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:Mitrebox

Work in progress; comments welcome

Mitrebox (talk · contribs) recently came across the article Hungarian league system, which at the time was completely in Hungarian. This apparently prompted Mitrebox to ask "what forigen basterd wrote this crap". I told him that calling the author of the article, Codreanu (talk · contribs), a "forigen basterd" constitutes a personal attack on a fellow Wikipedian. Mitrebox responded by asking "If you don't know who you're talking about how personal can a statement be? ... Technically and legally it's only a question, not a defamatory statement." I responded to this by stating "When you are asking the question "what forigen basterd wrote this crap", you are calling the author of the article a foreign bastard. That's a personal attack by any definition of the word, and no amount of Wikilawyering can change that." Mitrebox then accused me of a personal attack, saying "Please refrain from accusing your fellow Wikipedians of Wikilawyering. It is a instigative trolling statement and may be considered a personal attack." Aecis·(away) ^talk 15:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to commendAecis·(away) ^talk for his rather through report for his detailed report of this incident and for taking responsibility for his accusatory statement. In this day, with all the politics of conflict going around to see this kind of proactive responsibility is quite surprising and refreshing. I encourage Aecis·(away) ^talk to continue on his path and wish him the best in his future endeavors.--mitrebox (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL. Calling another editor, even one you do not know, a "foreign bastard" who is writing "crap" is at the least uncivil, and at the most a personal attack. Aecis was absolutely right to warn you about it. DanielEng (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Two WA's beneath this ("veiled threat by user Wikidea"), Mitrebox writes a response that I think is either prejudicial, or can be taken that way ...... I am not 100% sure because his statement is a bit of a ramble. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitrebox should've been more careful about this and an apology might be a good idea. However, since the person he was talking about clearly can't read english, there's no harm done, eh? What's the point, here, of complaining about an edit summary by Mitrebox that Codreanu can't even read? Is somebody here planning on translating Mitrebox's edit summary into Hungarian, so that Codreanu can then flame in Hungarian on English Wikipedia?

Also, I looked into the matter and the article above, after this WP:WQA is over, should be speedy deleted. You see the content in the article that's all piped? It was added by a user with an unapproved bot, adding obscure European athletes to Wikipedia. [1] An article added that ISN'T in English, containing content that was added by an unapproved bot -- Mitrebox has some reason to be upset over the horribly low quality of Wikipedia. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

None of this is relevant, and none of it excuses incivility. Such behavior is inappropriate, regardless of the English skills of the person who is being subjected to personal attacks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article wasn't of the best quality, I agree, but nothing ever warrants calling an editor a foreign bastard. Nothing. Whether the target may have understood it or not is irrelevant. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. And I also want to respond to Zenwhat's question, "What's the point, here, of complaining about an edit summary by Mitrebox that Codreanu can't even read?" Firstly, Codreanu can understand at least some English, as you can see in his edit comments. Secondly, and more importantly, there is harm done whenever an editor launches personal attacks against another editor: it creates a bad atmosphere and discourages editors from working here, which degrades Wikipedia's quality overall. The best work is done when people have an inclusive, respectful attitude. That's why there's a "no personal attacks" rule in the first place. -- Hux (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who asked "what foreign bastard wrote this crap?" should apologize and play nice from now on. Leadwind (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei

Huaiwei is not respecting WP:CONSENSUS on Certis CISCO. There was a dispute between two users, and a third opinion was called in. The third editor gave an opinion that Huaiwei did not agree with, which ended in an argument. The head editor of one of the Wikiprojects under which the article falls - and an administrator - also gave an opinion agreeing with one of the original editors and third editor. Despite this consensus, Huaiwei remains defiant and is still reverting edits, the latest with edit text of "no due consideration for concerns raised." Discussion is on Talk:Certis CISCO#Incidents section. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I know the following text is probably unwarranted due to procedures as outlined above, but I must point out that this is a highly one-sided comment. Clear WP:CONSENSUS has not been established in the said article, particularly when there was not even ample time given for me to give my opnions before each member proceeds to revert the article. Defiance is not the word to describe someone who has been following basic wikipedia guidelines all along, while a few users with less familiarity of the said topic persists to allerge non-notability despite full compliance with WP:Notability. Kindly be conscious about the selection of words and WP:assume good faith.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Notability does not govern article content, and a third opinion is one of many steps in the dispute resolution process intended to stop content disputes, not exacerbate them. If outside opinions weigh in and you're the only one who continues to disagree, you might want to think about the fact that WP:Consensus is not WP:Unanimous. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe I am implying that WP:Notability "governs article content" exclusively. I highlight its relevance in a situation where individuals with less familiarity of a topic continue to allerge non-notability when notability was proven. I fully understand the virtues of inviting third opnions, but when the third opinionator than attempts to enforce his opinion by wikiwarring as thou he has the finaly say in the matter, I consider that an overstep of authority. WP:Consensus is not WP:Unanimous. Well WP:Consensus is not WP:Democracy either. While I am fully aware of the possibilies of being more accomodating in this dispute, that a small group of users continue to demonstrate non-familiarity in the said subject cannot be discounted.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not wikiwarring; it's trying to put a debate to rest. This issue isn't about non-familiarity; you don't WP:OWN the article. While it's good to have someone editing the article who's familiar with the topic, the article still needs to conform to Wiki policies. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would challenge you to provide evidence on my alleged ownership of the said article. Do not escalate a simple content dispute to one on article ownership if you cannot find a better charge to accuse me of. Till this day, you have failed to support your opinion that the said article do not conform to wiki policy, with many of my comments on notability and NPOV sidestepped or simply ignored. Is this the true spirit of concensus building in wikipedia, or a display of bullying tactics by several individuals who are indifferent about the topic at hand against a single contributor who was only interested in writing an article of reasonable quality?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that everyone but you shares the same understanding of the relevant policies and content - that's called consensus, not "bullying." WP:OWN is a perfectly legitimate concern in many cases, and cannot be dismissed by "you can't prove my version of the article doesn't conform to policies." --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is not appropriate to bully other users into agreeing with you, as you did with this edit SGGH ^speak! 09:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:68.101.160.213

