Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

User:Soxrock's alleged disruptive editing pattern

Stale

Note: This issue was archived without any attempt at resolution. I have restored it back here with hope that someone will try to come to a consensus on this issue. Thanks, Caknuck 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His main purpose for doing this, as Soxrock himself has admitted, is to avoid edit conflicts. But in reality, he makes these series' of edits on articles in which he is the only editor, if not one of the very few editors, who edits that article, reducing the risk of any edit conflict arising dramatically. --Ksy92003(talk) 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe his main purpose of doing this is to drive up his edit count. I questioned his editing techniques before, here: User_talk:Soxrock#Small_Edits_on_ATH_Stats. Just looking at his contributions, I see that the situation hasn't gotten any better. The last 37 edits (all on June 25th) of this article 1999-2000_NHL_season are his, including an astounding 29 edits in 17 minutes. Bjewiki 12:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(←)I think the reason no-one responded when you posted this previously is that it does not seem to be an issue of civility or editing disputes. Now all the information is almost a month old, so it does not seem like a situation needing immediate attention. Considering that Wikipedia has millions of articles and something like 75,000 editors, plus high-speed editing bots doing maintenance and cleanup, I don't think his edit count is significantly burdening the servers.

What is it that's bothering you about this? Is he violating WP:CIVIL and causing trouble to you personally, or to another editor in particular? Is he inserting material in the articles that does not conform to WP:V, WP:CONSENSUS, or WP:NPOV? If any of that is happening, please provide some specific examples so we can take a look.

But if he's just editing fast, why is that bad? Think about how many edits bots make every day, where they add things like tag dates and other minor corrections to templatges. Those must create many times more pages than the editor you are reporting. If you think I'm wrong about that, you could post a request at the Village Pump (Technical) and I'm sure you'd get a quick reply to the tech question. If his edits are vandalism, that's different and would be an important issue. If so, we can refer you to where to report that.

Also, I reviewed his talk page and he seems to have productive and civil editing relationships. Please clarify what you're looking for here. I don't mean to make light of your report, I just don't understand why you see this as a problem. Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't even get this all. Laleena^{Talk to me} _{Contributions to Wikipedia} 13:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I can metaphorize it (Yes, that is a real word. I just typed it, didn't I?). In recreational car racing, there are those with little money that "win" because of large amounts of skill, skill that is gathered by long practice. They love to drive just to drive, and there is no better feeling than to continue improving. Then, there are those that just want to drive faster than everyone else, and have more disposable income. Those that win due to a large amount of money spent upgrading their car instead of practicing their art are often very irksome to those who drive for the love of driving, rather than the love of winning, as it cheapens a beautiful thing. Or, as I should have put it, it's like using a gameshark or a code to get lots of gold or the ultimate weapon at the beginning of the game. Cheap. Yeah, it kinda bothers me too, but no, I don't think he's hurting anything other then our sensibilities. Surrogate Spook 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you; it may be annoying to some, but it's not a policy violation and unless someone posts a clear problem statement here in the next day or so, I'm going to archive this alert. --Parsifal _Hello 22:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[the below paragraph was moved from the top of this section, where it had been placed out of chronological sequence. Therefore where VisitorTalk wrote "below" in this comment, please consider it refers in this case to "above" --Parsifal _Hello 22:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]

The complaint below implies that making a series of small edits to the same article, over a short period of time, places an unreasonably great technical load on Wikipedia when compared with batching the edits into a single edit. In addition, the complaint implies that making a series of small changes, rather than a single edit combining those changes, is disruptive to the community. In addition, the complaint implies that it is inappropriate for an editor to reach a high edit count through these small-edit techniques. As a new editor, I would like to see the documentation of these alleged policy issues. VisitorTalk 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello VisitorTalk. The key word in in your comment here is "implies". While there are implications here, there really is no significant problem that I've been able to find. If you read my response above, (it starts at the ← symbol), that will give you a good summary. In my comment I provided several links that begin with the letters WP. Those are links to the policy issues you are asking about. In addition, here is an article that explains that the server load is not a problem: Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance.

As I mentioned above, it's possible for someone to use an editing method that is "annoying" to some other users, but that is not the same thing as "disruptive." Disruptive editing has a particular meaning, and from what I saw in reviewing this situation, it does not apply here. Others may disagree with me about that, but no-one has said that, so I assume there is no ongoing problem here.

I suggest that as a new editor, you read the basic policies and then focus first on editing articles before getting involved in dispute resolution pages like this one, unless you find yourself in a troubling situation and need help. Here is a good place to start to get a full overview of the Wikipedia policies, guidelines and help systems: WP:WELCOME. --Parsifal _Hello 22:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and clarifications, Parsifal. VisitorTalk 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Tezza1 disruptive editing pattern

Stale

User:Tezza1 persists using disruptive editing Railpage Australia. The user is strongly anti the subject of the article, has openly stated he does not believe the article should exist and campaigned for its deletion in an AfD. The AfD decision having been keep, the user engaged in disruptive editing to devalue the content by adding unencyclopedic content, and "warning" that the article could be nominated for deletion again for containing unencyclopedic content. Further actions include repeatedly adding and restoring unencyclopedic content, demands not to remove unencyclopedic content, accusations of COI for anybody adding new information to the article, threats to invoke WP:3RR for users removing unencyclopedic content he has added, unilateral reverts of collaborative edits to a non-consensus version, agenda pushing, WP:POINT and listing an article for speedy deletion immediately after it was unprotected. The Null Device 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Null. I am looking over the edit history and am responding to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1. I see clear evidence of numerous policy violations by this user, as well as possible sockpuppetry. I believe that, for the most part, you and the other editors in that article have remained civil and have kept the discussion on topic, and for that you should be commended. I did leave a note in the Talk page against one set of comments that stepped over the line with respect to WP:NPA, but otherwise, I agree with your assertion about Tezza1's disruptive patterns.

If the RFC/U against Tezza1 fails to resolve the conflict, your next step may be to take this to Arbitration. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it sounds like you all have taken reasonable steps to resolve this issue already, and they haven't worked thus far.

Good luck, and let me know if I may be of any further assistance. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, It's a content dispute about a commercially owned site passing itself off as something else.I've only said it should be encyclopedic. As it stands parts of the article could be considered as spam WP:SPAM. As for the user The Null Device, he is only a recent participant (from 23rd July) in editing this article [4], no doubt because I submitted the article for independent Peer Review on the 19th July as his flood of edits occurred after 23rd of July which I consider was a blocking strategy. My complaints about this users editing "flood" and report to the COI noticeboard, probably explains why he posted his complaint here. This user has yet to follow the first three steps of the dispute resolution guidelines [5]Tezza1 13:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll attempt to respond to this point by point:

1. There is a longer history between you and other editors on that page than has involved Null Device - this is true. However, it appears that Null Device is simply continuing the dispute resolution process against you that was taken up by previous editors - therefore, he is not required to go through other methods first. Plus, WQA is actually listed as one of the first dispute resolution methods anyway, so I need to ask, what's the problem with what he's doing?
2. COI is a serious allegation - almost as serious as harassment and libel. As such, you need to have significant proof that a person is in a conflict-of-interest situation when you go to report them to the COI noticeboard. Given what I was able to see in the situation, you've leveled this accusation against quite a few people in the Railpage article, and that seriously detracts from our ability to assume that you're editing in good faith.
3. As has been pointed out multiple times, whether a site is owned by a commercial company has no bearing on the site's own profitability status. Non-profit organizations are very frequently owned and overseen by commercial companies, but that does not automatically make them for-profit, commercial organizations. I don't know the specifics about Railpage Australia, so I can't speak to this particular situation from a content standpoint.
4. It appears that there is a strong consensus among other WP editors there, and you appear to be consistently rejecting that consensus, resorting to WP:NPA and accusations of WP:COI in an attempt to discredit those editors. I would strongly advise that you stop going along that route.

I hope this helps clarify the situation. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Null Device has been a participant since March, not 23 July.[6][7] The article is not considered WP:SPAM as it has been nominated for {{db-spam}} on several occasions (including by Tezza1[8]) and this was rejected by administrators. His actions display many of the characteristics of problem editors. The COI accusation against the regular editors of a page he actively campaigned to get deleted is bordering on harassment. This seems like a campaign to discredit not just the regular editors but anybody who doesn't agree with him, including Wikipedia itself. He did not take the RFC seriously, described the dispute process as "BS"[9] and did not accept the offer of mediation. Thin Arthur 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I have to repeat yet again that the so-called "flood" of edits were collectively a series of collaborative bold edits taking into the account the collective opinions expressed in the then most recent AfD debate and on the talk page. Tezza1 then unilaterally reverted these reliably sourced changes. To quote WP:TE, "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption."[10] That is the basis of this WQA. The Null Device 08:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment In response to KieferSkunk coments.

1. Maybe someone can jump into recent discussion and lead the dispute resolution process. I'm not an Wikipedia expert in this, but one administrator has said this was premature and other had the The Null Device withdraw [11][12].
2. Yes COI is a serious allegation, but recent edits and discussion about technical details is more than a passing interest in the article. It's more than "the average man in the street would know" or be of interest to.[13][14]
3. True, many commercial organizations have "non profit" ventures. But the difference here is that it is usually the norm to set up an separate transparent structure such as a trust and register for non profit status under Federal and State Government laws. Railpage seems intertwined with its owner [15]. An example of a commercial organisation setting up a non-profit venture is Ronald McDonald Charities [16] - interesting to note they have an "written like an advertisement" tag in their article (03 Aug). I have asked other users to provide evidence for Railpage "non commercial status" [17]. To this date they have not. Asking for "donations" by a commercial organization like Railpage Australia [18] , is technically a "voluntary payment for service". There is no transparent disclosure process where the donated money actually goes, and any "donations" would be classified as income generated by Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd [19] and subject to tax. I have even tried to compromise, stating "Commercial - Yes, Free membership, Voluntary payment for service"[20]. ALL this discussion, just for ONE box [[21]]in the top right hand corner of the article!!!!
4. I consider the number of active "contributors" in the Railpage article could be counted on one hand.

Tezza1 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot respond directly to point #3, as it involves more detailed information about Railpage Australia than I have handy. But I'll respond to the Wikiquette issues:

2: There is a difference between being well-informed and having a conflict of interest. Let me give you another example: I am heavily involved in WikiProject Video games, and I have made a lot of edits of a highly technical nature to many of the game articles within that project. I have what you can call much more than a "passing interest" and "street-level knowledge" about many of those games and the machines they run on. However, that does not automatically mean I have a Conflict of Interest in those articles, as I do not work for any of the companies that made those games (I did work as a tester on Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge, so there's POSSIBLY a remote COI there, but not within the scope of WP's policies), and furthermore I have no vested interest in publishing any specialized content that only I would know about.

The editors you've accused of COI on the Talk page have all had reasonable explanations about their involvement with Railpage - namely, they are members on the Railpage forums and/or they've volunteered some of their time with the organization; they found technical details straight from the Railpage site itself or from other publicly accessible sources (in other words, the information they put up was NOT insider info); and they have made it clear that they are not intimately involved with the organization's inner workings.

4: The number of currently active contributors to the article does not have any direct bearing on the state of consensus. Looking through the history of the Railpage Australia article and related articles, I've seen more than a dozen different people contribute, and it appeared until fairly recently that they had reached a consensus on much of the article content there. Now, just because a consensus exists doesn't mean it can't be changed - WP:CON is very clear on this point. But when a consensus exists, the onus is on you to change it through meaningful, fair and balanced discussion, and what I've observed from you, Tezza1, is a tendency to simply reject the consensus and attempt to discredit the other editors, rather than to discuss the matter in a civil and fact-based manner. In effect, you have put yourself in a possible position of Conflict of Interest, but more to the point, you have made it difficult for discussion to take place there.

Again, I hope this clarifies the situation somewhat. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You were willing to comment on "commerciality" before, so why can't you make a comment now? Yes, you are correct, that I reject the "consensus" on the main point (commercial) even though I disagree strongly with some elements (not all!!) of the article, If you look at the recent history I have refrained from editing content in the actual article. The purpose of the discussion page is the discuss and debate!!!! Arguments against the consensus should be allowed even if people don't agree with a POV. As long as its non defamatory, and backed up by creditable online references, it should be allowed. Even the editing war back in March 2007 was about an incident was supported by documentary evidence (newspapers and the Railpage Forum itself), I did not originally post that information on Wikipedia, but I supported and argued its inclusion. Look at my comments on the discussion page, have I not put references and links to support my arguments?. On a closing note, to use a legalistic term, I have stepped out of the "arena" in the Railpage article, KieferSkunk, based on some comments made, you unintentionally seem to be descending into it.Tezza1 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing commerciality from a general standpoint, and simply pointing out what other editors had already said in the article. However, I am not qualified to make a judgement about whether Railpage Australia IS commercial or not. That's the distinction. And I am purposefully limiting my comments to discussing the manner in which you pursued the discussion, not the content of the discussion itself. That's all I am attempting to do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This WQA has been sitting idle for a while. Anything more going on with it? Or should I mark it as stale? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has been very disruptive with a negative POV, does anybody have any idea's or further comments? Is WP:PROB too early at this stage?203.122.101.142 09:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than what's already pointed out above, can you cite any specific examples? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tezza, there is an FAQ article on Railpage that states where the donations go to. Read it: http://www.railpage.com.au/faq-1.htm#80 Doctorjbeam 01:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving this comment on Tezza1's User talk page, as he may not be reading this WQA anymore. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:KieferSkunk He'd be better off reading this COI User:Doctorjbeam and taking note of it, given time I have a few more fish to fry, including one who spends most of his active day editing Wikipedia. Tezza1 13:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly I don't see how other people's editing habits are any of your business or why it's your job to "fry" them. Thin Arthur 06:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple disputes involving B9 hummingbird hovering

Stale

 – --Darkwind (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering has been warned numerous times over the past several months by multiple editors about WP:OR, WP:V, and personal attacks, but continues to have frequent conflict, often inserting the same contested material on multiple articles. I am requesting some independent opinion on this matter.

