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incivility and Personal Attacks by User:Cebactokpatop

Resolved. User blocked and warned about edit warring; parties now seeking mediation.

DanielEng (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cebactokpatop displaying prolonged and continuous incivility and making repeated personal attacks. Primarily on User_talk:Cebactokpatop and Talk:John_Zizioulas, but also on on User_talk:Seminarist.

Seminarist (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop is an Wikipedia:SPA who is openly editing the John Zizioulas page to promote a religious fringe-view, which he calls 'traditional Orthodoxy', and which he sees himself as representing on wikipedia. [28] [29] [30]

He says that because of his religious position, he will not discuss issues of disagreement over wikipedia content in detail, point by point.[31] Instead, he resorts repeately to unjustified reverts, unexplained removal of material, false accusations, incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith:

  • He repeatedly deleted text of mine from his talk page, [43] [44] [45] [46] until an administrator stopped him.[47]
  • He repeatedly reverted my attempts to remove his pov cation of IMAGE;MZIZIJLAS.JPG [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. An adiministrator then tried to stop him,[53] but he then reverted the administrator,[54] and so was blocked for 31 hours
  • He falsely accuses me of vandalism for removing POV material.[66] [67] [68] He maliciously added a level-2 POV tag to my user-page (in retaliation for my removal of NPOV material from the John Zizioulas page).[69]
  • When I remove POV material, I am accused of attempting to hide or 'push down' the views of others. [70] [71] [72]
  • When I raise doubts about the validity of a source am accused of 'blindness' or 'dreaming': [73] [74] [75]
  • I have been subjected to the following personal attack: 'If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself.' [76] (Despite requests, [77] [78] he has refused to withdraw this attack.)[79]
  • He tells me he knows 'who I am and where I come from'[80]
  • He repeatedly misrepresents my views in discussion. [84] [85]

It seems impossible to engage in constructive edits with Cebactokpatop. Could I have some advice please?

Seminarist (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, Cebactokpatop (talk · contribs) and Seminarist (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Good grief. I see numerous bad faith assumptions on both sides, and clear cases of incivility. I suggest that both editors edit other articles or patrol Recent Changes, clear your head regarding the dispute, and come back and have amicable discussions. Nothing is achieved when discussions are heated and it revolves around tit-for-tat arguments. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm disappointed by your reply. I didn't start editing Wikipedia to get the sort of abuse I've received from Cebactokpatop. It is hardly a tit-for-tat discussion - over 90% of Cebactokpatop's edits relating to me have been blatantly incivil, and the incivility was as strong as it has been from his initial edits. Your comments don't address the fact that Cebactokpatop's only reason for being on Wikipedia is to add hostile and inappropriate material to the John Zizioulas article, and that he is explicitly editing from a religious POV.Seminarist (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
But there's nothing WQA can do about a longterm conflict like this, I'm afraid. You both have very strong opinions about the article. If you feel Cebactokpatop has a legitimate conflict of interest/POV issue that should preclude him from editing this article, you can ask at the noticeboard at WP:COIN for some guidance. I also note that this article is not yet affiliated with WP:RELIGION, which is the Wikiproject for religion. You might want to check there to see if they have any specific tips on dealing with conflicts on articles about living clergy, or if there's any way to get a neutral editor versed in this subject to act as a mediator. DanielEng (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - this gives me some idea of what to do next, if the problems persist - which, on balance of probability seems likely. Seminarist (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Pgsylv on Quebec page

Resolved. for now at least. Per ANI, Pgsylv has been banned from the Quebec article and its talk page. Any further edits to the Quebec article or its talk page by Pgsylv will lead to a 24 hour block, with each subsequent block doubling in length. nat.utoronto 23:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After 48 hour 3RR Ban for vandalizing Quebec page

05:44, 17 February 2008

User:Pgsylv commits essentially the same reverts with first message:

17:04, 21 February 2008

And leaves message: [93] "We had a consensus Soulscanner. What the hell are you doing ?"

Please undertake to remain civil and discuss on Discussion board. --soulscanner (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted the blocking admin regarding 3RR problems and left a note on the user's talk page regarding incivility. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Quebec has been protected from further dispute, and discussions are (weakly) on going. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Pgsylv, has been increasingly harrassing me at Quebec, with taunts of my being an RCMP agent & suggesting I don't know anything about Quebec. Also, he's just recently suggested that Soulscanner & myself stay out of the Quebec discussion. Pgsylv is showing no signs of trying to improve the article, he seems more interested in commenting on editors he oppooses. Bascially, he's being increasingly disruptive. Also, sometimes he doesen't sign in & may have been using more then one IP address. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Pgsylv has still been disrespectful towards to other participants of Talk:Quebec. Most recently, he has making personal attacks on a few members including myself, which can be found in Talk:Quebec#French_intro and Talk:Quebec#Confusion. The latter link is solely made to attack everyone with no revelance to the whole topic that we've been discussing ad nauseum in order to find a consensus, but his disputive behavoir continues to interrupt our attempts to form a consensus and testing our nerves and trying to get us to defy "Assuming Good Faith". S/he continues to oppose those who disagree; telling us that we shouldn't discuss Quebecker politics, and accusing us of holding bad faith and imposing our POVs. It seems s/he hasn't changed one bit since you admins gave a warning in his/her user talkpage. I hope you'll resolve this issue as soon as possible. Cheers. Pieuvre (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pgsylv's talk page is yet another matter. When anybody contacts him there, his response is to simply blank the page. Though he's at liberty to do as he pleases with his personal talk page, responding to others with deletions? seems quite uncivil. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is currently an ANI thread open concerning Pgsylv: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pgsylv. nat.utoronto 22:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User: Treelo

Resolved. Bad faith nom. from a suspected sock. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User: Treelo is very rude to all wikipedians. And it was clearly stated in the rules that politness is manditory. Honestly I want him blocked. A lot of users had tried to talk to him, but it didn't work. Also he uses harsh language. User:Treelo —Preceding unsigned comment added by The C. Leader (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide specific diffs that illustrate the uncivil behavior. Also note that WQA cannot block people, so please let us know what other type of intervention you'd like here. Do you want us to try to talk to him, advise you where to go, etc.? DanielEng (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Treelo (talk · contribs) and The C. Leader (talk · contribs) for further reference. I'm heading out so if no one tackles this before I do.... best of luck :O) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • groan* why do I have to be online tonight? This is a sock, isn't it?? Contacting Treelo to see if he knows who this could be.DanielEng (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 :O) I'm back and online. But going to bed. If I have time at work, which I surely will, and someone hasn't tackled it by then... well, I'll probably leave it up to you! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
But I've met my drama quota for the week already! You know, this Alert is giving me a lot of impetus to hop off Wiki, stop procrastinating and get back to work myself. :) I contacted Treelo to give him a heads up...it seems we do have a sock puppet on our hands with this report. DanielEng (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The C. Leader is a sock puppet of Crips r us. [94] Made some little group that vandalizes articles. Close this now, Treelo's a good editor. DietLimeCola (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. C. Leader only has a handful of edits since his account was created Friday, and 50 minutes into it... he posts down at WQA? Let me know if there is an open SSP case. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, got notice of this due to Dan's alert on my talkpage and yes, there is an open SSP case for this vandal. [95] --treelo talk 14:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
C. Leader is now leaving me messages on my Talk Page trying to convince me he's not a sock...oy. I think I'm hopping off Wiki again for a while, no more drama for me this week! Anyway, Treelo, good luck with this case. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)