This user has had civility issue for a while. You can see at [2], [3], and [4], he has had hate against users, especially. Compwhizii. He seems to be discriminating against 13 year olds, getting mad at people for reverting his vandalism, and it doesn't stop. He does not seem to know Wikipedia policies, and is questioning them in the wrong places. He has claimed also to be a dynamic IP address, as seen here. I don't know if this user should be blocked, or just given a severe warning. Soxred93 | talk bot 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may not have started out as vandalism, no one would give him the time to get traction to make his edits, and when you accuse someone who is editing in good faith of vandalism, I can see them getting annoyed. And Compwhizii should really not be telling people "go away, you won't be missed". It appears that CWii simply reverts without actually paying attention to what is being done, he recently had rollback pulled for just this reason. I say both editors should be warned. Maybe someone with more article writing experience than I have could offer the IP help to get the article sorted out in a sandbox space? Legotech (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting unconstructive edits may not always be the best course of action, but when an IP user who contributes alot of said edits starts lashing out, "go away" isn't such an unreasonable response (although no response is usually better). Also, if you're going to quote "go away" you might want to provide a source - decontextualizing a part of what CWii said makes it sound alot worse than it was. As for "traction" - the hostility that this IP user expresses is completely independent of his contributions - even if his contributions were the best ever, such behavior isn't acceptable. Let's also point out that CWii has made a number of obviously valid reverts like this. In fact, that's CWii's only revert in the recent history of that article. I will also note that several others are reverting the IP's edits, which amount to removing content that links to another article because it's proposed to be merged somewhere else (a merge that the IP himself proposed!) That is not a reason to remove content from an article (certainly not reason to edit war)! (See [5] [6] [7].) I see little good in warning either editor (the IP because I don't think it'll help, and CWii because s/he's done nothing wrong), but if someone else wants to stick out their neck and drop the IP an npa level 2 or something, that might not hurt. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Saul Tillich

• Paul Tillich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Saul Tillich (talk · contribs)

Help would be welcome at Talk:Paul Tillich. Article development has completely halted due to disruption by this single purpose account editor who wants the theologian Paul Tillich to be described as "an atheist". The consensus is that this is unsupported by sources, is a breach of WP:SOAP, and is based on original research - particularly this user's personal synthesis of primary sources (in clear breach of WP:PSTS). Excessively long postings are also proving obstructive. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide specific diffs that show uncivil behavior. What I'm seeing on that Talk Page thus far is that it's an ongoing content dispute and that's out of our area. If it is content and not incivility, you might want to ask at any of the Wikiprojects associated with the article to see if any of the editors there might be willing to step in and build consensus. DanielEng (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

please note that all previous talk page commentary for the article had to be archived very recently, as this user's massive posts had in a very short time bloated the talk page to enormous proportions. it may be worthwhile (or not, depending upon how much free time one has) to look at the recently archived material. the user routinely ascribed motive to me where none was even evident from my relatively terse commentary. Anastrophe (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The problem is not content: whether Tillich is an atheist is not unarguable per se. It's the disruptive tactics and incivility this user is applying to push this view.

• 2800-word polemical essay defending breach of WP:NOR [8]
• Personal attack on Anastrophe - assumption of bad faith motive for removal of badly sourced material [9]
• Modification of another editor's Talk page comment to change the meaning [10]
• Lengthy OR essay including personal attack "I realize that the other contributors to Talk have closed minds when it comes to the possibility that Tillich’s God is nonsupernatural" [11]
• False accusation of wikilwayering when warned of overt breach of WP:NOR [12]
• Personal attacks: "You are back to your old trick of basing your claims on nothing but imagination and preconceived opinions" ... "Anyone (meaning you) who does not understand the concept of atheism and thinks it is just an empty label should not be discussing theology" [13]

DanielEng, would you be able to advise? Incivility is only part of this: the major cause of disruption is this user's long and repeated disputations that he refuses to accept are original research. Is there anywhere better to tackle this? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me take a look at this in just a bit. The original statement was in regards to this mass blanking and this. It may be an indication of a longer issue, as indicated above. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on his talk page. There are clear cases of not only incivility, but a personal attack and bad faith assumptions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks more and more like a prime example of WP:SOUP. I can't see how the article can be developed while this editor's activities are unchecked. Discussion is proving useless: try working from sources, but whatever they say, the guy simply writes some obscure personal gloss of their meaning - against WP:PSTS - that comes out showing they prove his point. Would a user RFC be justified at this stage? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As noted before, habit of blanking article without explanation is another problem [14]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

Saul Tillich Replies: The above posts are full of false accusations.

1. I am accused of "Modification of another editor's Talk page comment to change the meaning." This never happened. The only modification I ever made was to capitalize the first word of a sentence in a paragraph I was replying to. You will note that the accuser avoids before-and-after specifics.

I'll reply to this point because your response is so outrageously untrue in all respects. I provided the diff [15]. You changed Anastrophe's "and not contain original research (per policy)" to "and try using referencing as is found in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia.(per policy)".

As to the rest: you see the problem... Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the two full paragraphs -- the one Anastrophe wrote and the one I wrote in reply. Let's see what was really said. (Use copy and paste.) My quotation sounds accurate (the sort of thing Anastrophe was telling me) and does not appear to be a reference to what you say I am misquoting. You are claiming that Anastrophe did not say I should "try using referencing as is found in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia.(per policy)" Although this goes back several weeks, I clearly recall his giving advice to that effect. He also claimed I was using "original research," but that is not the claim my alleged "change" refers to. When you provide the two paragraphs, please also provide the heading under which they appeared so I can go back and check to see whether it sn't you who is misquoting my reply (by claiming a reference to point B was a reference to point A).Saul Tillich (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOUP - quit waffling. The diff [16] shows perfectly clearly that you changed text within Anastrophe's original comment, and not within a quote of it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

click on the link that Gordonofcartoon helpfully provided. it is the actual edit you performed, which is machine generated and cannot be misconstrued or modified. there's no way to weasel out of your actions, shown in bright red text, in the diff. Anastrophe (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I went to that page just now, using your link, and found the following comment by you under a separate heading ("Contributions") but made on the same date: "there's been an enormous amount of verbiage expended in response to my reversion of the wholesale replacement of the tillich biography with one editor's work. i'd like to refocus again on what i said early on: post portions here on the talk page. let other editors review and discuss it. if you're feeling bold, post a portion into the main article, and we can still discuss it. try using referencing as is found in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia. i welcome better content for this article - i only ask that it be properly sourced (per policy), properly formatted (per policy), written from a neutral point of view (per policy), and try using referencing as is found in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia.(per policy). that's not an accusation, it's a request. post a paragraph. post a section. let's have a look at it. it will probably 'fly' with only a few improvements to formatting and citation. again, i and i'm sure other editors will welcome better content for this article. jumping from the frying pan into the fire however doesn't improve the article. neither does throwing the baby out with the bathwater, while i'm in mind of cliches. give other editors an opportunity to review wholey new content. don't post a massive new version, expecting other editors to then laboriously work their way through a massive amount of what may not be acceptable in this consensus driven medium. that's all i ask. it is not unreasonable in the least. Anastrophe (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence or clause that appears in two places and that I have changed to bold face is the one I quote and then proceed to refute. I did not change your sentence. You put it there -- in two places. It is there in plain sight, and I quoted it accurately, using copy-and-paste.

How the identical sentence got copied into your earlier comment I do not know, but I can guess. You apparently used the copy button to pick it up and move it to another location in your "Contributions" paragraph. Then you forgot to delete it in the original location, and next you went up to your earlier quotation and copied the same point in there -- possibly because you belatedly realized that I had already refuted "original research," or possibly accidentally as a result of the copied sentence still being available to your paste button. I note that both of the widely spaced comments have not only the same date (January 22) but the same time (6:19). This suggests that both were copied and pasted at the same time from an MS Word draft, which you could have done quickly in the same minute (6:19). My rebuttal is dated a day later, January 23, which is a day after your thrice-appearing comment was entered on the Talk page. You are the one who changed your original comment.