Here is a current example of conflict-oriented editing on Mantra involving a content dispute over a book by Bucknell & Stuart-Fox (1986):

• 2 August (5:02) User:B9 hummingbird hovering inserts the Bucknell et. al. book into the References section, but it is not used in any footnote or otherwise mentioned: [22]
• 2 August (5:04) Since WP:LAYOUT calls for the References section to contain only works cited in Notes, I remove the uncited book: [23]
• 2 August (9:27): Book is reinserted, this time with a quote: [24]
• 2 August (12:56) User:IPSOS removes the quote as irrelevant to the article: [25]
• 2 August (13:23) Book is reinserted: [26]
• 2 August (15:44): User:GourangaUK reverts insertion as inappropriate and requests discussion on talk page: [27]
• 3 August (1:51): Book is reinserted: [28]
• 4 August (04:50): I remove the materia as irrelevant and note that it is being inserted on multiple articlesl: [29]
• 4 August (13:18) Book is reinserted, with personal attack on me: [30]
• 4 August (13:55) User:IPSOS removes the content as irrelevant, noting lack of consensus: [31]
• 4 August (14:15) Material is reinserted: [32]
• 4 August (22:51) I remove it, categorizing it as content spam: [33]

Regarding the book involved in that conflict, B9 hummingbird hovering is inserting Bucknell et al. on mulitple articles, many with the same pattern of insertion of the book with no quotation or other citation that would justify placement in References (according to WP:LAYOUT). E.g.:

• 2 August: B9 hummingbird hovering Creates page for the book The Twilight Language: [34]
• 2 August: Five_Dhyani_Buddhas: [35]
• 2 August: Om_mani_padme_hum: [36]
• 2 August: Chakra: [37]
• 2 August: Mandala: [38]
• 3 August: Yantra: [39]
• 4 August: Mudra: [40]
• 4 August: Mantra: [41]

If you review the edit history for this user various other articles where similar conflict has taken place can be found. Any opinions on how to handle this situation? Buddhipriya 02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

(I'm responding to this case after confirming with User:Buddhipriya that he'd still like assistance, despite the age of this alert.)

This case is what is known in technical circles as a "doozy". The user's edits all appear to be good faith edits, but there's no question that he is (or was at the time of this alert) ignoring consensus. He seems willing to discuss the issues but I tend to agree with User:IPSOS that most of his arguments don't make sense (and I don't mean that they're weak arguments - I mean they don't seem to mean anything at all). Moreover, his recent edits seem to be primarily violations of Orwell's second, third, and fifth rules.

As for how to handle it, he seems to be reluctant to accept the word of two editors, especially two editors who he sees as allied against him, as consensus. Making use of WP:RFC to get more people involved in specific cases would likely be useful, since this is, at its heart, a content dispute. The specific issues involving that book seem so to be stale, but if there are any specific issues going on now I'd be willing to try talking with him, as an outside party, to see if an understanding can be reached. Sarcasticidealist 21:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I hope you will clarify that by "he" in the above remarks you are referring to User:B9 hummingbird hovering and not to me. Since the posting of this report the editor has reduced their attacks, but has continued to press issues in ways that may involve failures of policy. I would appreciate it very much if you would dialog directly with the user to get their side of the story and provide an independent opinion on the policies of WP:OR, WP:V, and the need to avoid personal attacks. I also have found it difficult to understand what the editor is saying at times because the editor uses language in what is perhaps a metaphorical or poetic manner that I sometimes find simply incomprehensible. This has limited my ability to engage in direct dialog. I chose to use a Wikiquette alert rather than an RFC as a first step because I was wanting to begin with the least invasive method for getting independent opinion. Buddhipriya 21:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - "he" indeed refers to User:B9 hummingbird hovering. I'd be happy to talk to him, but I'd first like some more recent examples of issues that he is pressing; from what I can tell, the one you cited initially, while it was certainly a problem when you cited it, seems to be largely resolved. At that time, I will also explain that, in article talk pages, clarity is perhaps to be valued over beauty. Sarcasticidealist 21:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Here is a fresh example of WP:OR: [42].
• Here is a fresh addition of unsourced content which conflicts with the basic facts in the article: [43]. Buddhipriya 21:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left some comments on his talk page. Let's see what happens from here. Sarcasticidealist 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Continued hostility/personal attack from User:Misou

Resolved

 – The user in question has received corrective action as of 17 August, and there don't seem to be any further issues with their recent edits after the block expired. --Darkwind (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Incivility: "you are running out of some 5 year old confusion"
• Personal attack: "if you want to just edit here or try to contaminate this place with hate propaganda."
• Incivility, along with assumption of bad faith: "hooked on collecting negative information on Scientology since (which is your COI point)."

I can't talk for other users, but I noticed that the incivility has been persistent. The sarcasm and disparaging tone already makes it difficult to discuss issues on respectful terms. I take offense as being described as an individual bent on 'hate propaganda'. All considered, it's difficult for me to imagine that the points I bring will be considered honestly by the user. Raymond Hill 15:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing ArbCom on if a Scientologist (COFS) has a WP:COI because she is editing Scientology articles. This is obviously a question to be asked for Raymond Hill as well. He is running an anti-Scientology site which is being used as "reference" also in those articles he is editing reguarly. This is the background for the above. I apologize if I went over the acceptable way of presenting this. Misou 15:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, if someone said the same to you and you would feel attacked or offended, change how you say it. Politeness gets one a lot further in this place. Regardless of the merits or accuracy of your descriptions, if you can phrase it neutrally you get a lot further. Also, remember to comment on content, not editors or thier motivations whenever possible. Best of Luck! --Rocksanddirt 15:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the basis of Misou's "lack of good faith" is rooted in the fact that several editors of Wikipedia's Scientology articles are openly and publicly webmasters of anti-Scientology websites. While this doesn't excuse rudeness on Misou's part - especially his/her unwarranted heckling of User:Tilman on his talk page - it does point to a real problem. I could also provide a LONG list of diffs that show that Misou and other editors have been spoken to by anti-Scn editors in an extremely demeaning, sarcastic, abrasive and insulting way with no repercussions for those editors, so I can certainly see how Misou might start to think such behavior is condoned around here. wikipediatrix 16:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's quite true - there's plenty of anger and attack-fodder on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, WQA isn't the place to fix the community as a whole. :) --Darkwind (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Muckrakerius using talk page to further agenda in uncivil, libelous manner.

I recently posted what I believe was a legitimate question on the Shoot 'Em Up talk page in the interest of adding pertinent information about its release and screening process. Since then I have been the victim of several personal attacks by Muckrakerius, (who has only contributed to one other article on Wikipedia). So far he has accused me of being a corporate troll, of lying about my sources, and most recently about lying about my own personal life. I am perfectly willing to engage in reasonable discussion about the film, the film's entry, and the uses of Wikipedia talk pages, but I consider attacks on my character to be "off limits" and ask that they stop. Thank you. ChrisStansfield 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I state that you are lying and have an agenda because you do. Please do not use the term LIBELOUS because you are thus threatening legal action. The purpose of a talk page is to discuss the article. You have been asked repeatedly to PROVE your point. You won't. Fine. But you HAVE been lying throughout the back and forth and have been proven as such. PLEASE STICK TO FACTS. Muckrakerius 21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you two. First of all, let me say that I agree with ChrisStansfield that Muckrakerius has been violating WP:CIVIL. Muckrakerius, if you plan on sticking around, I think you'll find it not only mandated by Wikipedia policy but helpful to your cause if you learn to disagree a little more politely.

That said, this disagreement originated in a conversation that was virtually entirely unrelated to improving the article. One way to avoid having people jump down your throat over opinions you express is to confine the opinions you express to those which are directly relevant to the Wikipedia article itself, rather than to the article's subject. While I think that Muckrakerius has got to change his behaviour, I think the easiest way to deal with the problems you're currently having is to just end the conversation in which they're occurring. Sarcasticidealist 21:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In my own defense, Sarcastic, the question about the subject I posted on the talk page was clearly phrased as an attempt to find relevant information to add to the entry itself, which certainly is legitimate in a film article. I did not just say, "I thought the movie was bad," nor did I state that my own original research in this case was significant enough to warrant adding it to the main entry, which is clearly in good faith. I asked if anyone knew how long the film had been held aftyer being made, which for purposes of the article is, I repeat, completely valid if you look at articles for films like The Brown Bunny and the like.

Further, need I point out the responses of muckrakerius above to underscore my point? Thirdly, muckrakerius has now continued the attack on my own user page. Considering about half of my life is fully documented on the Internet under my own name, any attempts to paint me as an employee of any studio is absolutely ludicrous. I also DID answer his allegations with "facts," by extensively quoting from the same site that is used as a reference in the article itself.I fail to see so far how anything I have done violates Wikipedia policy ChrisStansfield 21:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I worded my response too harshly - I don't think you have violated Wikipedia policy, and Muckrakerius certainly has. Moreover, I think you clearly won the debate on the talk page about whether the movie had been scheduled to come out sooner originally, and I say go ahead and add that fact (properly cited) to the talk page; if he reverts it, that's an entirely new issue. In the meantime, his accusations about your so-called "agenda" are so transparently false that I don't think they're doing any harm. It looks to me like a classic case of "don't feed the trolls".

Of course, if you feel that this *is* doing you some harm, you might want to report it to the Admin Noticeboard. Over here, all we can do it reason with people, and I'm not sure how much good that's going to do in Muckrakerus' case.

Finally, it wasn't apparent to me that your initial question was an attempt to find relevant information to add to the entry itself; it became apparent later on, of course, but it initially appeared to me that you were treating the talk page as a messageboard. In the future, you might do well to be quite explicit about your intentions in asking such questions, so that the slower editors know what's going on. Sarcasticidealist 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be perfectly in order to delete Muckrakerius' comments from your talk page, if you don't want them there. Sarcasticidealist 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SarcasticOne. I agree to try to be more patient. It is my belief that this User is employed by Lionsgate films to promote the film 3:10 to YUMA and his trolling was designed to negatively affect Shoot 'Em Up. That said I promise to behave nicer to the trolls in the future.Muckrakerius 21:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that this user is in conflict-of-interest, you can report him to WP:COIN, but you'd better have some evidence beyond that fact that he has said nasty things about a movie that happens to look awful. Sarcasticidealist 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help, Sarcastic- I appreciate your reason and logic in responding to this, as well as your willingness to accept my good faith. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is over- at the moment, I doubt any harm will come to me, though if I find in the future that I'm being sued by a movie studio, I'll have an idea why and may call upon your help. ;) I will try to take your semantic advice, meanwhile, about talk pages. (I enjoyed the wry comments, too.) ChrisStansfield 22:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations that I am a troll and a stooge of ZanuPF for reverting inappropriate material on Robert Mugabe

Stale

 – --Darkwind (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted the following message to WP:AN:

There is persistent vandalism of Robert Mugabe. Since he is a living person, I presume the special care as pointed out in WP:BLP applies. In the last case of vandalism, User:Brian.gratwicke inserted the term "illegitimate" in the description of him as the president of Zimbabwe. I removed it, and, because he has been warned for his edits before, and has been on wikipedia for quite a while, I issued him with a "uw-vandalism4im" warning given the nature of the vandalism to a living person's article. He objected to this on my talk page, and I replied stating that if he wanted to claim that the election was rigged, he should be able to come up with the appropriate references. His reply was to accuse me of being a troll. I take this to be an extremely serious accusation as to my credibility without any supporting evidence, and certainly was not my motivation and never has been as one can see by my previous work on wikipedia. I would like to request some immediate action taken to deal with this problem. He is "demanding" that i withdraw the accusation of vandalism and has now repeated the accusation that I am a troll. He is attempting to escalate the matter, by alluding to an idea that I may be a ZANUPF stooge, which is clearly insulting and derogatory and without foundation,but I am refraining from replying.

The response from WP:AN so far has been disappointing in one crucial respect. First of all, I accept that I may have been inaccurate in describing the addition I removed as vandalism, though I still consider a case may be made for that (see my reply to the response to my original message). However, I am disappointed that the one administrator who has replied has not commented on the real issue that motivated me posting to WP:AN in the first place: that of the unfounded accusations that I am a troll and the allusion that I am a stooge of ZanuPF for merely reverting POV-pushing that was unverified and inappropriate (and could lead to further difficulties) on a wikipedia article about a living person. I find it difficult to retract and apologise for the mis-identification of vandalism if the accusation against me of being a troll and the allusion that I am a supporter of ZanuPF remains uncommented on and not dealt with. The original mis-identification should not, I think, be seen as some kind of free licence to respond in the way that Brian.gratwicke did. I would like some advice on what to do here. Finally, I am surprised at the apparent bias shown by the adminsitrator who replied to me with the following sentence: "Mugabe's last election was heavily criticized as unfair and he is seen as a dictator by a number of people around the world; the use of the word "illegitimate" is therefore valid" as it oversimplified the situation. My personal thoughts about Mugabe is that he is not someone I would like to see in charge of any country given his behaviour, but I do not feel that would justify such language or such simplistic conclusions in an encyclopaedia, which wikipedia aspires to remain.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a first. We have a wikiquette alert apparently as the second step after being dealt with at the Administrator's noticeboard!

It is only two hours since your latest response at the noticeboard. Relax. Give it a bit of time, and perhaps you may also cool off a bit yourself and put it all in perspective. I suggest you delete the material added to your talk page by User:Brian.gratwicke, recognize that you provoked this with an inappropriate accusation of vandalism, and let it go. You really only need to get fussed when incivility becomes an ongoing disruption. It is better not to go straight to administrator noticeboards and wikiquette alerts after one childish outburst. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Discourteous deletions by User:Blnguyen & User:Skyring in John Howard article

Resolved

In the article John Howard (The Australian Prime Minister), Blnguyen and Skyring(Pete) continually delete 'useful content', but not in a courteous way. The deleted information is factual, verified and referenced, and its truth is not in dispute.

The Wikipedia has guidelines about deleting useful information, on this link: Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting...

Blnguyen and Skyring(Pete) delete useful information without initiating a discussion, which would be the courteous way of allowing other editors to see what the information is.

On the discussion page, Talk:John_Howard, there are 2 recent examples. One topic is Bob Hawke motion on race, opposed by Howard (Bob Hawke was a previous Prime Minister). The initial delete edit by User:Blnguyen is here (note that a discussion was not initiated by him at the time the deletion occurred), and it happened again yesterday when new information was added here.

