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

William (Bill) Bean

Stuck

This user has become quite upset that I apparently failed to properly explain the placing or replacing of a NPOV tag. My apology has not worked to defuse the situation and now he's telling me: " I have more than enough evidence to assert that you are not acting in good faith.". I'm finding this whole thing very unpleasant and I really feel liked I am being attacked unfairly. OK, I've only been doing this for a few weeks and perhaps my edits have not been without error but does that mean I should be told that I am "failing miserably?" There are other examples but I think this gives the gist of it. Thank you, gentle Wikipedians, for your help. Dlabtot 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the diffs and see if I can help. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion on the talk page, Dlabtot wasn't even the one who added the tag in the first place. --Darkwind (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, I didn't think so, but he was asserting so strongly that I was, I was afraid to say so without taking the time to research it. Dlabtot 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A moment ago this comment was not here in this postion. When I researched the edits initially I found that Dlabtot had indeed thrown the first POV tag. I then went to his talk page and found numerous complaints that Dlabtot had thrown tags without explanation. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I doubt I'm wrong. Perhaps you should show the diff where my research failed. William (Bill) Bean 03:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this would be a good time to set the record straight. The edit where the POV tag was inserted: diff 01:03, 19 September 2007. My first edit to that article: diff 01:04, 19 September 2007. Yes, I think I did replace the tag later after I had seen it removed. I was under the impression that if there is a tag like that on an article, it's not supposed to be removed unless a consensus has been reached on the talk page to do so. Since no such consensus had (or has yet) emerged, I didn't think I needed to explain why I was replacing it. I may have also moved the tag to the specific part of the article that seemed problematic. I don't know whether or what descriptions I put on the edit summary line. I will endeavor to be more descriptive in the future. I must admit that I have taken offense at some of the posts you have directed towards me. Dlabtot 07:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a reminder of WP:NPA on Bean's talk page, and let him know that he's free to comment here if he feels that he's been somehow misrepresented. --B/font>figura ^(talk) 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note. This user has made numerous POV tags without any comment or stated reason. This is not a personal attack, but a statement of fact. It is also a violation of wikipedia policy. A quick review of back up my assertion. Please review Dlabtot discussion for verification. I now consider my placement here a personal attack. Fair warning. William (Bill) Bean 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Stating that someone is coming across as a troll or sock-puppet is not a personal attack. Accusing someone of the same (something I did not do) is. I will gladly accept your apology once you recognize the different. Finally, the person in question has made numerous POV entries outside wikipedia policy. He or she should stop. That's my point. William (Bill) Bean 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out above, I don't believe Dlabtot placed the tag that you're referring to. And even if he did, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet (if it isn't relevant to the current discussion) and stating that they "...are failing miserably..." (as in this diff: [1]) is possibly not the best response possible (see WP:CIVIL). And I don't believe that a listing here constitutes an attack, perhaps someone else can comment on that. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, for perspective, it might be helpful to take a look at a couple of other recent diffs, not directed at me: diff, diff. Dlabtot 03:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps for perspective the reader will note that the poster I'm responding to is making assumptions about my motives and or state of mind with no relevant evidence to back up those assumptions. Your turn. William (Bill) Bean 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not directly call Dlabtot a sock-puppet. Please review the posts again. I said the tag without explanation smacked of sock-puppetry. It's not the same thing whether you realize it or not. The presence of sock-puppets and