In any case, it would have been pointless for me to move copy and paste your sentence from the "Contributions" heading, because your original comment that it replaced is even easier to refute. I had no motive to delete or replace your original comment.

That comment, made January 22, accuses me of "original research." But four days earlier, on January 18, I replied to your previous accusation of "original research" as follows:

"Unsourced Original [sic] Research"

"Anastrophe is wrong in many respects. The reference to "unsourced original material" and "entirely his own version" is demonstrably wrong. Tillich's "God above the God of theism" has been identified for 38 years--ever since the publication in 1970 of Paul Tillich's Dialectical Humanism: Unmasking the God above God (Johns Hopkins Press), by Leonard F. Wheat. Everything in the article can be found in that source. And that source is thoroughly documented in the revised article.

"Tillich's being an atheist is not "unsourced original material" either. In addition to quotations from Tillich himself and from Wheat, there are references to two books by Walter Kaufmann, who also recognized Tillich as an atheist; both books were published in 1961. Alasdair MacIntyre, writing in 1963, also identified Tillich as an atheist, and MacIntyre is cited as saying so. Rabbi Bernard Martin also seemed to regard Tillich as an atheist--1963 again--and Martin is cited in reference to this interpretation.

"On the subtopic of Hegelian-Marxian dialectics, I cited not only (1) Wheat but (2) Robert Tucker, who wrote a book about Marx and also commented on Hegel, and (3) Tillich, who explained the relationship between thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics and the Christian concept of separation and return. So where is this originality to which you refer?"

Can you explain why I would have been motivated to delete such an easily refuted claim of "original research"?Saul Tillich (talk) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

2. "Blanking article without explanation is another problem." I have repeatedly explained in earlier edits that the material was being deleted because it was false -- essentially the same reason Anastrophe and others are deleting my edits, which they regard as false.

3. "There are clear cases of not only incivility, but a personal attack and bad faith assumptions." The personal attacks and bad faith assumptions come from the other side. I have repeatedly been accused of vandalism and bad faith. Specifically, I was accused of "attempting to discredit" Tillich. (Apparently the accusers think that calling Tillich an atheist discredits him, despite the fact that many interpreters and three encyclopedia articles have said, either explicitly or in effect [by calling him a pantheist], that Tillich is an atheist.) I am not trying to discredit Tillich, and neither do I believe that calling him an atheist discredits him. Does calling Hegel and Sartre and Nietzsche atheists discredit them? My accusers should be censored for bad faith and personal attacks.

4. My accusers have not only engaged in personal attacks on me, they have engaged in personal attacks on my primary source (Wheat). In the process, they have engaged in ad hominem argument -- attempting to discredit a person rather than the argument with which they disagree. In the process, the accuser reverted to sarcasm, a form of uncivil behavior, which is the very thing he accuses me of.

5. My arguments on the talk page are well supported by quotations from Tillich and other sources and by logic. Those who disagree with me have been unable to either support their own arguments with either quotations or logic. Instead, they choose to accuse me of "vandalism," "uncivil behavior," and personal attacks. This is simply a renewal of their earlier ad hominem argument -- attacking the opponent rather than his arguments.

6. Speaking of civility, Anastrophe wrote on Talk that "my good will is utterly spent in dealing with your poisonous methods. i did not remove your comments from this talk page. period." My reply (available on the talk page) was this: "Well, somebody deleted my refutation of the question-and-answer interpretation of Tillich's method of correlation. I assumed, apparently erroneously (and on the basis of your previously having impugned my motives), that it was you. I'll take your word for that it wasn't you; perhaps it was Gordon. In any case, I apologize for the hasty assumption." Meanwhile, whereas I am accused of editing the talk comments of others, something I haven't done, the others (or one of them) have actually deleted the evidence I presented that their article's interpretation of Tillich's "method of correlation" is wrong. And then they claim, falsely, that I have not given reasons for my deletion/edits.

7. The accusers repeat above what Anastrophe falsely said, and that I previously refuted, in the earlier Talk page that he archived: "The consensus is that this is unsupported by sources, is a breach of WP:SOAP, and is based on original research - particularly this user's personal synthesis of primary sources (in clear breach of WP:PSTS)." If they didn't know this statement was false when they made it earlier, they knew it when they repeated it on this page. My refutation was that this so-called "original research" is not at all original. As I said on the archived Talk page, Wheat's thesis that Tillich's "God above God" is humanity has been around for 38 years, ever since his book was published by Johns Hopkins Press in 1970. There is no "personal synthesis of primary sources." Wheat provided the synthesis and the quotations. After checking the quotations against the primary sources for accuracy (they were all accurate), I used them in the article, citing the primary sources, which should always be cited when possible. The only thing original in my first-cut (and admittedly too long) article was a count (taken from indexes of Tillich's books) of the numbers of times Tillich referred to Hegel, Kant, Schelling, and Marx -- philosophers to whom Wheat attributes the origin of Tillich's concept that God is man. I acknowledged that these counts were original and deleted them.

8. "I can't see how the article can be developed while this editor's activities are unchecked. Discussion is proving useless: try working from sources, but whatever they say, the guy simply writes some obscure personal gloss of their meaning." I can make the same accusation: I can't see how an accurate article can be developed while these accusers' activities are unchecked. Discussion is proving useless. The accusers are unable to refute my arguments or my evidence (primarily quotations from Tillich). Instead they resort to the personal attacks you see on this page. As for the "obscure gloss" refuting their articles versions of (1) Tillich's "norm" and (2) Tillich's method of correlation, I invite you to undelete my article and read what I say about these two topics. Then ask yourself, is this "obscure gloss"? Or is "obscure gloss" name-calling?

9. Regarding my saying that Tillich is an atheist, my accusers write that "the consensus is that this is unsupported by sources." Actually, my conclusion is thoroughly supported by sources, which I gave. Here is what I replied on the talk page: "Your argument is false because my view that Tillich is an atheist is as mainstream as any other view. At least 12 interpreters have directly or indirectly labeled Tillich an atheist, sometimes by calling him a pantheist. These interpreters are Sidney Hook (1961), Walter Kaufmann (1961), David Freeman (1962), Kenneth Hamilton (1963), Alasdair M MacIntyre (1963), Bernard Martin (1963), John A. T. Robinson (1963), J. Heywood Thomas (1963), Guyton Hammond (1966), Nels Ferre (1966), William Rowe (1968), Leonard Wheat (1970). Several others have expressed uncertainty concerning whether Tillich is a theist. Now, how many interpreters can you name who have affirmed that Tillich believes in the God of theism?" The accusers failed to name even one interpreter who considers Tillich a theist, a believer in the traditional God of theism (although there are three or four such interpreters). I later added, again on the Talk page, three encyclopedia articles that treat Tillich as a pantheist, where pantheism is a form of atheism. And I still later added Nels F. S. Ferre's discription of his person-to-person questioning of Tillich which made it clear to Ferre that Tillich is an atheist. As for the idea that my accusers' "consensus" that Tillich is not an atheist makes their view correct, I would reply that (1) there once was a consensus that the earth if flat and that the sun revolves around the earth and (2) the consensus of interpreters -- the fifteen I named (including the encyclopedias) weight more heavily than the consensus of three poorly educated editors, who are unfamiliar with the Hegelian dialectical formulations on which Tillich's theology is based. (By poorly educated I am not referring to their college and apparent divinity school educations but to their lack of knowledge of the philosophies, particularly those of Hegel and Marx, on which Tillich's "philosophical theology" is based.)Saul Tillich (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