The other subject matter was Talk:John_Howard#John_Howard.27s_secret_ancestry_revealed, where today User:Skyring deleted the content, even though a discussion was taking place between other editors days before the deletion took place. As I write this, Skyring(Pete) had not contributed to the discussion. The deletion can be seen here. Lester2 02:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take any comments from this user with hefty dose of scepticism. User:Lester2 is a WP:SPA troll account that would do well to read WP:CONSENSUS. Check his history to see his edit warring on the one and only article he edits. He has been blocked no less than 3 times for trying to ram through his slanted POV, and now resorted to these forums as a last ditch effort. The last request for comment he initiated resulted in him agreeing to seek consensus for any of the pointy additions he trys. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Prester John for your kind words :) Lester2 03:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the statements about the RfC made above are strictly accurate. See my remarks at Talk:John Howard#Request for Comment. Hornplease 04:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester2's short but disruptive history is visible to all. I have encouraged his sometimes productive edits and praised his research skills. However, he does not seem to grasp that although something may be true and well-sourced, it is not necessarilly relevant to a biographical article, especially when its intent is clearly to smear the subject of the article. The edit I removed, with a hint to seek consensus first, had only the most tangential relevance to the subject.

His action here is another in a long line of attempts to seek third-party approval for his behaviour. If he were being victimised or bullied, then he would be quite within his rights to do so and I would cheer him on, but the fact is that he is being treated with as much courtesy and co-operation as he would get anywhere else in the WP community. I encourage him to edit more articles on other subjects and see for himself. --Pete 03:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting 'useful content' in a discourteous way is, unfortunately, how many edit wars begin. In fact, there's one taking place right now, (see History with content I've inserted, and User:Skyring repeatedly deleting it again. Lester2 04:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Only you seem to think the allegations about Howard's uncle are "useful". I politely re-echo the repeated calls that you study up on consensus. --Pete 04:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask that this Wikiquette Alert also looks at general incivility, both here and on the John Howard discussion page. I feel that some editors use derogatory terms as a tool to drive other productive editors away. I don't think there's ever justification for personal attacks. Thanks, Lester2 05:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Another paragraph has just been deleted. This one about control of semi-automatic handguns. Once again, no attempt to move the information to another place, or start a discussion. Not one of the deleted paragraphs is disputed over factual accuracy. If we adhere to the "Avoiding Common Mistakes" document (linked to above), then this information is classed as "useful information". We can retain useful information. If an article gets to long, we can create sub-articles. If someone doesn't like the phrasing, they can keep the references and try changing some words. If there is too much information that is "anti", they can add more "pro" information. Political articles need to have both. But cleansing an article can lead to Wikipedia gaining [http://www.smh.com.au/am/2007/08/24/ news headlines like it's getting today. Maybe it would be worth asking the people who deleted content about what their reasons for doing so were, to discuss whether or not those were valid reasons. Thanks, Lester2 03:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary says it all. Howard copped long and sustained criticism from pro-firearm supporters. It would be ridiculous to ignore this and mention some lukewarm anti-gun comment that had no visibility at the time. What was it, a letter to the editor? --Pete 04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Skyring-Pete. The gun control info was one deleted by Blnguyen. I don't think any of the gun issues you mention should have been deleted. I'm sure it would have been possible to include all sides, and probably into a concise 2 or 3 sentences. I don't think we need to delete each other's content and throw it away, when all are factually correct. Also, a message in the edit history window that says "find consensus" is not a good substitute for a discussion on the Discussion Page. Lester2 14:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester, I've discussed WP:MULTI with you. This is not a page for content disputes. The edit summaries in the deletions give reasoning, and do not violate WP:CIVIL. Please discuss on Talk:John Howard and use the RFC process or mediation if you cannot get consensus there. The most recent deletion is a not unreasonable interpretation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT#INFO; even if it is wrong, use DR to fix it. THF 14:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

New issue regarding conflict with User:Muckrakerius

Resolved

I know I said that my issue was resolved, and I truly hoped it was. However, yesterday someone named "Don Murphy" tried to add me as a friend on Myspace. I responded by asking him if I knew him, and this was the answer I received: "I was referred to you by email as someone hired to attack my film on line. I ask you to stop and reveal your employers."

Since it was only recently that I dealt with this here, I had an idea what film he was talking about, but I did not recognize his name, so of course, I checked him out on Wikipedia.

This was my response, verbatim: "Oh, for Christ's sake. Nobody has "hired me to attack your film online." For that matter, I never attacked your film online. I said in parentheses in one sentence that I thought it was silly. If Roger Ebert or Leonard Maltin says the same, are you going to accuse them of being hired shills?

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that, "rather than being told by email" etc, etc, that you are actually the gentleman on Wilkipedia who first accused me of being a troll, despite the obvious evidence that a hired troll doesn't spend two years editing articles on Popeye and reality show performers in advance to "set up an identity."

I am not employed by anyone to attack your film, and I genuinely hope you make as much money from it as you can. Lord knows, if I were being paid by a major studio for such nefarious purposes, I'd live in a nicer apartment than I do. Best wishes, Chris"

Here's the thing- I don't know if this guy really is the producer of the film or not, or why he would be worried about one guy on wikipedia who thought his film was silly. But should I be contacting a lawyer, or what? ChrisStansfield 04:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is weird as you got all legal last time this came up and as you know Wikipedia does not take kindly to legal threats. You seem to have stopped your organized campaign against the film. Perhaps since you were exposed you stopped and didn't get paid. I don't know. I am not sure why you are asking for Myspace advice on Wikipedia though. Muckrakerius 04:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we really can't deal with off-wiki issues (and this sort of thing is, unfortunately, a hazard of editing Wikipedia under your real name). Unfortunately, I think you have no choice by to ignore that kind of nonsense until it actually becomes actionable harassment, which I don't think is for quite a while (although I'm not a real lawyer, only a wikilawyer).

I have sympathy for your position here, insofar as Muckrakerius is clearly trolling and is taking the trolling off-wiki, but I sincerely don't think there's anything we can do about that. Sarcasticidealist 07:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never posted any kind of responses to my recollection here so I hope it is ok for me to comment here. If it is inappropriate, please do not hesitate to remove and advice me on my talk page that only a selected group of editors respond here. Anyways, file a formal complaint with the headers and identifying information to My Space. I have never been to this site but it has been on the news a lot and from what they say on the news is they have gotten very strict about the site and the postings there. Also a complaint to the person's IP with the offending information might also aide you. Just a suggestion, but sometime this approach does work. Good luck to you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has in the past indef-blocked users for off-wiki violations of WP:HARASS when the off-wiki behavior can be definitively linked to the on-wiki account. But if it's a single polite (if trolling) Myspace email, and there haven't been any more after a response asking the harassment to stop, that's not quite to levels requiring intervention. THF 13:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know about that- I wasn't being clear, I guess. I don't want a lawyer to go after THEM- they're just a nuisance and I'm a big boy. I'm just wondering whether I need someone to defend myself if this really is a concerted attempt by the movie studio. Also, I should note that once again, on this page, Muckrakerius has resorted to doing the exact things he promised he would refrain from....if this goes on, which dispute page is the next step? ChrisStansfield 13:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "defend yourself" from "a concerted attempt by the movie studio." If this is really Don Murphy, it's just a single paranoid producer, who should better recognize the potential for disastrous publicity from threatening someone who disliked his movie if Murphy's accusation is wrong. I've asked Muck to be civil on his talk page. If Muck persists in on-Wiki personal attacks (or provable off-Wiki harassment), I'd raise with User:Sandahl, who unblocked Muck upon Muck's promise of good faith. If Muck continues to edit Shoot 'em Up tendentiously, let me know on my talk page. (Separately: leave messages for users on their talk pages, not on their user pages.) THF 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not really all that familiar with the movie business. That said

• I suspect that Myspace isn't studios' preferred method for threatening legal action.
• Probably, if somebody randomly informs a studio that somebody else has been hired by a rival studio to bring their pictures down, the informed studio would demand, at the very least, a scintilla of evidence that this is the case before it confronted anybody about it.
• Even if, for some reason, this studio *is* contacting you via Myspace and is considering taking legal action against you (which I think is unlikely to the point of absurdity), the burden would be on them to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that you committed some kind of tort against them. Since there is no evidence to this effect at all, you're probably fine.

I think it's pretty clear that you're just dealing with a troll who derives pleasure from making outlandish accusations of conflict of interest against other users. And, as you said, such a troll is just a nuisance. I think you're okay. Sarcasticidealist 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, both THF and Sarcastic. Yes, you're probably right that Myspace harrassment isn't the first method studios would use (though I would counter that by saying I'd never have thought companies would edit Wikipedia in order to make a point, and clearly I was wrong. ;) ) I guess this whole thing has made me a bit paranoid, especially since I found the producer's message on my myspace after a very long day. That said, i have responded to Don (whom I believe is the genuine producer), and upon pointing out everything that has gone on, Don has apologized to me and has stated that he does not, in fact, believe me to be a "hired gun." If anyone ELSE still has doubts, he's welcome to ask for the transcript of Don's last response to me. :) ChrisStansfield 14:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if "Don Murphy" is behaving non-trollishly, perhaps he *is* the genuine article. Stranger things have happened, and I have been wrong before. Anyway, I'm marking this as resolved. Sarcasticidealist 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL: User:Calton and User talk:THF and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Syring

Work in progress; comments welcome

 – --Darkwind (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Accuses me of "spinning" and then calls my argument "crap" after I politely asked him to explain what appeared to me to be a non sequitur and suggested "spin" was an uncivil way to characterize my good-faith concern about a WP:BLP1E violation. THF 05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

And then Calton left this uncivil remark on my talk page. THF 05:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The same initial response has been posted to both users' talk pages. Responses should be made here! Thanks. --Darkwind (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It does look to me like Calton could use a good healthy dose of WP:AGF - his reply to the AfD discussion was not so much about the notability of the content, but more along the lines of "This was a bad-faith nomination". One of the WQA folks (I don't have time at the moment) should probably leave him a message reminding him of the policies and inviting him to this discussion so that we can more effectively mediate the dispute.

THF, I'd encourage you to remain civil in your responses to him, and for the time being to keep your distance for now, as it'll be all too easy for this to spiral out into a big shouting match between you two. I appreciate you bringing it here, though - it'll give us an opportunity to help mediate and redirect the energy back into the content issues.

As for the content: Keep in mind that the term "left-wing" (applied to the media) is somewhat of a loaded term among many - it's apparent that Calton doesn't like having media stories attributed to "left wing blogs" and such, since he sees it as political spin. (It's a common tactic in politics to try to reduce a story's notability by pointing out apparent or perceived biases in the story's sources - a logical extension of that is to imply that the story was made up by one party to hurt someone on the other, or that one side is putting undue weight on an issue.) While something like this may be true, content discussions should be kept as NPOV as well, if possible - in this case, I'd probably have said something more like "It was only reported via a handful of minor sources" or similar.

That said, I think your attempts to resolve the dispute have been good - just remember to keep your cool. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The "left-wing blog" remark reflected the fact that one of the Patrick Syring external links was to a left-wing blog. There was no pejorative intention behind the comment, it was purely descriptive. There perhaps exist better sources, but whoever created edited the article chose to use a left-wing blog. Of course, it doesn't matter how good the sources are under WP:BLP1E. Non-notability outside of a single scandal is non-notability. Thank you for your input, I hope that my conduct to date complied with WP:CIVIL. THF 00:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (corrected 07:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

Hi - I know this probably isn't the place to mention this, but I did want to clarify. I created the Patrick Syring article, but I didn't use any blogs as a source for this article. The only blog reference in the article was a link to a site that hosted the indictment - and this link was added by Pat1425! (Syring?) FWIW, I don't think there's any left-right angle to this story at all, unless it spawns a debate about hate crimes legislation. Popkultur 01:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind one of KieferSkunk (t c)'s remarks, which is that "left-wing blog" can be seen as a loaded term. While it is not, of itself, uncivil, many people see it as a POV term. Personally, I'd avoid using terms like "left-wing blog" in Wikipedia discussions. This may keep people who are offended by the term from blowing up at you. Just call it a "blog" - it doesn't matter if it's left-wing, right-wing, or pig-wing, a blog is usually not considered a reliable source anyway. --Darkwind (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Cydevil38's disruptive editing in Wandu Mountain City

Stuck

 – Referred to WP:RFC/HIST per WP:NCGN to resolve content dispute, now that editors have cooled down. --Darkwind (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This user wants to delete Pinyin romanizition of 丸都 (i.e., Wandu in Pinyin) and leaves only Hwando (Korean romanization) in the article Goguryeo. Then he falsely and repetitively claims that Hwando is a historical name while Wandu is a present-day name, so that he can use the historical name only (Note: this claim about using historical name only in an article is also from nowhere, but it is not my concern here). Unlike his untrue claim, Wandu and Hwando are merely different romanizations of the same historical entity. Cydevil38 is an amateurish wikieditor who is incapable of reading canonical history records like Samguk Sagi and he always fails to quote any original history record or original wikipolicy contents (At least I have never seen his original quotes even upon requests). What he presents is his original research which is improper to be put into wikipedia. Here I am requesting an alert to monitor his behavior in editing the article Wandu Mountain City.--Jiejunkong 02:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind you, Jiejunkong (t c), that your own comments here are treading perilously close to violating NPA. To stay on the right side of that line, try not to use adjective terms in describing your fellow editors, most especially not those which can be considered pejorative - "amateurish" and "incapable of reading" are uncivil and could be considered by some to be an attack. Please remember WP:COOL before making any additional posts. --Darkwind (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have known Cydevil38 for a long time and wrongfully assumed that an administrator is in the same situation. It is my bad and I apologize for the tone. But let's get to the technical part, I will post related evidence in the talk page Talk:Wandu Mountain City. It is my remark that Cydevil38 will post many google search results (which can be done in 1 second by typing a search term), and he will disappear when I ask him to present original quotes of related history records.--Jiejunkong 02:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There was already a RFCU[44] on this kind of behavior, but it seems he's not interested in improving his user conduct. Cydevil38 02:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The RFCU was also about my attitude towards you, nothing is new this time.--Jiejunkong 03:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wandu Mountain City" is an English word designated for the UNESCO World Heritage Site. This site is based on the ruins of Hwando fortress, a historic city that served as the capital of the ancient kingdom of Goguryeo. With regards to Hwando, I have repeatedly given Jeijunkong the necessary evidence that it is the most common romanization used in reliable English publications. Cydevil38 02:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In order to encourage a neutral opinion from everyone who chimes in, it would help if you'd link those reliable publications here for us to see. --Darkwind (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. Hwando[45], Wandu[46]. Cydevil38 02:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jiejunkong on one point here, which is that you did indeed do exactly what he expected - you posted links to google search results as "evidence". A link to a google book search is not a source. A source would be a reliable scholarly publication (or something similar) that discusses the use of the two romanizations and provides its own evidence as to which is more accepted. Just seeing that your particular search lists more books under Hwando+AND+Koguryo than under Wandu+AND+Koguryo proves nothing --- in fact, using that comparison to draw the conclusion that Hwando is thus more accepted is fairly close to OR. A Wikipedia editor is not supposed to draw conclusions themselves (see WP:OR again), they're supposed to cite conclusions already published in a reliable source.