trolls here at wikiedia is always relevant; always. Finally, if Dlabtot had not thrown the original tag he never denied it. Had he or she denied it I would have reviewed the diffs again. By the way this is a brilliant tactic for setting someone up. Your turn. William (Bill) Bean 04:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got a point. The other day, a guy said my Mom looked like, and acted like, a whore, but since he didn't actually *call* my mother a whore, I figured he was actually being civil, so I let it slide. Dlabtot 04:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't a debate. The point of WQA is to suggest that while you may (and I'm neither taking a position for or against) be correct in that Dlabtot tagged without posting posting on the talk pages, it is not appropriate to respond by calling someone a troll, or a sock-puppet, or a failure. If you feel someone is violating policy, then the right thing to do is notify them (politely). If they don't respond in a manner that's constructive, then follow dispute resolution, or try and establish a consensus on the talk page in question. Inflammatory language won't get anyone anywhere. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I'm not convinced that a back-and-forth argument is going to be terribly productive. May I suggest that we place this matter on hold so that other WQA responders may comment? --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Show me where I called Dlabtot a troll. I didn't. Instead of responding to criticism positively or appropriately he or she has made excuses, claimed ignorance, and "begged for forgiveness" without a hint of sincerity. I responded by pointing out why this started in the first place; a violation of wikipedia policy. The response was "please stop." This is manipulative and I know it. Now he or she has called upon you to intercede on his or her behalf rather than correcting the behavior that started this. Wikipedia is rife with trolls and sock-puppets. It hurts this place. Finally, inflammatory language is entirely up to me. If you don't like it that's your problem not mine. But I did get his or her attention. And I can guarantee you if he or she does the POV without showing cause again (and I'm not banned) this will seem mild. Enough is enough. I welcome input from others. If I feel I'm wrong I'll apologize, but don't hold your breath; it's unlikely. William (Bill) Bean 04:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you suggest I 'correct the behavior'? What could I do that would make you happy and end this? Dlabtot 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but inflammatory language is not up to you. There's an official civility policy, which specifically lists ill-considered accusations as an avoidable example of incivility, among other things. If someone doesn't like something you've said, and it can reasonably be taken as a violation of WP:CIVIL, then it is your problem. Also, veiled threats (if [X happens] this will seem mild) fall under incivility as well. I'd suggest previewing your posts first, or reading them out loud, before submitting, as it's entirely possible you don't realize how you might sound (the post above quite shocked me, especially on a page dealing with incivility as its primary purpose.) --Darkwind (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur -- the irony is somewhat staggering. As this doesn't look as though it will go anywhere in this forum, I've marked the complaint as stuck and fowarded it on to AN/I. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page. William (Bill) Bean 14:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC) *Regardless of whether your behavior fits the technical definition of a "personal attack", your comments of late have been incivil, both to Dlabtot and to Bfigura. Demanding that people follow procedure, or make apologies, is not a very good way of interacting with other editors, and not conductive to a pleasant atmosphere. I'd suggest that you refrain from such behavior in the future. >Radiant< 13:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note for clarity, the above comment was directed at William (Bill) Bean. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been consistently on point about my issue with the tags. I have repeated these points numerous times. They have been ignored. I have never made an issue about the reason for the tag, rather the lack of a reason. Worse, rather than take my issues at face value and address them, I have been accused of having other motives. Since I have not brought up any other issue with the tags the motives attributed to me are fabrications. I find that insulting. As I said I have been on point from the very beginning. From the talk page on the article in question.