10. With further regard to the issue of who is being "uncivil," I offer the latest exchange, wherein I am (a) once more accused of "vandalism" for the heinous act of deleting someone else's demonstrably false interpretation of Tillich's theology -- essentially what the accusers have been doing to my edits -- and (b) threatened with being blocked from Wiki editing if I do not block myself. Threats and accusations of "vandalism" clearly constitute uncivil behavior. Here is the exchange:

ANTONIO LOPEZ: The recent edit you made to Paul Tillich constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Antonio Lopez (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

ANASTROPHE: Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Paul Tillich, you will be blocked from editing. Anastrophe (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Message for Anastrophe and His Colleagues: May I remind you, Mr. Anastrophe, that you are deleting my edits as often as I am deleting yours. Back in January you took pleasure in quoting to me the following: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Well, just as you have been editing my work mercilessly, I am doing the same with yours, which I am entitled to do. I am deleting your false descriptions of Tillich's theology because they are false, and false material does not belong in Wiki. That is not vandalism; that is editing. Please do not "continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Paul Tillich." In other words, stop blanking out and deleting portions of page content, templates, or other materials.

That you and your compatriots regard my article as "unconstructive" is irrelevant. I regard your work as unconstructive -- false and naive. In the talk discussion, you have never been able to support your position with quotations. Instead you use ad hominen argument and sarcasm. Worse, you dishonestly accuse me of attempting "do discredit Tillich," whereas I am doing no such thing. Your accusation seems to reflect a belief that, as a theologian, Tillich could not possibly be an atheist. In the process, you ignore the evidence I have presented that a very strong majority (not your "tiny minority") of Tillich's interpreters regard him as an atheist -- either a pantheist, a mystic, or a complete nonsupernaturalist. To base an article, as you are doing, on nothing but personal prejudice and a closed mind is the epitome of "unconstructive" behavior.

So come off your high horse, cut out this holier-than-thou nonsense, and accept the fact that I have as much right to edit as you do. Grow up, learn that people disagree on many things, and realize that disagreement does not constitute vandalism.Saul Tillich (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

BERIAN: This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read WP:COI and WP:POV, as I have tagged Paul Tillich. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

11. Here's an attack I failed to respond to in my earlier enumerated points: "Personal attacks: "You are back to your old trick of basing your claims on nothing but imagination and preconceived opinions" ... "Anyone (meaning you) who does not understand the concept of atheism and thinks it is just an empty label should not be discussing theology."

That's a "personal attack"? That is an attack on an unsupported claim. Here is the exchange.

• Saul Tillich: "If he [Tillich] was “not a supranaturalist,” he was an atheist, because all theists are supranaturalists."
• Jonalexdeval: "Wrong. Tillich differentiates supernaturalism from theism."
• ST: "Tillich does no such thing, which is why you are unable to produce a quotation from Tillich supporting your position. You are back to your old trick of basing your claims on nothing but imagination and preconceived opinions. The God of theism is and always has been supernatural. Name, if you can, a theist who is not a supernaturalist --someone whose God is not supernatural."

When a claim ("Tillich differentiates supernaturalism from theism," along with others before it, is made without any semblance of support -- no quotation from Tillich, no other evidence, no argument -- and when the author makes it clear that he simply can't believe Tillich was an atheist, then the assertion that the claim is based on imagination and preconceived opinion is justified. The preconceived opinion is readily inferred from the earlier charge that I am trying to discredit Tillich by calling him an atheist. Who would hold such a view? Answer: someone who thinks atheism is evil, who would certainly be a religious conservative, who is just the type of person who could not imagine that Tillich, Bultmann, Neibuhr, and Robinson could be atheists.

Here is the exchange associated with the second quoted remark:

• Jonalexdeval: "There is still no justification for your nearly pathological obsession with the "atheist" label. It is simply a label, overly simplistic and basically meaningless in relation to the complexity of Tillich's thought. We do not further our understanding of Tillich in the slightest by being so concerned with it." [Comment: JAD complains that my reply (below) is a "personal attack." Might not "pathological obsession" be construed as a personal attack?]
• Saul Tillich: "Anyone (meaning you) who does not understand the concept of atheism and thinks it is just an empty label should not be discussing theology. Theism, according to the dictionary, is 'Belief in the existence of a god or gods specif.: (a) Monotheism. (b) Belief in the existence of one God, transcending, yet immanent in, the universe; -- disting. from pantheism and deism.' Tillich could thus write, 'The God of theological theism is a being beside others and as such a part of the whole of reality' (Courage, p. 184). Tillich has repeatedly said there is no such God. For example: 'Ordinary theism has made God a heavenly,completely perfect person who resides above the world and mankind. The protest of atheism against such a highest person is correct' (Courage, p. 245)."

I stand by what I wrote. It is not a personal attack. Anyone who thinks that atheism is just a simplistic and meaningless label should not be discussing theology. Atheism has a clear and widely accepted meaning: belief in the God of theism, the traditional Judeo-Christian God, a rational, self-conscious supernatural being.Saul Tillich (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