Based on what you've posted here, I see no reason for removal of Wandu as an alternate romanization of Hwando. Even if a reputable source says that Hwando is more common or more accepted doesn't mean that Wandu should be removed from the article if it's a valid Pinyin romanization of the same Chinese name. However, I don't have the time to dig through the various article histories to find out if you've even strenuously made that claim. (hence my next outdent comment) --Darkwind (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer such a study that specifically covers the subject of which romanizations to use for Hwando, or Goguryeo for that matter, but I'm not aware of any such works. And since there was no set guidelines for resolving disputes on romanizations, I tried using the ones recommended by WP:NCGN. I know WP:NCGN isn't a perfect fit for this dispute, but I thought it provided the means to prove which word is more appropriate for an English encyclopedia. Even the application of WP:NCGN is limited, because Hwando is rarely mentioned in reliable English publications, such as lacking entries in the three major encyclopedias(though there is an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica Korean edition and other Korean encyclopedias). Anyways, I hope to continue the discussion with you at Wikipedia_talk:Translation[47], which I believe is a more appropriate venue for this debate. Cydevil38 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, this isn't the place to continue discussion on the content dispute at hand. I myself really have no interest whatsoever in the outcome of the content dispute itself, I'm just trying to get you and Jiejunkong to see eye-to-eye, as it were, so that you can come to a consensus on this issue. Please see my next outdent comment for a suggestion as to your (collective) next steps. --Darkwind (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cydevil38 stopped editing Wandu Mountain City (both the article and the talk page), but then he could have created a POV fork Hwando (fortress) to bypass the problem. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress) for details.--Jiejunkong 06:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jiejunkong, can you please post links to diffs where Cydevil38 either removed the Pinyin Wandu or posted a comment suggesting its removal? I haven't the time to find it in the talk pages or the articles' history. --Darkwind (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The romanization name was written as Wandu by User:WangKon936.

1. Cydevil38's 1st unilateral change.
2. Cydevil38's 2nd unilateral change. Note that this is a blind revert. He changed my wikification of Gwanggaeto Stele, which has nothing to do with the argument. The wikification is a collateral damage.
3. Cydevil38's 3rd unilateral change. This time the Gwanggaeto Stele is spared.
4. Cydevil38's 4th change.

Now User:Odst and User:Wikimachine, who have exchanged many personal messages with User:Cydevil38 in the wikipedia, showed up in the talk page and left some random improper messages (see [48],[49]). Also they continue to do Cydevil38's reverting before consensus can be made ([50],[51], [52]).--Jiejunkong 05:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, and you were going so well. This alert has been declared stuck and referred to a more appropriate forum. There seems to be no reason for that to change.

• Neither of the comments you mention are "improper" or "random". The first expresses some irritation, but not exceptionally so in the page. You brought up this alert. You should expect people to notice it and join in. That is not random or improper.
• In the same way: it is not accurate or helpful to refer to "Cydevil38's reverting" when it is other people who are engaged; these are other editors who have a similar point of view. Do not belittle their participation. They are welcome to join in.
• For everyone involved, we continue to urge patience and calm. There is a very apt talk box at the top of the page urging a cool head. This is good advice for you all.
• There are claims being made by various editors about what "default" position should be allowed to stand in the absence of consensus. There is no such rule. You are all going to have to work for consensus, and stop panicking if your preferred final resolution happens not to be one in place right now. If a protection has to be applied, it is going to be more or less random which version is the one at the time. It will get sorted out eventually, and in the meantime please keep cool.

This latest addition to the alert was made after the alert was declared stuck, and gives no cause to change that status. Please relax, and deal with the content dispute calmly and constructively, with recognition that there will be other voices contributing. In the meantime, there's no default basis for declaring which version should stand while you work towards consensus. That is what the content discussions will address. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(1)As to the "other" users, User:Wikimachine and User:Odst are not strangers to User:Cydevil38. You may take a look at the three users's talk page and see what's going on there. The relaying pattern of meat puppet is also a little baffling to me.--Jiejunkong 07:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(2)For putting {{RFChist}} on articles, there is a technical difficulty. Chinese characters are in many wikipedia pages. Currently the romanization of the characters in these pages mostly has the problem being discussed. The problem is there, but it doesn't cause trouble when the contents are not disputed, but it does cause trouble when any disputation happens. If we vote on every Chinese character that causes disputation, then the problem will persist for a quite long time. 丸都 is only one of the case, 國內城 may be the next, and there are hundreds of the cases in the queue.--Jiejunkong 08:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The RFC can serve as an excellent place to begin to form consensus on what standard of romanization to use for names that are written in Chinese characters but pertain to Korean history. As an alternate suggestion, perhaps you could open a discussion on the project discussion pages for WikiProject Korea and/or WikiProject China, as those users are likely to be the most interested in the matter and most familiar with the languages involved. Nobody says you have to open an RFC for each individual name, just form a consensus on the standard to use. As it is, this has definitely gone beyond the scope of a WQA, and I suggest that further discussion be taken to an alternate forum as previously suggested. --Darkwind (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Once I finish the reliable source collections in Talk:Wandu Mountain City, I will put the evidence and proposal to the RFC site and on the project discussion pages for WikiProject Korea and/or WikiProject China. This will probabily cost the incoming weekend before the collections are done. Thanks for the good advice.--Jiejunkong 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the first diff[53]. I considered it a minor spelling fix, because the Goguryeo article, as any other Goguryeo articles in other encyclopedias, consistently used the Korean romanization for historic Goguryeo entities. I didn't expect someone to make such a big deal about it. Cydevil38 01:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now that you both have cooled down and are willing to discuss the content dispute itself CIVILly, I'd suggest that you take the content dispute to RFC/HIST, following the suggestion in WP:NCGN for dispute resolutions, as that's much more likely to attract editors interested in the subject at hand. You'll be able to get a reliable community consensus on which romanization to use in general. I'm marking this WQA as "stuck-referred to another forum." --Darkwind (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Translation#Romanization_of_Chinese_characters a few days ago. I put it under the "Translation" section because this problem is completely about Chinese characters. In other words, if there is no Chinese character, then this problem is gone. WP:RFC/HIST could be another choice. But since modern Korean kids typically cannot read Chinese, they don't respect Korean canonical records like Samguk Sagi (which was written in classical Chinese). This causes more trouble.--Jiejunkong 05:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John Uncivil comments

Resolved

 – --Darkwind (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John has been posting in numerous places that I'm a WP:SPA, telling people I'm a "troll" and other generally derogatory remarks. It is possibly set off by my previous Wikiquette alert (above). I make a second report so I can inform User:Prester John that I have made a report.

I haven't discussed who is right or wrong regarding content. I just want the incivility to stop. Some recent examples in the last day or so are the comment on my previous report above [54] a publicly viewable similar remark within a false 3RR report [55] spreading the same allegation about WP:SPA, and another unnecessary remark on an article I had just completed -> at Talk:Lyall_Howard. If he really thinks I'm a WP:SPA, then he should take the issue up in the appropriate channels, but not spread it all over the place. It's even appears again on his user page: [56]. Thanks, Lester2 06:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and terms like "troll" should be avoided. But I note:

• You have been blocked three times in three weeks for edit-warring. WP:3RR is not a upper bound for edit-warring to be gamed, and an admin could have legitimately blocked you for continued edit-warring after previous blocks even without the technical violation of four reversions, so the report was not illegitimate, though not as persuasive as it could have been.
• A single reversion is an appropriate way to deal with a content dispute, so the deletion of material you added does not violate Wikiquette. See WP:BRD. There was already an RFC, and your use of WP:WQA to discuss the same content issues violated WP:MULTI, and your complaint that Prester John repeated allegations against you "all over the place" when you brought a content dispute here violated WP:KETTLE.
• "SPA" is perhaps an overaggressive characterization, but over half of your edits including all of the recent mainspace ones are to the John Howard page, so it is not an unfair comment on edits, rather than editors, and thus not a violation of NPA. Over 90% of your edits in the last six weeks are John Howard-related.
• An editor is entitled to maintain an evidence page in userspace in preparation for "taking the issue up in the appropriate channels."

My conclusion: (1) Prester John was uncivil in calling you a troll instead of assuming good faith, since some of your edits have been productive, but his substantive comments about your edits and procedural actions on this page and in the links you provided are reasonable, and he has been taking the issue up in the appropriate channels; (2) Pete has been remarkably resilient in addressing your concerns in the above WQA report; and (3) you yourself are skating on thin ice by acting disruptively, and should do more to demonstrate good faith. WP:AGF is a presumption that can be rebutted by repeated bad conduct, though editors should, as Pete has done, continue to adhere to WP:CIVIL when editors misbehave. I take no position on the John Howard content dispute, which I have not investigated; these comments are purely procedural. THF 08:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, THF. I will read the above links you posted. Lester2 09:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Shooter (2007 film)

Resolved

User: Bob Lee Swagger 2u has been adding sections pushing an extremely not-nuetral point of view, despite him being asked to stop by both users and admins. He's recently also decided that it's a conspiracy being forced against democrats, and threatened me here link title. DurinsBane87 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, he just got blocked. Thank you for your time. DurinsBane87 20:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the block was only for a week, I left a {{uw-npa3}} at the bottom of his talk page anyway, in case he tries to resume that sort of behavior after the block expires. If it resumes, I'd suggest taking it straight to WP:AN/I where an admin is more likely to see it immediately (this page is run by volunteer editors). --Darkwind (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Children of the Century

Looking at a pretty nasty exchange currently happening between User:Dohanlon and User:Reginmund. Originally started as a question of guideline enforcement - which was also discussed at WP:FILMS, and consensus at the moment seems to be against Dohanlon. Dohanlon, however, refuses to accede to consensus, which is the first issue. This has already led to a temp block on his account and the article being full protected for 2 weeks. Reginmund has been discussing with him (and so did I for a time), but he refuses to cede ground. While I decided to walk away and let consensus speak for itself, Reginmund continued to discuss and now things have escalated to the point that both users are just shouting and violating NPA. Girolamo Savonarola 04:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I think the above statement is misleading. I was being asked to concede on this point on a concensus of three users. Two of which were Reginmund and Girolamo. I asked several times for clarification of the issue from Reginmund but he would not clarify his point. I provided verifiable sources to back up my claim. I agree that the discussion got heated, but in my defense if you read it I ask and ask for verfication and clarification and don't get it. Interestingly as more users have posted on the topic the concesus Girolamo talks about is no longer in favour of their POV. Dohanlon 14:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion. I asked Dohanlon three times why he disregarded a reliable source and his excuse was spelling errors. I asked him for a better reason and he veered from my question. The user is also disposed to make personal attacks and is relatively uncivil. I won't go into details but I think that the discussion says it all. All of his points, I have clarified. Reginmund 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read the discussion and made some comments on the talk page. There is a need for some clarity in the different issues. One issue is the name of the page, and the other is a matter of content, concerning titles used in release in different countries. The content issue in particular is best handled within the talk page, asking all editors to keep a bit relaxed. The page is protected; take it as a chance to set out the content dispute as clearly and calmly as possible. You want precision as to precisely what you are claiming about release titles, as well as an indication of how various sources help verify that. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I never mentioned spelling errors as the reason that the Yahoo! source is incorrect. I have listed on the page why this source is not reliable. Reginmund made several personal attacks and refuses to clarify numerous questions. As I dealt with each of his innacuracies eg UK DVD, BBFC etc he steadfastly refused to concede relying on an incorrect Yahoo! page. Reginmund has not as he says above clarified all my points. But that speaks for itself on the talk page. Dohanlon 14:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I never once made a personal attack to Dohanlon. I asked him for a better reason as to why Yahoo! is a bad source and he never gave me one. He never showed me proof of a UK R2 DVD release. I clarified all of his questions, and yet Dohanlon still refused to accept my source as reliable. He is a very uncivil Wikipedian, is disposed to make presonal attacks, seemingly because he is taking the issue to personally. Reginmund 03:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If this is still an issue, please provide recent diffs of comments that you believe are wikiquette violations. Thanks. --Darkwind (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad feeling between User:Canadian Paul and Ryoung122

The initial exchange in Wikiquette alerts

==User:Canadian Paul, part I==

User Canadian Paul has in my opinion overreacted to what I considered to be an accurate and fair note placed on a discussion board. It seems this user will only be satisfied if he 'stomps' the opposition into the ground, with speech such as this below:

[edit] Bad Faith Accusation I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the above comments clearly out of line and from my point of view, the truth is the mirror opposite. Every accusation he has thrown at me has been a mirror of his own behavior. This seems to be some alpha-male competition for him. For me, it's about making sure that Wikipedia keeps articles that should be kept. I have more to say but I wonder if this is the appropriate place to discuss this. It seems to be an inflated-ego issue, and the material on Wikipedia is only tangential to the personality conflict. However, when others threaten punitive actions in order to get their way things have gone too far already.Ryoung122 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Canadian Paul's Response===

Since nominating an article that Mr. Young started (Gladys Swetland) for deletion, I have been the subject of personal attacks from this user.

The debate came to a head when he accused me of nominating the article for deletion in bad faith and accusing of me of "having an agenda" This can be found in the discussion here.

Angry, I defended myself on the page and then posted a possibly inflammatory message here, although I never attacked him personally. He then proceeded to make accusations and attack me personally. He accused me of the following:

• you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others
• You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star"
• Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland

No evidence for the first two claims has yet been produced and I do not believe that my contributions (User:Canadian Paul list many of them) are at all indicative of a pattern of "causing chaos" or "not respecting the work of others." The "attack" on John Campbell Ross refers to my removing him from Living national longevity recordholders because his status as Australia's oldest man had no citation. The discussion can be reviewed here.

Personal attacks include:

• Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old.
• Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias.