your last sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. it is the exact opposite of the commonly understood meaning of Atheism.Anastrophe (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem reluctant to stick you neck out and say specifically what your "exact opposite" (of mine) definition of atheism is. I'm saying an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Not only nonsupernaturalists but deists and pantheists are atheists. Are you saying that deists and pantheists are not atheists? If not, just what are you saying? What is this "commonly understood meaning"? And what is the "commonly understood" definition of God on which the definition of atheism depends?Saul Tillich (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus, unless there's some layer of subtlety I'm missing, "You are back to your old trick" is what I consider an attack. You may be attacking their argument style if you want to quibble but you are still attacking them. Plus, Gordonofcartoon's link shows clearly that you did try to edit someone else's comment, so I wouldn't keep arguing that point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See my refutation of Gordon's link above, under my numbered point 1. There I show, using a copied and pasted paragraph posted by Anastrophe under a separate heading on the linked page, that the quotation you claim I invented appears twice in the same separate paragraph. I have quoted Anastrophe correctly.Saul Tillich (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the hostility and incivility here is, as far as I can tell, due to a conflict of interest. I strongly suggest to Mr. Tillich that he refrain from editing an article about any member of his family. Furthermore, if he cannot amicably and productively contribute to the discussion page, I suggest he find an area of Wikipedia to which he might contribute productively and without a conflict of interest. I don't want to be too reductive here, but this issue is generating alot of conflict, and regardless of whether there is incivility, personal attacks, edit warring, whatever else, there is a problem, and that problem is stemming from issues that exist only because someone who really shouldn't be editing the article is doing so. WP:COI makes it clear that editing in this fashion can lead to blocks, and that may be warranted at this point. Mr. Tillich, what do you think of my suggesetion? --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get your information that I am "a member of [Tillich's] family"? Aren't you just making an unverified assumption -- shooting from the hip, so to speak? You ask, "what do you think of my suggestion"? Answer: I think -- in fact I know -- you don't know what you are talking about. This question came up earlier on the Tillich talk page. Go read what I said there. By the way, in case you're wondering, not all persons named Bjornson are related. One other point: what do you think of my theory that fundamental disagreement on what is true and accurate can lead to the sort of "blocks" you refer to? Saul Tillich (talk) 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your username and the single-purpose nature of your account. Editing an article about Paul Tillich while using the name "Saul Tillich" creates the obvious impression that you have some interest in the subject of the article. Our username policy is pretty clear about how usernames are to be used - using real names or the names of real-life entities is generally frowned upon unless it is actually your real name. You've created the impression that you have some sort of relationship to this person - regardless of if that's actually true, you use your account to almost exclusively contribute to this article in a tendentious fashion, and take the time to write excessively long defenses of such tendentious editing. I apologize that I didn't take the time to look through the entire archive of that talk page, but with a username and an editing history like yours, WP:COI may still be a concern, regardless of your denial (flippant, I might add) that you have a conflict of interest here. Furthermore, I have absolutely no interest in your content dispute. I clearly and plainly explained which policy could lead to a block: WP:COI. If you choose to admonish me for not thoroughly reading the entire talk page archive somewhere, you could take the time to thoroughly read my comment to you. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, and you need to keep that in mind. Being hostile and over-assertive, unwilling to compromise or work together, that will not help anyone, most certainly not yourself. This alertboard is here to provide feedback and help you steer your editing on the right track. Being hostile and defensive is not going to help. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any provable COI. I take the username to be a statement of agenda: Saul was the non-Christian name of Paul, and this user's sole purpose is to get Wikipedia to portray Paul Tillich into an atheist "Saul Tillich". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser, you say that "editing an article about Paul Tillich while using the name 'Saul Tillich' creates the obvious impression that you have some interest in the subject of the article." How can a user name create that impression when it is already obvious that every person editing the article on Tillich has an interest in Tillich? I happen to have an interest in quite a number of philosophers and theologians. When I signed on to Wiki I was asked to make up a user name; I recall nothing in the instructions (I don't even recall instructions) saying I could not use the surname of a dead person, whether the name be Truman, Caesar, Hegel, Tolstoy, or Graham. Without giving it much thought, I more or less arbitrarily chose the name Tillich, because he is a philosopher (more that than a theologian) that I admire -- despite the claim of Anastrophe or Gordon that I am trying to discredit him. I chose the name for purposes of editing other articles in other fields; at the time I had not read -- much less had I thought of editing -- the Tillich article. So your suggestion that I chose the name so as to mislead people is totally off base.

If you go to the Wiki article on Aquinas and click on "discussion," the first editor's name that comes up is Franks Valli. Except for the s, that's the name of pop singer Frankie Valli. You might want to consider wandering over to that discussion and admonishing Valli about his choice of names. (I think Frankie Valli is still alive.)

Gordon, Saul is the first name of Saul Bellow, and with my warped sense of humor I thought it would be a fine idea to use his name: it rhymes with Paul. By the way, Gordon, can you explain why you decided to use Gordon Brown's first name, given that he is not only a real person but, unlike Tillich and Bellow, a LIVING real person? Are you perhaps trying to create the impression that you are a prime minister? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saul Tillich (talk • contribs) 03:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinions of other's choices

This comment in response to a good faith argument in a content dispute between myself and this editor seems to be lacking somewhat in Wikiquette. While I am fortunate enough to not care what someone I'm in a content dispute thinks of me personally this type of behavior should be discouraged. (I'd do that myself, but being in a content dispute with this person means they aren't likely to listen to advice about Wikiquette from me.) Anynobody 05:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Steve Dufour should not have made those comments, I would have suggested simply stating an agreement to disagree. I will leave a note on his user page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your help :) Anynobody 01:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Persistent false accusations/threats

An editor called One Night In Hackney has persistently reverted a specific edit I have made to an article, claiming one of three things: that I am experimenting, adding incorrect information, or vandalising. I have informed him on more than one occasion that I am doing none of the things he has accused me of. He has threatened me with being 'blocked'.

What gives this sole editor the right to dictate to me what is 'right' or 'wrong' or to accuse me of vandalism and threaten to block me as a result of what he sees as 'vandalism'?

Please see my allocated talk/discussion page to follow the discussion thus far on the issue.

Thanks in advance. --90.203.247.219 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor has repeatedly added deliberately incorrect information to the Brian Faulkner, Baron Faulkner of Downpatrick article. He was not born in Northern Ireland as it did not exist at the time, he was born in Ireland. This was explained by myself and another editor, and there is consensus for this standard discussed here - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)/Archive 1#Ireland pre-independence biographical convention.3F. The introduction of deliberate factual errors is vandalism, it's that simple. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The information was not deliberately incorrect and was added in good faith. A timely and courteous explanation, not breaking 3RR, and not misusing the rollback tool, would have all gone a long way. Pointing to a discussion deep in the talk archives after adding four warnings and reporting to AIV would seem a little unfair. A little AGF please. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello all!

1. If there is a already-arrived-at-by-consensus Manual of Style, that should likely be followed.

2. Can't the person's birthplace be listed as >insert city or county here<, Ireland (currently Northern Ireland)? This follows with a lot of articles about people whose homelands underwent name change between birth and now.

I think you both need to go have some ice cream and lower the temperature a little. Maybe I'm wrong, but this looks like a minor detail with a simple fix. It seems like we have an IP newbie who may be little ignorant of how things work, and is editing forcefully without knowing that some decisions about how things should be done have already been made. I wasn't able to trace back all of the discussion, so I might have missed this, but I think this newbie should have been warned about there already existing a consensus built standard. If that was the case and 90.203.247 went ahead anyway, then that editor was wrong for ignoring consensus. [User talk:90.203.247.219]] needs to be careful with WP:3RR. I think that User:One Night In Hackney needs to do fewer warnings and more attempts to educate if the issue is about a break in consensus (unless you honestly did try that already).

What am I missing? There has to be more to this than this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Check the talk page and article histories, it continued to be added after an explanation from myself and another editor (who's a Unionist!) had explained the situation. This isn't even a new editor here, this is an editor who's repeatedly pushed the exact same disruptive POV with his abandoned account. And by the way, I didn't break 3RR. Deliberate factual errors are vandalism, and that's what I was reverting. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this situation and article cited by One Night In Hackney, Brian Faulkner, Baron Faulkner of Downpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), he's right; The IP was adding factually inaccurate information, Northern Ireland didn't exist until sometime after May 1921, this dude was born in February of that year which means if we went with the IP he was born into a country yet created.

The only thing I can think to say is that in the future it would be advisable to explain why something is/isn't factually inaccurate and that this is probably a misunderstanding. (PS Personally I think using templates to discuss these issues is usually a really bad idea, people are either confused or feel they are being treated impersonally.) Anynobody 01:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

True, however in this occasion this isn't a new editor, this is an editor who edits from dynamic IPs instead of his account which has a long history of this sort of biased editing, chaging pre-1922 mentions of northern Ireland to Northern Ireland. Therefore as the editor in question knows full well what he is doing, it isn't a misunderstanding, it isn't an honest mistake, it's a deliberate attempt to add factually incorrect information into articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you consider amending to County Down?

I agree that County Down, Northern Ireland is worse than County Down, Ireland. But this question is more complex than it looks, being at base a question of what actually created Northern Ireland, and therefore implicitly who had the authority to do so. Compare the insistence that Bertrand Russell was born in Wales (he was born in Monmouthshire, which was in Wales in 1200, and is again, but was it in 1872?)

Can't we evade this sort of thing in infoboxes? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just about infoboxes though, he'll do it in main articles too. When it comes to Ireland the birth and death locations in infoboxes can get a bit longwinded, as it's "town, county, whichever bit of Ireland". AFAIK, the discussion on IMOS covered anyone born before 7 December 1922, although a case could equally be made that it applies only to anyone born before 3 May 1921. Either way, it applies to Faulkner. If you think this is problematic, you try and retroactively apply a "where is it now" standard to many of the people in Category:People from Jerusalem and watch all hell break loose. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, dirty pool is the game then. So far my experience is that the best way to counter such tactics is by playing especially clean. Even though you know this person will disregard any polite warnings or explanations they do serve a purpose to show you are assuming good faith when people who don't know what's going on join in, you aren't automatically "the bad guy". Anynobody 00:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please help

Hi, I am having some trouble with snowfire51 and JuJube. (please see their talk pages). I have asked them to stop calling me a troll and a sock but they contuine to do so. They are looking to get me blocked. Can someone please help. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoneHH (talk • contribs) 06:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be specifically reverting the edits of Snowfire51 and Seicer, which makes me agree with them that you are a sockpuppet account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. PLease see your talk page. I have corrected mistakes on the city of Belleville page and you changed them without checking. I am not a sock or a troll so stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoneHH (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how adding huge piles of text on the curriculum constitutes "correcting small error section 3"? And then you insert it again under the claim of "Snowfire violation of rr3 policy. on going"? I'll like to see how your edits shouldn't be considered unusual, to say the least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

how about we check the info that I added!!! IF it is correct should it not stay? IN anycase, being called a sock and a troll for hours because I changed one page is not nice. I have no problem with snowfire51 or anyone else on wiki. I ask that I be treated in a friedly manner. That is all. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoneHH (talk • contribs) 06:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How about you explain your edits first, before we completely dismiss this? The fact that you may be right (and I doubt that) doesn't means your means are justified. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone whose first edits include a bad faith assumption and sockpuppet-like activity (along with the removal of comments) will draw the watchful eye of at least one interested party. In addition, reverting the edits of varying users with no explanation or discussion will draw the ire of many. seicer | talk | contribs 13:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sumoeagle179

After trying to reign in some problematic comments made about me in various venues, Sumoeagle179 (talk · contribs) made a personal attack against me [17]. I would like an apology. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how that is a personal attack with greater detail? At best, it is a very weak case at incivility. seicer | talk | contribs 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The history is that this user is very good friends with User:Rlevse and has been harboring a vendetta against me since the latter left Wikipedia over a dustup with me at WP:ANI. Since then, he has taken every opportunity he can to disparage me personally. It seems to me to be a mocking case of incivility, and I'm trying to keep a document of this as it becomes clear there is a group of people who have decided to start attack campaigns against me personally. More diffs to follow. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Evidence that this user is friends with Rlevse and takes a certain personal interest in the ongoing dispute I have with this administrator
• What has been called by others a "bad faith" filing at WP:AE by this user against me.

In sum, there is a history of bad blood between myself and this user, and this incivility is unwarranted, especially since this user has taken it upon himself to try to "teach me" about civility:

• Calling me out for incivility
• Borderline harassment - attempting to get me to leave the project

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The most you can garner out of this is perhaps the last note regarding your numerous blocks and warnings, which can be construed as being possibly out-of-line or poisoning the well. But that's a pretty weak case at best in light of the comments you have made in the given examples above. At this point, it is probably best to let it go; escalating a relative non-issue will only shift more eyes towards you. seicer | talk | contribs 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And some of those date back to January 2008. Did you make a note regarding bad faith at AE at the time? seicer | talk | contribs 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't comment at AE when you're blocked. There's plenty in the history of my user talkpage about it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, this is not a personal attack. Tom Butler calling you a sociopath was a personal attack. This post from now-banned Matt Sanchez is a personal attack. I undersatnd that you are irritated (to put it mildly) by the gaming of the system arounf civility which some tendentious POV pushers enjoy, but I seriously doubt that trying to game the system in the same sort of way is a good idea - you don't have the temprement for it. I fear that you are ultimately going to offer enough evidence that will allow those gamers to win the battle and have you banned. Don't give them the satisfaction. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What evidence am I "offering" by pointing out that this particular user is gaming the system and behaving badly? A simple apology will suffice. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist I mean no offense but you're not exactly seen universally as a bastion of polite disagreement, and even though I personally don't think you're so much rude as you are blunt, it's likely that advising an editor you've been in a disagreement with about rude behavior won't inspire good faith. In fact it may invite replies like the one you're complaining about. Anynobody 01:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, coming here to complain about "harboring a vendetta", "disparagement", "mocking", "attack campaigns" and "bad blood" is the right thing to do, but the problem I see for you is in the idea that you need to "come with clean hands", and in this context, I think you come without. Especially ironic is your request for an apology, given your history of not making apologies and an overall unapologetic attitude for your incivilities. Here are just a few relevant diffs, in which you have (a) suggested other editors leave the topic, (b) displayed incivility in condescending tone, (c) suggested other editors should exit discussions when you "show up" and...well...you've got the idea. The offenses above are minor, and taken in context of the generally adversarial stance you take and the manner in which you have worn your contempt for Wikipedia's civility standards on your sleeve, I think whatever complaint you may have had is seriously compromised in this regard.