Next, I provided links to WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:NPA and warned him that if he continued, I would bring his violations to the next level. He responded by calling these "threats" and then turned around and warned me that he would "press charges" against me if I continued "harassing" him. He accused me of "attempted intimidation/harassment to get your way." I'm not sure what my way is exactly, since I've already conceded that I do not want to edit longevity articles anymore. He further accused me of making comments that are "hateful and vile." He further accused me of claiming a moral high ground, again, I am uncertain how this could be. I admit that may not have handled this in the best possible manner, but I have not been harassing or launching personal attacks. When I told him to leave me alone, he could have just stopped there. Now that he's threatened to press charges, he claims that he wants "a truce." He claims I have violated the harassment and attack policies. If I have, I would like to know about it so that I can improve my behavior, because I do not notice it. I have ended discussion with Mr. Young, but I feel that a legal threat should be brought to appropriate attention. Also please note the personal attacks in his above complaint. Cheers, CP 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===RYOUNG122's RESPONSE===

Actually, I JUST FOUND MORE EVIDENCE:

Swetland is a test to see how and if WP:PSEUDO applies to these articles. I suppose it was a bit unfair of me to do this without warning, so here is the list of articles I will be nominating in a bundle if Swetland is deleted: John Ingram McMorran Shitsu Nakano Elena Slough Emma Verona Johnston Camille Loiseau Grace Clawson Ura Koyama Susie Gibson Margaret Skeete Lucy Hannah Annie Jennings Hide Ohira All of these people are or were a) Dead, meaning that they won't get any more notable as time passes b) Not state or national longevity recordholders c) Never the world's oldest person, man or woman. Many were admittedly the oldest person in a nation at the time of their death but I do not feel that is sufficient per WP:PSEUDO. If I am mistaken and any of these articles fall into one of those three criteria let me know and I won't nominate it. Also, if any of these articles can be shown to be expandable into full length articles, I won't nominate them either. I want to contribute to supercentenarian, longevity and veteran articles and lists, but I just don't see the need for all these permastubs, and now I have a possible policy option to back me. Cheers, CP 00:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if you think it shouldn't be there, why don't you nominate it? You know you'll have me on board at least, along with a few others. Cheers, CP 17:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

However, this was posted to another user's page and I was NOT AWARE of this 'plan' to basically raze the 'supercentenarian biography' category. When you consider that most of the articles he was planning on nominating for deletionwere at or near the top-importance level in this field, it comes across as an all-out attack.

Let's review: John Ingram McMorran (oldest man in America, 113) Shitsu Nakano (Japan's oldest person, 113) Elena Slough (oldest living American, 114) Emma Verona Johnston (oldest living American, 114) Camille Loiseau (France's oldest person, 114) Grace Clawson (oldest living American, 114) Ura Koyama (Japan's oldest person, 114) Susie Gibson (at 115 or 116, one of the oldest people of all time) Margaret Skeete (at 115, one of the top 15 oldest people of all time) Lucy Hannah (at 117, one of the top 5 oldest people of all time) Annie Jennings (at 115, one of the top 25 oldest people of all time) Hide Ohira (at 114 years 236 days, older than the current world's oldest person)

Clearly, Canadian Paul is on a vendetta, and he left a trail of evidence that showed his conspiracy plans. I find it highly reprehensible to hatch a plan to 'take control'...a clear violation of WP:OWN. Note these articles were all started by a myriad of people (none by me, except Gladys Swetland). So, it seems the plan was to attack Swetland first, then go for even higher, then delete the remaining stubs. Seems like a 'Supercentenarian Holocaust'. Perhaps the worst idea is that these should be deleted because the people are 'dead'. Hello? Dying does not make one unencylopedic. Wikipedia is not just for current events. Current events need to be placed in context. The above attacks are the equivalent of attempting to delete people like Lou Gehrig from the Hall of Fame. After all, he's dead and didn't hit as many homers as Babe Ruth, right? Ryoung122 18:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Canadian Paul's Second Response===

The above discourse WAS posted on Mr. Young's talk page and was a specific attempt from me to get feedback about those articles and alert him that if he had a good reason for me to not nominate those people. I don't see how I am "taking control" of these articles by proposing to nominate them for deletion and achieve a consensus on Wikipedia. My "vendetta" is against articles that can or will never be expanded beyond stubs. I noted that they were dead because it means that they won't advance any higher in the ranks or become the world's oldest, as is mentioned in the very text Mr. Young quotes. Please also note the combative language being used to describe my activities (vendetta, conspiracy, Supercentenarian Holocaust). Cheers, CP 18:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, CP is 'baiting' (saying things to get other persons 'riled up'). Also, it should be noted that Wikipedia has been in existence for only a few years (at least as a major, comprehensive source) but has grown quite rapidly. Some of these articles SHOULD exist but were only started recently. To reconstruct them requires going back and finding the original newspaper citations (an easy feat, yes, but often those that start the article-stubs don't know where to find them). These articles are NOT 'perma-stubs'. There is material available and they can be expanded. Deleting them prematurely is irresponsible. Planning a massive deletion-nomination process on a massive scale (I've heard about 88 articles) is sheer lunacy. Attempting to delete some of the 'all-time recordholders' is simply absurd. I note that many of these people gained MAJOR media coverage. Moreover, other articles have already survived 'articles for deletion' (such as Edna Parker so CP seems to be not respecting already-established consensus, in favor of a conspiracy plan to re-set the bar. Let's face it, if someone proposed to nominate baseball articles on Roger Clemens, Nolan Ryan, and Tom Seaver, I don't think anyone would be taking that proposal seriously. If someone proposed to delete articles on the Empire State Building or even simply Citicorp Center, no one would taken that seriously, either.Ryoung122 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Young, this whole Wikiquette alert is about your personal attacks and you've turned it into an accusation about my plan to delete 88 articles (an accusation the requires evidence). Edna Parker was a wholly different case than these other articles, as she was still living at the time her deletion debate was discussed. You've now also accused me of baiting (no evidence for that, I'm allowed to defend myself here). The question here is not whether I am out to do delete these articles (which I am not, again evidenced in your talk page, I said I am leaving longevity articles alone, not to mention that these accusations are based on either twisted or no evidence at all). The question here is about YOUR personal attacks, which you have continued to perform in this very section, your accusations and most importantly, your legal threat, which is a very serious offense. Cheers, CP 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

==User:Canadian Paul, part II==

User Canadian Paul has in my opinion overreacted to what I considered to be an accurate and fair note placed on a discussion board. It seems this user will only be satisfied if he 'stomps' the opposition into the ground, with speech such as this below:

[edit] Bad Faith Accusation I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I find the above comments clearly out of line and from my point of view, the truth is the mirror opposite. Every accusation he has thrown at me has been a mirror of his own behavior. This seems to be some alpha-male competition for him. For me, it's about making sure that Wikipedia keeps articles that should be kept. I have more to say but I wonder if this is the appropriate place to discuss this. It seems to be an inflated-ego issue, and the material on Wikipedia is only tangential to the personality conflict. However, when others threaten punitive actions in order to get their way things have gone too far already.Ryoung122 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

More background information:

This dispute BEGAN here with unethical planning that included ideas of false allegations, such as WP:PSEUDO. Note the article existed BEFORE the list (by more than a year), so the accusation of simply making a 'stub' out of a list case was false.

1. User His Space Research suggests deleting the Gladys Swetland article as a test case, and includes some questionable ethical logic:

[edit] Too many supercentenarian permastubs Yeah. Well, some of these pseudobiographies could do with a merge to "List of supercentenarians from country X", or similar, although people may object to that idea and consider it listcruft. I suggest you try nominating the article for deletion to see what people think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You should nominate Gladys Swetland as a trial, since it's not current, I think. We'll have to develop a more precise set of rules for determining the notability of supercentenarians. Also, I may have said this before but I recognise you from deathlist.net.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The above comments seem to be in violation of WP:OWN. Let's look again: "We'll have to develop a more precise set of rules for determining the notability fo supercentenarians." Uh, since when did these two appoint themselves to this position?

2. The article was nominated for deletion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gladys_Swetland

3. User Canadian Paul turns the discussion personal:

Notice Though it hasn't affected the discussion that I can tell, I would like to point out a possible use of Stealth canvassing to a possibly partisan audience (you need to register to be a member of the forum, which likely means you have an interest in gerontology at the least) here. Cheers, CP 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

4. I note that the nomination may have been in bad faith (including the idea that nominating an article that's 'not current' might be easier to delete, as fewer voters would notice).

Notice User Canadian Paul's nomination of this article may be in bad faith, in violation of WP:POINT 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Canadian_Paul

[edit] Too many supercentenarian permastubs Yeah. Well, some of these pseudobiographies could do with a merge to "List of supercentenarians from country X", or similar, although people may object to that idea and consider it listcruft. I suggest you try nominating the article for deletion to see what people think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You should nominate Gladys Swetland as a trial, since it's not current, I think. We'll have to develop a more precise set of rules for determining the notability of supercentenarians. Also, I may have said this before but I recognise you from deathlist.net.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that 'not current' means 'easier to delete without others noticing'.

Ryoung122 08:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

5. User Canadian Paul responds extremely negatively and fails to take responsibility for any of his actions:

Bad Faith Accusation I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have 'crossed the line'? In other words, User CP is trying to put himself above me and be a dictator, and is fuming that I found evidence of a plan to do so.

6. I respond.

[edit] As You Make Your Bed, So You Must Lie in It (I posted the above message before I saw this):

+ ==Bad Faith Accusation==

+ I found your bad faith accusation to be insulting and completely unacceptable given the amount of work that I have contributed to important longevity articles. I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles, I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors who merely want a leg up in a deletion debate. You have crossed the line. All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers, CP 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC) I found the 'bad faith' accusation quite on the mark. Yes, you have contributed a lot. However, you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others. You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star". Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old. Unless you founded FACEBOOK or something, don't be treating other people as if 'GOD' has just walked into the room. The claim that I would call into question your actions merely to get a 'leg up' in an AFD debate is a typical example. No, I believe down to the core that your actions were ill-considered and inappropriate. Whether the idea was yours or planted by another, to attack an article simply to 'move the chains forward' for an agenda (to make it easier to take out lesser articles, something you already stated you proposed to do) is completely unacceptable. The chance of living to age 113.66 is estimated to be about 1 in 100 million or so. In the same way that we have lists (and articles) for the 200 tallest buildings in the world, is it too much to ask to actually 'document' a case? Instead of everyone having to 'take our word for it' that a case is notable...providing the details allows others to investigate and double-check. I note that the Encyclopedia Britannica as recently as the 1980's wrote that 'no human has ever lived more than 113 years 124 days'. For those not trusting the Izumi case, the first person to verifably reach Ms. Swetland's age was Fannie Thomas and that was in late 1980. True, the 'conveyor belt' has moved higher and there may come a point in the future when '113 years 240 days' is no longer a big deal, but since Ms. Swetland's death the records have actually gone lower...she would now be '4th oldest' if alive today, not '9th oldest'.

Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias. I note the USA currently has 6 of the top 10 oldest verified living people. Should we then ONLY create articles for the oldest American, ignoring the other five, while creating articles for much-younger persons such as Florrie Baldwin?

Now, back to the remainder of your note:

I will no longer be contributing to longevity articles,

Good riddance! I will spend my Wikipedia time working on articles and tasks where my efforts are not cheapened or called into question by editors

Wikipedia does that every day, day in, day out, to everyone. Including you. Get used to it. You have crossed the line.

Once again, a police-like mentality. No, I did not cross the line, you did. You began the attack for the wrong reason, not me. I'm not going to defend every article...I dropped Yasu Nihiyama and Tsuneyo Toyonaga (the first time). But there comes a point when throwing out an article is akin to kicking a worthy player out of the Hall of Fame. You could easily have gone after some mere 110-year-old permastub with little or no significance. Instead you decided to play chess and go after someone in the top 10%. That's right. Of 1054 persons aged 110+, Gladys ranked in the top 9%. That's an "A". Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland. No, I was NOT closely monitoring every article I ever created (over 60). Yes, I did find it highly unethical to suggest nominating an article that would be 'easier to delete' since no one might notice (given it wasn't in the news lately). The FACT of the matter is, the majority of people that vote for deletion don't have any idea what the subject is about in the first place. The main purpose of the longevity articles is, in fact, not to tell the public that 'Gladys plays the piano'. It is to inform the public just what the maximum human lifespan is, and give a few examples on the frontier of survival. When you only cite the 'oldest person' and that's it, children develop a concept of a large gap between the 'oldest celebrities' (like George Burns, 100) and the 'world's oldest woman' (age 114). Creating a list of the '100 oldest people of all time' helps to show that, in fact, there is no 'gap.' Like a kid collecting baseball player cards and learning about stats, so these 'perma'-stubs, especially when expanded, can serve as collective examples of:

A. How long people really live (in fact, the tight-knit bundling of the ages shows that the real age maximums are quite close together, making it easier for children to recognize that claims to age '125' are bogus) B. Various strategies of success on how to live a long, long life (hint: it's not the same for everyone) C. People of all 'races' all live about the same length of time as everyone else D. Kids will learn a little about history, as well.

True, in the same way that children have their favorite 'sports' team, nationalism plays a role here, too. So we need 'examples' from many different nations. But we shouldn't short-sheet the 'large' nations, either. In the same way that children need to know that '9 out of 10 supercentenarians are female' so showing that the USA is first in supercentenarians just might raise a lot of good questions that lead to answers such as "part of the reason the USA has so many supercentenarians is that there hasn't been a war here since 1865"...which reflects on issues of larger society as well.

Yes, I have all these ideas in mind. This is bigger than just Gladys or you or me. It is about educating the world.

All further communications from you will be ignored. Cheers,

Saying 'cheers' after verbally stabbing someone somehow just doesn't band-aid over the previous vitriol. By the way, 'have a nice day.'Ryoung122 16:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I agree I upped the ante a bit...but it was on CP's user page and I didn't feel it was relevant to the discussion. Since CP turned it personal and finished off with things such as "I will ignore you from now on," it seemed reasonable for me to let him know, 'one last time,' what I really thought.

But of course the claim to 'ignore me' was false. Soon we have round #7:

WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK are three pieces of policy that may soon become of immediate interest to you. I was prepared to defend myself against your bad faith accusation and leave it at that, but you have continued to attack me. I would like you to present me with evidence of the following claims:

you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star" Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland - Pointing out that Ross has no source for being Australia's oldest, even by your own admission, is not an "attack" I am highly considering bringing these accusations to the attention of the administration, as well as the following personal attacks:

Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old. Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias. I nominated Swetland in good faith with very well spelled out intentions and reasoning, reasoning that others have agreed with me (hence the other delete votes) and despite you saying that they don't know enough about the topic, they have every right to vote for or against deletion. Yet you continue to attack me over my nomination even though I was prepared to walk away. I am now considering bringing this to administrative attention.

P.S. Cheers is an automatic part of my signature. Cheers, CP 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it seems that User CP is NOT focused on the issues but on making himself the Wikipedia policeman. So, I simply mirror his vitriol back to him in round #8:

8. Canadian Paul, I THOUGHT you said that 'All further communications from you will be ignored." I guess you changed your mind. In any case, in regards to these accusations:

WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK are three pieces of policy that may soon become of immediate interest to you.