1

2

3

4

5

Recently, your more blatant incivilities have subsided, but only to be replaced (in my opinion) with more "low level" forms of "discrediting attacks". To the extent you'd like to now take civility a bit more seriously than you have in the past, I'd suggest you start by making some real amends, and giving your fellow editors some time to begin reacting differently to you. WNDL42 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is needlessly vituperative. I leave it to the reader to decide why this particular user felt it necessary to post this here. Poisoning the well seems to be the new favorite passtime of certain Wikipedians. Besides, bringing up instances that have nothing to do with Sumoeagle seems ridiculous. I'm therefore going to put it under a new heading. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Analyzing 1:If you feel that way, then you should stop editing the article. I for one do not feel that way. I don't mean to sound insensitive but this isn't a civility issue when one factors in the comment ScienceApologist was responding to. I don't mean to imply that WNDL42's comment was inappropriate either, however the basic idea it gave me was "By us arguing so much we're driving away neutral editors so we should just stop arguing." Responding by saying, "If you feel that way, then you should stop editing the article. I for one do not feel that way." meant, as I read it, "I don't think so, but if you want to prove your theory then by all means stop arguing/editing."

In short WNDL42 put forward an idea about editing which ScienceApologist replied to. It's obvious that somehow ScienceApologist has gotten under WNDL42's skin, but if this is his/her best example (presuming they put their best reason first) then I'd honestly recommend WNDL42 consider taking a break from editing articles with ScienceApologist OR accept that he/she doesn't agree with you and instead focus on backing your edits with sources etc. if at all possible, so that if ScienceApologist disagrees you can defer to our policies and guidelines. Anynobody 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I find your approach unfortunate, in that you (a) contextualize my comment (incorrectly) and then (b) paraphrase what I said (didn't get that quite right), having the effect of (c) justifying SA's comment. IMO, an unhelpful approach here on WQA.

To clear the air, here is what I actually said, and you will please note that I was speaking to an entire group (of which SA was, at the time, only peripherally included), and that SA "jumped in" to knock me down with his suggestion that I leave the topic...here I am speaking to everyone in the midst of heated battle:

• Let's look to WP:CCC, and please let's respect those editors who are unable or unwilling to "ride" this article as tendentiously as many of us here have been doing -- including me. The best editors with the most reasonable and neutral POVs are continually being either (a) driven away, or (b) drowned out by our "noise", and the sum total of our behavior is tantamount to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I for one am not able or willing to "keep up". Wikipedia does not belong to the most tendentious partisans in any topic area, indeed the articles that result from the "winning" of such noisy arguments wind up being, in general, amongst the worst crap least encyclopedic articles found on Wikipedia. WNDL42 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that SA doesn't like to see others have or expand leadership roles, that's why he suggested I leave. He's done the same thing repeatedly in response to calls for peace and civility. WNDL42 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Harrasment

I keep being harrassed by user Gene Nygaard regarding the use of the defaultsort statement. To eliminate the dispute I have stopped using the defaultsort, but I keep getting agressive messages.

I don't understand what the issue is about. I am satisfied with the Wikipedia sorting and see no reason to change them. However I find it totally inappropriate for a user to set up new rules, which are nowhere indicated in prevailing guidelines and to force them upon other users.

I request help to stop these messages.Afil (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide DIFFs? seicer | talk | contribs 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dorftrottel

Work in progress; comments welcome

This user is constantly leaving me messages on my talk page. I left just one on his that said "do not message me unless you have something constructive to say." Despite this, he has left me two more messages, and one was (ha!) to warn ME about being uncivil. This is uncalled for (and quite ridiculous) — I can't see how I'm being rude by not replying to him.

He needs to be warned. I'm tired of these pointless messages. Timneu22 (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right--your Talk Page is there for your use, and you're under no obligation to reply to messages left there. It would help a lot if we had diffs here, though. I'm not seeing anything on your Talk Page from this user right now (as in, there aren't any messages there, not that the complaint is without merit) and it would be a lot easier to see the specific diffs than to wade through your TP's history. Thanks, DanielEng (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Timneu22 appears to have anger management problems and has rowed with quite a lot of editors. Have a look at what he's deleted from his talk page and check out the comments on WP:ANI here. andy (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the heads up. I'm going to let someone else handle this one. DanielEng (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

First, I'm pretty sure that Andyjsmith is a sockpuppet of Dorftrottell. Further, I have no anger management problems. All I'm doing is wiping out ridiculous comments from my talk page. Is this disruptive? Dorftrottel just keeps leaving me messages. I have not responded to this user. I've just wiped them out. Anger management? Give me a break. Timneu22 (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, it is Anydjsmith who leaves me messages calling me an ass. I'm not the disruptive one here. Again, your accusations are absurd. Timneu22 (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Kindly note that this is an instance of WP:Forum shopping. Timneu22 simultaneously started an ANI thread here. In that ANI thread, I have now posted diffs that should sufficiently illuminate the whole issue. Dorftrottel (criticise) 14:26, February 27, 2008

  I don't know what Forum shopping is. I just didn't know the best place to add this discussion, so I added it twice. Sorry. Geez. Timneu22 (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note:Timneu22 (talk) removed this section. In view of the accusations that have been made I thought that was wrong, so I've restored it. andy (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wolfkeeper

This person was very aggressive and appears to not have bothered reading the talk discussion in the Concorde article. This person threatened me with blocking and saying I am vandalizing the article on my personal talk page. Editors were reverting my edits while I was trying to fix a problem. I described what had been going on in the talk area and how I had misidentified a tag as being visible in the article (though it actually wasn't), which was what started the whole thing, with me at least. There was a simple fix which another editor did after reading the talk page which solved the problem. This User:Wolfkeeper antagonized the situation. If Wolfkeeper is an administrator then there should be action taken for administrators should not abuse their authority.UB65 (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This person is continuing to aggravate the situation badly and is making unfounded accusations and being very uncivil. UB65 (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this user is trolling now. I don't know what the problem is but could an admin please speak to this user. I am being accused of things and I have tried to explain but to no avail. There is a real problem with this person. UB65 (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wolfkeeper continued to make personal attacks in the talk thread and I think may be guilty of 3rr revert violation though I didn't actually think this until after reading User's complaint on me accusing me of violating 3RR which I don't think I did but if I did it was not intentional. I really need help with this. It basically is an experienced user bullying a less experienced user and is very trying for me. I have tried to discuss this civilly and to no avail. I really need some advice and help with this person's behavior.UB65 (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nasty gratuitous vengeful personal attack by Calton

In a "comment" on my talk page where a complaint that I had filed here against a now indefinitely blocked anti-semitic former editor was under discussion, Calton launched a gratuitous personal attack here. This attack is the latest in his abusive comments against me, ostensibly as a result of my having filed a successful case documenting the massive longstanding sockpuppetry of an editor he seemed to have been allied with, (Griot). Calton had also had filed a bogus and disproven sockpuppetry case aginst me here This is at least the second time Calton, who seems to be stalking my activities, has made a gratuitous personal attack based on his vengeful attitude, rather than the topic at hand that he posts on. See, eg, here. I offered Calton the opportunity to provide evidence of his claims on my talk page, specifically, that I am:

• "condoning and aiding a long-banned and abusive sockpuppeteer"
• "using wiki to carry on my off-wiki political warfare"
• How a serial sock puppeteer whose began his puppet career over a year before I ever edited opposite him "was driven to it, in part, by my abusive behavior."

as well as apologize for his convoluted and largely incomprehensible rant.

He hasn't, so I need to report it here. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Calton seems out of line. Do you think you are seeing some wiki-groupthink? If so, Calton may honestly be unaware of it, as it can ususally only be seen in hindsight. Seems like this problem as you have reported here and elsewhere involves a group of like-minded editors, and perhaps a larger problem?. Just a thought. WNDL42 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Boodles is unfamiliar with the meaning of "gratuitous", given that my message is a direct response to his message left on my User Talk page. He ought to, however, become more familiar with the term "psychological projection", given that the motivations he accuses me of applies to him: he's been told -- multiple times, even -- why, his peculiar, insulting, and just plain wrong characterization of my message notwithstanding. But to refresh his memory -- again -- Jeannie Marie Spicuzza. You remember her and her sister, the hatchet-job journalist right?

Given his recent block for his convoluted and largely incomprehensible rants on WP:AN/I, essentially accusing anyone not leaping to follow his demands of being closet anti-semites, I'd say he's in no position to be making overheated claims regarding personal attack by others.

And the less said about the bizarre theorizing of User:Wndl42, the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs) 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Boodles, but you've stepped in it now. No admin ever steps in against Calton, and the regular editors who complain about him usually end up being blocked in a questionable manner. You see above, how Calton twists everything around all the time to make herself look like she's the victim? As much as I hate to say it, you will never win, because she is so unpleasant that even admins are reluctant to admonish or *gasp* actually give her the block she sooooo much deserves. Walk away, man. Just walk away. Sorry. 24.220.220.117 (talk) 02:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Calton, Groupthink was discovered and documented in the 1970's, what makes you think that Wikipedia would not be vulnerable as well? Hell, Wikipedia is a virtual nutrient rich petrie dish for Groupthink, why does my question seem like "bizarre theorizing" to you? It was just a question. If the shoe obviously won't fit, then don't try it on. WNDL42 (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Further Incivility and Personal Attacks by User:Cebactokpatop

Following two previous postings on this page here and here, both of which were resolved in my favour, I am having further trouble with user Cebactokpatop, repeatedly (falsely) calling me a liar, and threatening to report me to WP:3RR (which I have not broken) if I do not revert edits 'within 15 minutes' [18]. Seminarist (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I gotta say to both Cebactokpatop and Seminarist, your edit summaries give the appearance that you are both single issue/topic editors, and I'd suggest you both take a look at WP:TEND for some guidance. Religion and faith traditions are notoriously difficult areas in which to edit, and civility is even more important in this context than anwhere else on Wikipedia. That being said, and without having spent enough time to dig deep here, my first impression is that Cebactokpatop needs to take the previous advice more seriously, and really should not ever comment about the editor -- lose the "you" words is my advice, and don't threaten people or issue ultimatums. As difficult as it may be, you really need to be civil. Seminarist, are you making sure that you are hearing Cebactokpatop's concerns fully? Clearly Cebactokpatop is going too far, but can you do anything at all at your end to turn down the heat? Take my two-cents worth for what it's worth, and peace to both of you. WNDL42 (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that this has already gone to 3RR [19]. I also notice that you and Cebactokpatop are seeking mediation, which is a very good move. [20] I honestly think that at this point, mediation's the best route to try to solve this. I'd also repeat my previous suggestion, which is to find a mediator or another set of eyes to look at the article specifically through WP:RELIGION. Any religious topic has the potential to be contentious and has special considerations and it seems as though WP:RELIGION might have some experience there. Good luck. DanielEng (talk) 05:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Abusive behavior by JuJube

This editor has used abusive language towards me. Additionally, this editor continues to remove my edits to the Zangief page.

I have provided a valid reference for my edit, although this doesn't seem to concern this user.

Here's an example of what constitutes "talk" for this user.

You want to get blocked for the same crap you got blocked for before? Discuss it on the talk page, but it's pretty much certain you'll never get The Later Years on the page. JuJube (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the way to begin a discussion with another Wikipedia editor.

I admit to losing my patience with this guy when he first came, and even apologized for it (as a look at his user talk's history will testify), but another editor agreed that his addition was not a valid one, and Tdws got blocked for 3RR. And his first edit after coming off the unblock was to make the same change again. No discussion on Talk:Zangief, just continues the same behavior that got him blocked in the first place. I think this complaint is spurious. JuJube (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ronz & PeteStJohn

Ronz posted the following at my Talk, here; my response is appended. I'm posting it here on account of an ongoing feud; I claim it is uncivil for him to continue posting at my Talk page when I have asked him not to. I'm happy to debate him, but I believe he moves the debates to my talk to evade oversight by third parties. In this particular case, it's a good question that deserves an answer; I can't answer at my talk (because he is not welcome to post anything at my talk) but it would be inopportune to copy the question with my answer to the article, because it's from a noticeboard that wants to stay on-topic. (Of course if anyone objected to my language there, I would answer there; I just don't want to digress there myself.) In the indicated link, a complaint is made against ScienceApologist for uncivil conduct. SA is generally civil to me, but I discern a discrepancy in too much lattitude for uncivil conduct against "anti-science" editors, while the same cabal hypocritically whines when harsh language is directed to them. Just once I would like to see Ronz criticise SA for incivility, or SA criticise Ronz for evading specifics.Pete St.John (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consider refactoring

I don't think there is any reason for you to mention me here: [21] --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're an example of unbalanced treatment of editors. The paranormal researcher can be called a "moron" with impunity; but I can't call you that. I don't advocate calling editors "morons", particularly, but I'm very concerned with the what is to me an apparent bias. My complaint against you is just a documented example (not that the documentaion was efficatious). Pete St.John (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The previous wikiquette alert, which I had brought directly, is this diff; the only comment was that it was too complex, so I created an RFC referring to the WQA; which never got any comments at all, and timed out. Pete St.John (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason nobody responded to the RfC is because you didn't put it in the right place - you've got it tucked away in your userpage instead of on the proper page - WP:RfC. Follow the instructions there. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It was in the right place, after it timed out it was moved to my user space at my request (it had been deleted) so I could more conveniently keep reference to it. In fact, it got more than normal time, because I had bungled the creation procedure (it was in the right place, but not listed); I fixed that, and then got full time from after the correct listing. But no comment anyway. Pete St.John (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

From Ronz's talk just now:

notification

[this WQA] moved from my talk Pete St.John (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! Thrown into the briar patch! --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. This isn't about me winning the arguement. This is about ethics. Not wikipolicy, and not winning, but about ethics. Go ahead and bring widespread attention to my excesses. Just STOP POSTING ON MY TALK. Not because an admin will force you; far from it. No admin will force you. Because it's ethical. Pete St.John (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The first part I posted as obligatory notification. I miscontrued his response as dialogue, and responded to it. As I said, I don't wish to evade debate with Ronz (or anyone); he is particularly (and knowingly) unwelcome at my talk. He's welcome to ignore me at his, and I'd be happy to not post there. He hadn't asked me not to, and I'm not sure that's the reason he reverted my answer. Pete St.John (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)