This sounds like a threat. That is, a threatening message against me and attempted intimidation/harassment to get your way. I do not for one second believe that you are in the right here and I will defend myself vigorously and will press charges in return if you choose to continue YOUR campaign of harassment. I note that YOUR Aug 24 2007 comment was extremely hateful and vile and was a disproportionate reaction to what was a considered and fair posting on the Gladys Swetland articles for deletion 'discussion' page. As Bart Versieck...who felt like you 'stabbed in the back'...said...WHY? That I happened to find out 'why' and posted your own words is my right and is relevant to the discussion result.

In regards to the WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK claim...these are unfounded. First off, until this week we often worked together. The above comment made on Aug 24 was the first indication that you wanted to cease communication...yet you continued anyway. Communication is a two-way street. You cannot 'cease' communication if you continue to do so as well. Also, the comments I made to/about you were on your message board, not in the main discussion, so I don't see how they can be seen as 'harassment' or an 'attack.' What WAS posted in the main discussion was relevant to the discussion. And I note that once again, your comments to me seem to be a 'game' of 'one-upmanship.' Considering you started it, I find it highly indefensible for you to claim some moral higher ground.

So, where do we go from here:

A. Cold War...we can agree to a truce and that's it.

B. Take it the next level. My comments were a reaction to your unbelievably vitriolic comments made first. If you choose to pursue a scorched-Earth policy, then I truly believe you are the problem. I will request mediation and third-party intervention.

The choice is yours.Ryoung122 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice I offered a 'truce' but this was quickly rejected in round #9:

9. I have decided to post the dispute here, my case will be up shortly. Pointing out that you are violating three important Wikipolicies is not a threat. Claiming that you will "press charges" against me, however, is. Cheers, CP 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I acknowledge that user CP has effectively 'declared war'.

10. Whether I am violating those policies or not is not for you to decide. In fact, it seems that you violated those policies and I will be making that assertion. I also note that your comments came first.Ryoung122 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, I'm not about 'hiding things under the rug'. Telling the third parties exactly what happened is the best way to arrive at the facts. The bottom line is if someone throws proverbial stones, I feel the right to respond in kind. Perhaps I should remember "Wikipedia: No angry mastodons" but give me credit, at least I realize it; User CP is not happy unless he is 'alpha-male'. The bottom line: CP started this and it quickly escalated. In fairness I think a good idea is to 'take a breather'. However, posting the entire chain of events first is important to establish what led to what.

Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 18:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Additional Information===

Greetings,

In regards to this posting:

Notice Though it hasn't affected the discussion that I can tell, I would like to point out a possible use of Stealth canvassing to a possibly partisan audience (you need to register to be a member of the forum, which likely means you have an interest in gerontology at the least) here. Cheers, CP 17:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this highly dishonest. Number one, needing to 'register' is something you do on virtually all major forums...including Wikipedia. Given that registration is FREE (and apparently Canadian Paul is a member or how did he know about it?) and registrants are able to maintain anonymity (with 700+ members and membership anonymity (unless they choose to self-identify), am I going to go through every anonymous ID to delete those that aren't favorable? Not possible). Second, Canadian Paul said himself that persons should be 'informed' of what he plans to do...or did that mean only those who agreed with his pro-deletionist actions? Ryoung122 18:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Additional Response===

Stealth canvassing is generally against Wikipedia policy, and certainly in this case its use was questionable. People should be informed ON wikipedia because it's public and everyone can see it. Furthermore, yes, all forums require registration to post. But most can at least be viewed be those who aren't registered. Unless you're a member of Yahoo! Groups, you cannot read the postings. The extra effort it takes to access these posts was used as proof of possible partisanship. Cheers, CP 18:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

===Point-by-Point Rebuttal===

I re-quote another comment to provide point-by-point rebuttal:

WP:OWN, WP:HARASS and WP:ATTACK are three pieces of policy that may soon become of immediate interest to you.

Clearly, this sounds like a threat. You could have said that you considered me to be in violation of these policies and that if I continued, you would report it (it's called a WARNING). However, you didn't do that. Instead you went straight to the 'it's too late, you're in trouble' threat. Thus, what you said was a THREAT.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was prepared to defend myself against your bad faith accusation and leave it at that,

But you didn't. First, you responded extremely negatively and then claimed would ignore me from now on, but you didn't stop there, either.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

but you have continued to attack me.

I only responded to what you already said. That's not 'continuing to attack you.' Making yourself the 'victim' here looks hollow.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like you to present me with evidence of the following claims:

you have also caused chaos and not respected the work of others

That would take a long time, wouldn't it?

You have made your own 'bad faith' accusations as if you were some "Wiki-Star" Further, you began a personal attack on me first, in addition to the attacks on John Campbell Ross and Gladys Swetland - Pointing out that Ross has no source for being Australia's oldest, even by your own admission, is not an "attack"

You insisted on deletion even though I told you the source was out due to a death in his family. That doesn't mean we don't have one. You could have simply added an 'unsourced' tag and left it at that.

I am highly considering bringing these accusations to the attention of the administration, as well as the following personal attacks:

Get off your high horse. You're 21 years old. Moreover, such an attack seems to be anti-US bias. I nominated Swetland in good faith with very well spelled out intentions and reasoning,

These comments were made on your userpage, not on a discussion page. Also, the point was that if we ONLY include a 'one person from each country' (National recordholder) then the U.S. loses out. Since the US has by far the largest supercentenarian population, it would be incredibly unfair to give only one representative to the U.S. I know, this is akin to the big state/small state argument over representation in Congress. Should Rhode Island have the same number of congressmen as Texas? I think not. Also, you attempted to change John Babcock from 'American' to 'Canadian' centenarian (even though he turned 100 in the USA and has lived here for over 80 years). I guess Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't American, either. Thus, I stand by the comments made and don't see them as an attack but as a point of contention.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

reasoning that others have agreed with me (hence the other delete votes)

'Stacking the deck'. You don't mention that there were 'votes to keep' and not just on this article. In fact, most supercentenarian articles nominated for deletion have been kept.

and despite you saying that they don't know enough about the topic, they have every right to vote for or against deletion. Yet you continue to attack me over my nomination even though I was prepared to walk away. I am now considering bringing this to administrative attention.

You never at any point informed me that you were 'prepared to walk away.' Such a claim is frivilous. I note you claimed to 'ignore me from now on' after posting your negative comments but when I responded to them you then responded seconds later.Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Cheers is an automatic part of my signature. Cheers, CP 17:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I final note: "Cheers" is an automatic part of his signature. In other words, he doesn't really mean it in all situations. Perhaps I should learn a lesson, however: sugarcoating goes further than truth-telling. So, 'have a nice day.'Ryoung122 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am contemplating proposing an immediate three week ban for the next person who adds to this huge attempt to carry on the debate in the Wikiquette alerts. Fortunately, I am not an admin, so random thoughts like this don't have any real impact. :-)

Calm down, guys. At this point you both seem to be abusing the Wikiquette alerts page; which may not have been the wisest option. Someone will have a look at it, soon enough. Be a bit patient. I may try to reformat a bit to get rid of long lines with a leading space. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now cleared up the alert a bit. I have removed all subheadings by adding some kind of leading indent marker. I have done the same for lines with a leading space, which make this page too wide. I have boxed up the whole thing in a NavFrame so it does not distract from the rest of the page. The end result may not be optimal, but if anyone really wants to read through, they can do so. I suggest that nobody bother reading it at all, until the following points just below have been addressed first.

If anyone here would like this handled as a Wikiquette alert, then they should take a deep breath, and look carefully at the guidance information at the top of this page, especially the #Instructions for users posting alerts.

Having done so, then make a concise, clear, neutral, polite statement of the problem. Bear in mind that you are writing this for the benefit of the wikiquette editors, not the person with whom you are in dispute. Don't use a subheading. Just give a simple paragraph pointing out the main problem you see and that you think Wikiquette may be able to help with. One or three links that can be used as a starting point for finding where the problem arises is useful. Giving twenty links is likely to backfire when they are all ignored. Over to you again, my friends. Good luck, and may the coolest win. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Without being specific (the details are in the NavFrame), User:Ryoung122 has engaged in personal attacks, harassment and has an outstanding legal threat against me on my talk page. In order to drown out my complaints, he has further harassed me by inventing a conspiracy where I am supposedly committing "Supercentenarian Holocaust" by preparing to nominate "88 articles" for deletion. He has exaggerated and misrepresented facts and even made up some facts (for example, he quotes an exchange that is clearly on his talk page, claiming that I was hiding my intentions by not informing him) He has posted this conspiracy on his personal webpage and invited others to have their say by directing them to this page. He also claims that I caused "chaos" and "failed to respect the works of others" while refusing to cite any examples. The dispute erupted after I nominated Gladys Swetland for deletion and he accused me of a bad faith nomination after I pointed out his stealth canvassing. To this I was angered and responded uncivilly on his talk page, although I did not make any personal attacks. My most pressing concern in the outstanding legal threat, but the harassment I am getting regarding this "conspiracy" (which is simply untrue; I even wrote on his talk page that I have no desire to work on longevity articles anymore to which he replied "Good riddance!") is an issue too. I have made many important contributions to supercentenarian articles, including full references for List of living supercentenarians and Living national longevity recordholders. Other than a few comments on some user talk pages, where I discussed setting a standard for which supercentenarian articles should stay and which should go, there is no conspiracy here - especially since my explicit statement has always been that if the Gladys Swetland case did not get deleted in AfD (and it does not look like it will), I wouldn't bother nominating anything else. Cheers, CP 23:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been 24 hours since Canadian Paul added the clarification as requested. Ryoung's position can be seen reasonably as well also, so I'm ready to comment.

This is a very unfortunate bit of bad feeling, which sprung up at short notice between two editors who had previously been able to work together tolerably well. The mutual accusations have been quite over the top. The whole thing should be able to be dropped without further action beyond a bit of strong advice to both parties to settle down. On some specifics.

• There is no credible legal threat that has been made; just mutual grandstanding about harassment.
• The mutual claims of harassment are hard to sort out; and easily fixed by both sides just dropping the venom. I cannot access the personal web page without signing in.
• We can't control what people do off-site; but off-site pages that continue disputes arising within Wikipedia reflect badly on the person who hosts them. They damage Wikipedia and they are likely to be regarded as aggravating factors if this dispute goes any further. (See Off-wiki personal attacks within the no personal attacks official policy.) I don't know what is on your off-site page, Ryoung122, and I don't want to know. I don't want anyone to repeat it here either. I advise you to consider carefully what you put up off-site, and to consider keeping all concerns you have with other Wikipedia editors strictly within Wikipedia itself, for the good of the community.
• There have been mutual accusations of who started it, and neither individual has a good case. There has been a continual escalation. Ryoung112 made an explicit bad faith accusation early on, in the discussion surrounding a AfD nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys Swetland, and Canadian Paul reacted very angrily.
• The total number of edits involved in the dispute is fairly small. The length of time it has been going has been fairly short. There's every hope it can die down as quickly as it erupted, if both sides are willing to avoid parting shots.
• This is one case where I would suggest people consider archiving or even deleting stuff from their own talk page. A similar rather unfortunate exchange appears in the talk pages of both individuals. Consider getting if off your own main talk page somehow, as an indication of a desire to move past it; if you do want to move past it. Don't impose that on that other person; only make major changes to your own talk page, if you think it worthwhile.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolution Comment Have a day off of this has really cooled down. After a day, I see that the accusations on his web page do not seem to be effecting much (I'll admit I was as worried about the Gladys Swetland debate as I was my reputation as a Wiki editor), so that is not a particular concern to me anymore. I do, however, maintain that the personal attacks were begun by UserRyoung122 (I discovered this comment that is dated two days before his bad faith accusation, therefore before I had reacted uncivilly to him. What I have accomplished by my age has been a source of pride throughout much of my life and it is regrettable that he cannot judge me past my physical age) Nevertheless, I hereby and without condition fully apologize from my incivility after Ryoung122's bad faith accusation in the debate (there should be no excuse to react as I did) and although I maintain that I never personally attacked Ryoung122, I apologize if I somehow created that perception.

Having said that, I am still concerned about this "conspiracy" that seems to have formed up around me. Let me state for the record that there is none nor do I have any explicit plans to nominate any more articles for deletion (longevity-related or otherwise). Having said that, it needs to be acknowledged that I retain the right, as a Wikipedia editor, to point out WP:NOR violations or request direct citations for any material on Wikipedia (including longevity articles) without it being used against me as evidence of my "conspiracy." There are many violations that I would have preferred to work on myself (as I did on Living national longevity recordholders for example), but now it seems I will not be able to do that - that doesn't mean I am going to turn my back on things that are unreferenced or original research. I'm glad you have suggested cleaning up my talk page as well, because I do not want this to effect the way that other editors perceive me and my contributions and was going to ask you if I could just delete most of the vitrol and accusations. Cheers, CP 01:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User: Anynobody

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This person is one of the regular editors on Barbara Schwarz. The other day he made a couple of comments on the talk page which seem to show hostility towards the person who is the subject of the article and to other editors. The tone of them, to me, seems almost to that of threats: One to report a person to INS and the other to reveal "secret" information to discredit the person. [57] [58] -Steve Dufour 02:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read Anynobody's comment in question three times now and still can't figure out how you arrived at that interpretation. wikipediatrix 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is what he said: "Since the SLT reported her nationality, as cited in my quotation earlier, we're gonna need more than your opinion as a valid reason to remove it. This almost looks like you're afraid ICE will deport her as an illegal alien, and are trying to cover her legal status up." To me that sounds like he is threatening to report Barbara to the authorities unless I stop working on the article. In the other case he listed a bunch of things he knew about Barbara. To me this seemed like he was threatening to add them to the article if Stan didn't back off from his criticisms of the article. I could be wrong however and Anynobody could just be a disinterested encyclopedist. (p.s. Please see your talk page where I gave some information on where I am coming from on this. Thanks.) Steve Dufour 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost no-one is disinterested. We all mostly edit topics in which we have an interest, and a perspective. And that's ok. The guidelines are there to help manage the end result. There is nothing whatever in that comment to suggest any kind of threat. It is a speculation about your motives, and that's all. We prefer editors to avoid speculating on motives, frankly. But give your own position and openly declared objectives, it's a bit hard to resist. There's nothing that needs to be done for this alert, that I can see. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve Dufour, I don't make threats. I find they are generally not helpful, and actually tend to make things worse. (Since on top of whatever the argument was there is the new issue of a threat to be dealt with.) I also didn't say you must stop editing there, just that you should perhaps stop mentioning that you think the article needs to be deleted since it's generally understood how you feel about it.

Duae Quartunciae I completely agree that editor motivations should generally be left out of the discussion. However in a case of conflict of interest it's regrettably necessary. Steve Dufour has said he's out to delete the article at her request, since neither are concerned with whether or not it would be the right thing for Wikipedia, a COI exists. Ordinarily I don't speculate about motives.

Also I'm sorry I didn't notice the post you made after my last post in the thread about Steve Dufour above. I totally understand why you might think I was insisting her nationality should be included in the first sentence simply because I think it's notable. The fact is regardless what I think; it's discussed in the sources because it forms a basis of her beliefs. I didn't mean to come off as arrogant about my opinion, I'm just pretty familiar with the sources so am confident in what I'm saying about them. Anynobody 08:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you don't make theats Anynobody. I still think that the article on Barbara is going to work against your own interests, as a critic of Scientology, in the end. Steve Dufour 11:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then. I am going to mark this as resolved sometime fairly soon, after a short pause to see that things don't fall apart again. I think we might be able to agree that there have been no threats, that no-one is really "disinterested" entirely, and that second guessing motives or interests, though tempting, is not going to get us anywhere. There's no reason you can't continue to work with mutual civility even as you disagree and even as you have different motives. Over and out, I hope. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Issue is resolved, clarification

To clarify I'm not second guessing his motives, he's been honest about them. I do agree that in most cases discussing motivation is unhelpful, but in a WP:COI situation it has to be. (Just not here, on WP:COIN or the talk pages)

I don't mean to seem like I'm trying to get the last word in Duae Quartunciae, I just don't want to look like I agree it should NEVER be talked about though, because there are some times when it does come up as a valid concern, as it has it an arbcom case. I am kind of concerned observers there could try to cite it as an example of hypocrisy.

(P.S. Steve Dufour, I'm not editing Wikipedia as a Scientology critic. It just turns out that Scientologists can make it difficult to post information which contradicts theirs, so more edits are required as they tend to revert or rationalize to match their POV. You're involved too so I assumed you read the statistics I provided which show I have more edits than average on certain articles related to the CoS because the CoS spends almost all of their time here editing CoS articles.) Anynobody 23:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for a helpful clarification. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you Anynobody. I first came across fanatical anti-Scientologists on alt.religion.scientology and I tend to put anyone who contributes to Scientology related articles here in the same category. (p.s. Critics of Scientology have far outnumbered defenders here, although it seems that more church members have gotten involved in the last few weeks.) Steve Dufour 02:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OSA is making a big push to whitewash scientology-related articles.--Fahrenheit451 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How would you know anything about what the OSA is doing? Can you prove it? wikipediatrix 17:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep this off the WQA page, please. This isn't related to the original WQA. Thanks! --Darkwind (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's cool Steve Dufour, the pro-CoS editors tend to paint anyone who doesn't agree with them as the type of person it sounds like you thought I was so I understand how a misunderstanding can happen. Anynobody 02:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Fashion Icon

Resolved

The Fashion Icon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edit warring, bitching, accusations of trolling and personal attacks where no incident has taken place, constant deletion of critical comments from his/her usertalk page. User was notified here, rather brusquely since s/he has deleted all my comments on his/her talkpage for the last few days. Update: yup, it's been deleted!--Rambutan (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide any specific diffs? Melsaran (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. They are as follows (look at the edit and the summary): [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], this one particularly, [64], [65], [66], [67], [68] in response to [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. I can produce about 7 more if desired.--Rambutan (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not counting the last one, all diffs were on her own talk page. As I pointed out before, users are given a lot of freedom to do what they want in their own user space, and while these comments/reverts weren't exactly civil, it may be better just to leave the editor alone, forget about the whole thing and resume editing. It doesn't look like you two have a real dispute as long as you try to leave each other alone. Melsaran (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the deletions of critical comments are indicative of her disregard for the consequences of her actions on Wikipedia. Look through her contributions history - it's all very contraversial. And yet she's not stopped or discussed it civilly. It's poor Wikiquette, which is the purpose of this page?--Rambutan (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is poor Wikiquette, but I propose that you try to leave her alone for a while and resume editing, and when the problems continue, you report it here again. Alright? Melsaran (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of sock-puppetry

Resolved

 – Warning template added to User talk:PalestineRemembered, user is also under consideration for admin mentoring. --Darkwind (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PalestineRemembered has been using my talk page to accuse me of being a sock-puppet. Well, I'm not, lol. Isn't this a violation of WP:NPA? How can I get him or her to stop vandalizing my talk page? Dlabtot 18:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I've left a message on User:PalestineRemembered's talk page directing him or her to WP:SPP -- if the accusation is going to me made, that is where it should be done. Dlabtot 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but the very limited nature of this users contributions log (2 or 3 days of posting) strike me as highly suspicious. The edits of this user have defended the Palestinians (as I'm sometimes inclined to do) and are very welcome. But they're not welcome if this is a sock.

If this user was originally acting in good faith, and was handed out long and completely unwarranted blocks (as happened to me), and has retaliated by creating new accounts (as I refused to do), then I'd consider raising their case and getting the original block lifted. It's your call, User:Dlabtot. PalestineRemembered 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, my talk page is not the right place to accuse me of sock-puppetry. That is nothing but vandalism. The correct place to raise allegations of sock-puppetry is WP-SSP. Please stop vandalizing my talk page. Dlabtot 19:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I don't mean to sound harsh but it is most uncivil to repeatedly accuse someone of being a sock without a request for checkuser to prove it. The information which leads you to believe Dlabtot is a sock can be cited as reasons why the checkuser request should be granted. If the request is run, and confirmed, then you can call him/her a sock all you want. Anynobody 02:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I just would like to note the defiant response that User:PalestineRemembered has posted to the warning placed on User talk:PalestineRemembered. But if no more attacks are posted on my talk page... well that's all I want I guess. Dlabtot 19:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Threats and Power abuse

Resolved

On my talk page I asked User:Isotope23 why they would remove a valid link to a non spam non commercial site involving the person in the article Don Murphy. As you can see I politely asked for evidence and was threatened and told basically that they would do what ever they want. This is not appropriate. Muckrakerius 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor blocked as a sockpuppet of banned editor ColScott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you need clarification, feel free to email me.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible incivility by User:Bakasuprman

I've been involved in some editing conflicts with User:Bakasuprman, and I find some of his contributions to our discussions a bit uncivil. Bakasuprman is upset with me, primarily because I endorsed his indefinite block on WP:ANI in April 2007; the discussion is here. The matter went to Arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2), which found no grounds for blocking Bakasuprman, and he remains an editor in good standing. Another reason for Bakasuprman to be upset with me is a discussion I initiated on ANI (here) in July 2007 that lead to him being briefly blocked for edit warring.

While it's understandable that he dislikes me, I find some of Bakasuprman's comments towards me vexing, and possibly in violation of WP:CIVIL. The latest examples can be found on my user talk page and User talk:FCYTravis; for instance this comment, accusing me of religious bias and being a "maladroit hack", following my restoration of a talk page comment at Talk:Romila Thapar, and this comment, where the link to Hanlon's Razor is apparently supposed to mean that I am idiotic, not malicious.

This is not an isolated occurence; ealier Bakasuprman called me "uneducated, dishonest, and irrational", as well as apparently accusing me of anti-Hindu bias (full discussion here).

What I'm looking for here is primarily some outside perspective: is this kind of discourse the kind of thing I should expect on India-related pages, as Bakasuprman contends? (n.b, after his statement that "Editors of India related articles are always incivil" he later said that "its rhetoric", so that is not an acknowledgement of incivility.) If so, I should just suck this up, or remove the few India-related pages I edit from my watchlist? On the other hand, if, as I think, Bakasuprman's comments are outside the bounds of civility, I'd appreciate it if someone else would let him know; he doesn't seem too inclined to accept my input. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Its obvious you are on a witch-hunt since I obviously should have been banned. I dont deal with abuse nicely, and will refuse to interpret WP:CIVIL in a manner which allows facilitators of admin abuse to whine about incivility. I have not been legitimately blocked since september 2006, and the recent defecations on my block log are in no small part to akhilleus personal crusade against myself.Bakaman 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman routinely gets called names and abused all the time by one side (your side?) of a particular divide (see his userpage). And I havent seen you use your good offices to try and put an end to it. And on that page you were restoring a comment that was clearly in bad taste. And like you concede yourself, you supported an indef on him on the most bogus grounds(as the arbcom pointed out). So stop trying to appropriate the moral high ground for yourself. Sarvagnya 07:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has ever called Bakasuprman a name that remains an editor in good standing. People are routinely polite to him and requestful of civility, which he fails to return. Unless you can substantiate your justification of his abysmal behaviour with diffs, I suggest you withdraw that.Hornplease 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The amount of self-delusion required to make such a statement like that is amazing. Dbachmann seems to still be here, even after utilizing politically charged terms and racial slurs. Of course, dab is not incivil, because he is not a "Hindu nationalist communalist sockpuppeting troll". Hornplease has a big axe to grind here, so Bakaman 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Presenting past evidence of your incivility is hardly grinding an axe on this page. (Thank you for linking to that evidence, by the way.) Both dab's comments you've linked to indicate that you are considered a single purpose account; that in itself is not incivil. I still await substantiation of the claim that Baksuprman is exposed to incivility on a daily basis. He is not; judging by the comments on this page, he seems to labour under a delusion that he is being persecuted by a cabal of tendentious editors and racist admins. Such a delusion is not a basis for the abandonment of a core policy. Hornplease 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not incivil? Dab really does not need a wikilawyer. Incivility is something you create by misrepresneting statements made by myself and other users. Those who you are in agreement, such ads dab are not incivil. Those who you ideologically are opposed to are reoutinely dubbed "incivil" which has turned into a term of doublespeak. I am exposed to incivlity on a daily basis, an insight into my userpage history would establish this. The "core principle" is being misrepresented for ideological gain by users such as Hornplease, who have much to gain with the loss of constructive editors from the India pages.Bakaman 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral editors reviewing this post may also like to comment on this revert by Akhilleus.nids(♂) 07:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman has announced on several occasions that "civility does not apply" in contentious areas of Wikipedia. (Contentious areas are anywhere he edits.) My last words on the subject - when he repeated this "defense" yesterday, which Sarvagna seems to share - are here: [75]. Please do read them. Hornplease 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If holders of virulent bigotry continue to be praised when editing, some mildly charged rhetoric is nothing to worry about.Bakaman 03:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Civility is an official policy in Wikipedia. It is always something to worry about. It can be hard to remain civil in a highly charged atmosphere; but there is no excuse whatsoever for dismissing this as a minor consideration.
• No personal attacks is an official policy in Wikipedia. You are not permitted to throw around accusations of virulent bigotry. If virulent bigotry is impacting upon articles, you must deal with that through appropriate channels, and not by just making personal attacks on the bigot. If a virulent bigot is making personal attacks themselves, then deal with that through appropriate channels, not by attacking in return. Otherwise, if the bigotry is not affecting articles and not leading to attacks, then I am afraid the official Wikipedia editing policy applies; anyone can edit.
• Assume good faith is a behavioural guideline. It is not set in stone; there can be exceptions and common sense applies. But the idea is a fundamental principle, and exceptions are never a basis for disregarding the official policy on civility and no personal attacks.

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA by Isaac Pankonin

For some time I am having a discussion with this user. During that time he felt the need to refer to me as "troll", "POV-pusher,"[76] and more such compliments.

Nevertheless, I had the impression we were finding compromise. Then out of the blue he starts making ad hominems regarding my person and apparently has decided to invoke all kind of abusive editors to evade discussing his unsupported edits. For some reason he insist on mentioning those disruptive contributors in a totally unrelated RFC[77] to support his view that the UN charter can be ignored by the Bush administration. The relevancy of these other and different discussions he fails to explain.[78] Also, he conspicuously states those discussions were on the same subject, eventhough it was him who first voiced the opinion the US is not bound by the UN charter and I never had that discussion with anyone else. Then of course his need to start a RFC on my person without even contacting me to see if that is needed, while invoking abusive WP:SPA GATXER seems unusual.[79]

Aside from this behaviour I find the deletion of extensively sourced material troubling.[80]

At this point I would appreciate it if he was told to abide by the above mentioned policies. Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Update: this user is now contacting uninvolved editors,[81][82] [83][84] he does not know and that I do not know, in an attempt to promote his idea to start an RFC on my person to resolve the content dispute he and I are having. His request admits that the users in question might not even know who I am! In the absence of any prior attempts at WP:DR would this not violate WP:HARASS, WP:POINT, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Attacks, incivility and aggressive behavior on Talk:Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event and associated pages

Stuck

 – Already being addressed at ANI. Don't tackle it in two forums at once. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A discussion has been ongoing between various editors (primarily User:Filll, User:Orangemarlin and User:ConfuciusOrnis), and myself, ostensibly about this article and its ongoing FA candidacy. This has repeatedly descended into incivility, personal attacks, and general aggression and hostility, in the course of which I've been accused variously of "mud slinging", displaying an "obnoxious attitude", being "unwilling to help" "unreasonable" "insulting" and "difficult", "flinging crap", "wasting our time", suggesting that the article is "crap" or "trash", and generally being treated to an uncalled for level of aggression, hostility, bullying, harassment, profanity, and general incivility. Some representative examples (not a complete list, and not in any order of severity) include: this , this, this, (especially) this, this, this, this , this, this, these, this, this, this, and this, and can be found in context on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, Talk:Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, and on the talk pages (or in associated page histories) of myself, User talk:Filll, User talk:Orangemarlin, and User talk:Firsfron. I don't understand how this has developed in this way or what exactly I've done to bring it upon myself, as I think all my edits have been constructive and any criticisms I may have raised where clearly directed against the article itself, not as ad homs. Their behaviour seems to me to be a violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc. Badgerpatrol 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well before you raised this alert, many of the statements you list had been simply removed. Some of the diffs you list are attempts by editors to talk with you about your concerns and explain their concerns in user space. Rather than try and talk with them you seem to have gone to the wikiquette alert and other processes a bit too quickly.

You should recognize other people trying to scale back, and/or talk to you. I can understand some of the frustration, on both sides here. But when lots of people are getting irritated with you, you need to think about how you can back off a bit yourself and try a different style. This alert is unnecessarily aggressive against Filll (talk · contribs) in particular, who has more than demonstrated a willingness to withdraw anything you found offensive and back off the whole thing. Actually, I think he might have had a point; but he's said he does not need the aggravation and would rather give up working on the article. In fact, this whole things seems to have resulted in you not wanting to continue with it, while having got into a fight that has made other people not want to continue either, if I read the matter right. Very unfortunate indeed.

I'm not saying you've got no point. I'm suggesting you might be able to put yourself in the other person's shoes a bit and see if you can't engage a little differently yourself. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed... Badgerpatrol has already brought this up at ANI. This WQA alert should be considered closed, and any further discussion should go over the existing and active discussion at ANI. The link takes you to the right section. Over and out. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between User:Groupthink and User:Mister.Manticore in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of government agencies in comics

Resolved

 – --Darkwind (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel User:Mister.Manticore is running roughshod over policy and engaging in ad hominem and baseless attacks against me instead of responding to my arguments about the subject under discussion. Groupthink 04:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that there is nothing here of any concern to Wikiquette, and that for the most part you are both engaging with admirable civility. You disagree on the substance, obviously, but there is no attack there. Or if the mild expressions of disagreement there are raised to the level of "attack", then you are just as guilty as Mister.Manticore; maybe even more so. At some point you will both have to accept that you represent two perspectives and neither one will persuade the other; so don't just continue indefinitely with that objective. Make a case for the benefit of a closing admin. Recognize that the other guy will do the same. Recognize that closing admins are smart enough not to worry too much about who has the last word.

But primarily, I think the way you have both managed the dispute without getting into personal attacks is quite praiseworthy. Well done. Please don't spoil that substantive engagement by trying to portray it as attacks. Assume good faith, and carry on. Best of luck... —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and fair enough. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones; this can be closed. Groupthink 05:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:USER and WP:ATTACK on User:England's Rose

Work in progress; comments welcome

 – Template warning left on User talk:England's Rose. --Darkwind (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

England's Rose has been making comments accusing Wikipedians who differ from him on political issues of being "bigots" and "barbarians". More seriously, he has made racist comments on his talk page, but I hope this can be resolved without taking it to the Admin's noticeboard. Lurker (said · done) 09:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

He first seemed to show up here. His first edit was to "correct" articles based on that rejected policy. Also, the fact that he's so overwhelmingly pro-union and uses words like "bigots" mean that I can't help thinking it's a strawpuppet account. I could be completely wrong but the whole thing doesn't feel entirely genuine to me. Readro 14:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Diffs, please. WQA volunteers typically don't have the time to scour history listings to find substantiating evidence. --Darkwind (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

attacking content, possibly racist content Lurker (said · done) 11:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps. After seeing that, I went ahead and pulled some diffs from this user's contributions that make me wonder as well if this person is entirely serious. With regard to the matter brought up by the original poster, I'll leave a {{uw-defam2}} on their talk page and see what happens. --Darkwind (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely hilarious. I am not sure that any form of intervention would help here, though. ARe there any examples of tendentious editing in mainspace? Hornplease 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that exceeds 3RR, certainly. Most of this user's edits have been to various Talk: and User talk: pages. The worst it gets in mainspace is on Alex Salmond‎, in which the user adds some POV material, is reverted, and re-adds it twice more (although the 2nd time he did leave out the pejorative "separatist". --Darkwind (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As I thought. This would indicate that there's a good chance that this is somebody's sockpuppet back on for laughs.Hornplease 04:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Violation by Spyke1077

Resolved

 – User has been reminded about WP:NPA. --Darkwind (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Spyke1077 has repeatedly made personal attacks on the Big Brother 8 Talk Page. Wanzhen 17:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this comment, mostly? I've given him a {{uw-npa2}} reminder. --Darkwind (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, thanks. The commments in that section were the ones in violation; however, now it seems this same user has just gone and commited another violation and deleted a large section of the talk page. current.... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Brother_8_%28US%29&oldid=154664537

versus previous... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Brother_8_%28US%29&oldid=154546569 Wanzhen 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I've left a {{uw-tpv2}}. --Darkwind (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam reversing on Ilinden Uprising group of perpetrators

Stuck

 – Violation of WP:MULTI; there is already an RFC and a request for mediation noted on the talk page. --Darkwind (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I replaced the Ilinden Uprising blurb (less than 300 words), which was largely irrelevant to the topic, with a true encycopledic article (2000+ words), with well quoted sources, while paying attention to be neutral and objective, avoiding disputed issues, like the ethnicity of the participants.

Little did I know that the previous blurb was one of the long string of Bulgarian progapanda on the wikipedia, propagated by a well-connected group of people, who have been warring against me (alone) for days now, and completely deleting my article and replacing it with their own nationalistic blurb.

Now, I don't want any sort of recognition for myself, I only want wikipedia users to have the better article, but I cannot talk sense to these people, since they refuse to talk about anything, but unilaterally delete my content.

What can I do? Most of dispute resolutions on wikipedia involve voluntary involvement of all parties, which in this case is inapplicable.

Capricornis 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodness. There does seem to be quite a communication gap and content dispute on that article. However, there's already an RFC and a request for mediation noted on the article's talk page. Opening a WQA is hardly productive in this case, as it's quite redundant. If there's any wikiquette reminders needed to any of the parties involved, I'm quite sure they'll be issued as appropriate by the volunteers and/or admins involved in the other forums you've already brought this to. Marking stuck. --Darkwind (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by User:TharkunColl

Work in progress; comments welcome

 – User is on a temporary block for violating 3RR --G2bambino 14:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor TharkunColl (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) seems to have been causing undue disruption across a number of articles for some time now, including at English people, God Save the Queen, Passport, Commonwealth of Nations, Head of the Commonwealth, Monarchy in Canada, British monarchy, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Second city of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth realm, etc. There seems to be two main, though intertwined, issues with his overall actions:

1. TharkunColl's main modus of operandi is seemingly tactless and irrational reverting; in the edit summary he either offers no explanation at all, claims to be removing POV, or claims to be reverting vandalism, of which only the second reason could possibly be seen as valid.
2. Following on the above, when prompted to participate in discussion about that which he alleges is POV, TharkunColl simply dismisses presented evidence that contradicts his claims, and puts forward little to none in support of his view, thus making his edits original research. This obstinacy can, and has, resulted in ceaseless debate on talk pages, edit wars, page locks, and his being blocked from editing.

Overall, TharkunColl's moves show that he:

• is tendentious; continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopaedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
• rejects community input; resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.
• has violated Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

Hence, TharkunColl's general actions seem to place him squarely under WP:DISRUPT. His talk page and block log show some of the extensive evidence of his conduct.

WP:RFCC has been considered, however I wished to start this informal RfC first, and, perhaps, have others directly communicate with TharkunColl regarding his behaviour. --G2bambino 18:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - as User:TharkunColl's talk page is currently locked, I have not, as of yet, notified him of this posting. I will do so at the earliest possible opportunity. --G2bambino 18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You might be able to have an 'Administrator' notify him (or allow you to notify him). GoodDay 21:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if the blocks and such haven't yet served as notice to him that his behavior is unacceptable, I'm not sure what additional good a WQA will do (i.e. a user who's already been blocked for disruptive editing isn't likely to respond positively to the kind of gentle reminders WQA volunteers typically leave). I'd refer this to RFC/U if it continues after the block expires. --Darkwind (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I considered RfC/U, however a minimum two people who have already previously contacted the user in question regarding his/her behaviour is required to file one. I currently have no such counterpart. Hence, I wanted to bring his actions to wider attention. Hopefully another editor discussing TharkunColl's attitude with him would be sufficient for him to take a second look at himself; yes, multiple warnings and blocks seem to have done little, but maybe - just maybe - a frank opinion expressed to him might work (?). If that does fail, then said other editor could thus be the second person required to file an RfC/U. --G2bambino 14:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated WP:ATTACK from Shinealight2007

Resolved

 – User is on a temporary block, and has been reminded about AGF and NPA. --Darkwind (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Shinealight2007 accused another editor, User:Justanother, of being a "Scientology operative" who is under "orders from the COFS" (Church of Scientology) for no apparent other reason that that editor reverted Shinealight2007's excessive (imho) edits - see here and here.

When asked not to repeat those attacks, he responded by doing so again at User talk:Shinealight2007 (and then went on to say that I must be a "Scientology operative" as well because of my own comment!)

WP:ATTACK warns against "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme", and I don't see that this editor's wildly insulting accusations have any basis anyway. wikipediatrix 20:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

+=== Scientology operatives should not be allowed on Wikipedia === Scientologist, sure. But Scientology operatives like User:COFS, AKA User:Shutterbug, and the others, should NOT be allowed to edit on Wikipedia. That is why I brought up the original question. That the users refuse to answer it or explain their actions here, is testament to this. They are most likely reporting and just following out orders from on high, just like user:COFS. How long will this be permitted to go on on Wikipedia? Was all the press coverage not enough???????? Shinealight2007 20:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
+==== Scientology operatives outed on Wikipedia and still they are allowed to besmirch this site ====

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS
  • Nuff said. Shinealight2007 20:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC).
    

+==== After all the press coverage, does anyone care??????? ====

• Google News search of coverage of Scientology computers editing Wikipedia
  • C'mon people, you should care about your encyclopedia and stop these Scientology operatives from wrecking it! Shinealight2007 20:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

+==== Why have the Scientology operatives not been blocked already? ====

• Even more evidence that should shock us all, but somehow doesn't. I just don't know why the Administrators have not taken actions yet against the Scientology operatives trying to destroy Wikipedia and remove as many articles as they can. Shinealight2007 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

Wow. Shinealight2007, stop. Wait. Your proposals are in total conflict with the principles of wikipedia. Your excessive use of section headings and formatting is ugly, and seven question marks in a row is consider poor punctuation style. This is more relevant than you might think. These kind of typographic conventions, I think, tend to cue third parties that you are on a strong POV campaign. As a matter of advice on working well with the community, you need to avoid giving this impression.

I have removed the inappropriate subheadings with a leading plus sign. Don't use subheadings for emphasis. In a small alert like this, don't use them at all.

I agree that there is a problem with scientology areas. But you need to forget the idea of banning a class of users because of their affiliations. Persist with that as a campaign and you are, I suggest, far more likely to be banned yourself. People get restricted for disruption of the project, not for having conflicts of interest, incorrect views, or membership in certain organizations outside wikipedia. Claims about what is "most likely" are also unwelcome ad hominem. Settle down. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I second Duae's comments, with an additional note: Please remember that one of Wikipedia's core guidelines is assume good faith. Rather than assuming that a certain editor's edits are prompted by outside affiliations of which you have no evidence, instead assume that they're just trying to improve the encyclopedia. If you don't like their edit, talk to them and ask why they made it, instead of accusing them of anything. You'll last a lot longer in the Wikipedia community if you do so. --Darkwind (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin; Removal of maintenance tags, exhausting circular discussions

A long-simmering dispute at Battle of Jenin has seen much heat and little light over the past several weeks. A {{POV-check}} tag was added, belatedly, on 3 August, and I soon changed it to {{TotallyDisputed}}, which I thought was a more accurate characterization of the debate. (POV-check is generally for minor issues, such as when a new article is created by someone who doesn't feel they can be entirely neutral, and voluntarily asks for a "sanity check" by a second editor.) Anyway, the tag was reverted and unreverted a bunch of times over the next few days, without explanation, until User:Jaakobou argued on 6 Aug that we "did not open a talk page subsection explaining this dispute", and that "i see no reason for the orange tag except that one side is unhappy that they look bad with the material in the article". Myself and other editors discussed this and the tags seemed to stick.

Over the past 3 or 4 weeks the dispute has certainly not quited down; if anything, it's become more heated. Those who follow this board (and AN/I and even CSN) have probably cseen some fallout from it. Anyway, the point I'm making is that we seem to be getting further from consensus, rather than closer. This being said, User:Jaakobou removed the tags saying that "factuality has been established and there's no massive neutrality issues. feel free to open the issues on talk in separete subsections." (Actually, that's another issue here - Jaakobou has been aggressively trying to structure the discussion to his liking, moving around comments to "on" and "off" -topic sections, insisting that he won't comment in a section if he finds the title "NPOV", etc)

Anyway, I reverted the tag with the summary "re-add tags; the fact that some editors have been worn down or driven off by excessively circular talk page discussion does not mean that issues are "resolved"!", Jaakobou re-reverterd the tag with the summary "rv, i don't follow your commentary/edit summary - what factuality problems are you contesting exactly ?", and User:PalestineRemembered restored it saying "This is a hugely disputed article..Lead stuffed with inappropriate "context", written to the "minority view" eg over whether it was a massacre, lots evidence missing." I have given in and written an extensive summary of the POV problems with one paragraph, which I believe is very typical of the entire piece.

I'd like opinions on two issues:

1) Under what circumstances are maintenance tags removed? Whever I've done it, it's been by posting on the talk page and getting unanimous consent. I realize this may not be practically required in all cases, but I'd never dream of removing a tag when two or three editrs disagree, without having some overwhelming exceptional reason.

2) What do we do when a discussion simply goes on and on without any resolution? Is it just time for mediation? I'm worried that the extremely wearying nature of this discussion is driving people to leave, or at least seriously reduce their involvement - causing those editors who stay to jump in proclaiming that the dispute no longer exists.

Thanks, and I apologize for the length of the post, and for the summary which will necessarily exclude all kinds of details - this has been going on for 6 weeks at least, with at least 6 or 7 editors posting extensively, so I'm sure I've missed many things. Eleland 13:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Much of the discussion is based on who called it a massacre and when. This is not really relevant to an encyclopaedia article on a battle, which should focus on current knowledge of strategies used and casualties; as a method of defusing tension, I strongly suggest you all take a break and consider creating a sub-article on the earlier controversies about body count. That is certainly more in line with the expectations from the encyclopaedia; the media battle and the real-world battle were two different things. If nothing else, I find that focusing on too many things at once on a talkpage can lead to extra frustration. Hornplease 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, another reason we need some help. You're saying that we're focusing on too many different things, Jaakobou is saying that the disputes are only really narrow and minor. Eleland 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Lough Neagh

Work in progress; comments welcome

The endless edit war between Irish Nationalists and others appears to be recommencing over at Lough Neagh. Since my attempts to try and make them behave always seem to result in one of the protagonists getting a sympathetic editor to simply ban *me* /rollseyes/ I thought I'd just raise the matter here. Cheers--feline1 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Am going to take it to the talk page. Mark Chovain 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)