"Considering that you have listed numerous reasons that you believe the section is not WP:NPOV, I hope you will now follow Wikipedia policies and refrain from removing the tag until a consensus to do so has been reached here on the talk page. Dlabtot 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)"

I have listed only one reason why I felt the POV tag was invalid; that being no reason was given for throwing the tag in the first place. Additionally I found the assumption on Dlabot's part both insulting and groundless. Again, my issue is with throwing tags without explanation. Further, Dlabtot is not the only poster who jumped to a conclusion as to my motives with no supporting evidence.

Please see [2]. My concern is now and has been for years the following; attempts by various parties to kill information, hacked articles, bias, and opinions presented as fact. Finally, I find the attempts at misdirection insulting as well. William (Bill) Bean 14:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I find it amusing that this section has been moved from Work in progress to stuck in less than twenty-four hours. Interesting no? William (Bill) Bean 14:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• In that thread you state that process wasn't followed in nominating the page for deletion, and start talking about vandalism - whereas it turns out that you were simply looking at the wrong day of the deletion logs. Seems to me that you're jumping to unwarranted conclusions. >Radiant< 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I stated that throwing a tag without following proper procedure "smacks of vandalism." Please be accurate in relating this situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjbean (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The AFiD tag was thrown on September 18th. For that reason I would expect to find the nomination on the page with that date. I did not. I did look at September 19th and did not find it there either. One poster claimed that the entry appeared on the September 19th page within seconds. I dispute that since I didn't find it. If the entire wikipedia community is not aware of a nomination for deletion then the process is flawed and any voting potentially skewed. I jumped to no conclusions. I responded to conditions I can plainly see with my own two eyes. Seems to me you are jumping to your own conclusions. William (Bill) Bean 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• According to the edit history, the article was nominated on the 19th, and indeed that's when the nomination page was made, and when said page was added to the logs. All at 04:06. So it would appear, from those logs, that you are simply mistaken. Being mistaken is really not a problem, but attacking others as a result is. >Radiant< 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw the nomination on the 18th. This may have to do with time zones though I thought wikipedia used a universal time stamp. William (Bill) Bean 16:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If this "dispute" has been moved to an alternate forum I have a right to know where that forum is. William (Bill) Bean 15:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you do. That's why I gave the link to AN/I above. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Since there was a call earlier for other WQA-regulars to comment, I'll say that User:Wjbean has been uncompromising, rude, and unproductive. He has even taken to seeking out other people who've been reported here, to inform them that he suspects a Cabal is out to get him. I'd say we're stuck, unless the user has a change of heart and decides to abide by policies like WP:CIVIL, instead of turning his nose at them, saying "Wikipedia has lost its way." --Cheeser1 01:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "a cabal is out to get him" and attributing that to me is a misrepresentation of my note to AussieLegend and I take strong exception to it. That was rude and uncalled for. If you are going to hold me to some standard of civility you should abide by it yourself.

I reviewed the statements he made that brought about an "incivility" charge against him here. Though I found them pointed I did not consider them uncivil. Certainly not remotely as "offensive" as my own. I am simply asking for his opinion on the attitudes around here. The title of the thread, like a newspaper headline, was designed to draw his attention to my question. I am finding that your (collective) attitudes are reminiscent of a lynch mob. I will not back down until I hear from someone who has elected authority. I will abide by whatever decision that authority makes up to and including leaving here permanently. Respectfully (well as much as I can muster) William (Bill) Bean 23:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that everyone who gets reported here seems to wind up hurling complaints at the accuser and/or the WQA volunteers? "Lynch mob"?? Are you serious?? That's probably a more absurd thing than a "cabal." Nobody on Wikipedia has "elected authority" - this is not a democracy. Certainly not on the WQA, where regular volunteers and other community members attempt to resolve conflicts. We abide by policies on Wikipedia, and when people step out of line, the community steps in to help resolve it. You have apparently violated some policies. My saying so does not meant that I'm out to get you (not to attack, lynch, or cabal-ify you), and reporting your behavior does not constitute a personal attack. If you don't want to be accountable for what you say, don't say it. You are soliciting help from other users who've been reported here, in order to mount resistance against cooperating, against abiding by policy. That's something definitely worth mentioning here. And I'm sorry, but lashing out at people is not how you settle these complaints against you. You should stop it. --Cheeser1 00:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1 First, I'm letting this drop as it's pointless. I'm simply responding to your question "why is it that everyone reported here seems to windup hurling complaints at the accuser and/or the EQA volunteers." My specific reason is that there is no process whereby the accused can mount a defense. Anyone placed here is automatically guilty. I cannot even use the word "verdict" since there's no formalized process to determine guilt. As a senior account creation date editor I find that highly irregular and extremely suspect. Since that does indeed appear to be the case I respectfully submit that the incivility flag is open to abuse. I am currently researching which WP: topic to report my concerns to. This is not the place though. My apologies for making this such a contentious issue. Finally, In my three plus (almost four) years here I have never once been cited for incivility for pointing out clear and suspicious violations of wikipolicy. I'm letting this drop here; I'll be continuing my investigation and reporting on it elsewhere. William (Bill) Bean 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not entirely sure 2005 qualifies you as a senior Wikipedian, and seniority or age is not a compelling reason to exempt you from WP:CIVIL. Every person who's been uncivil has a first time. Regardless of what evidence you may or may not have about your clean record or what you didn't do wrong, you can "mount a defense" by politely and civilly explaining your actions. Not by hurling attacks and accusations at everyone. That's just digging yourself a deeper incivility hole. While I appreciate your apology for making this a contentious issue, I wish you would recognize that that's exactly the point. --Cheeser1 14:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good luck and best wishes on your 'investigation'. Dlabtot 15:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm on a civility page? That wasn't really necessary. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right; I should have found a better way to point out that William (Bill) Bean was continuing to make veiled threats. Dlabtot 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1: I respectfully submit (no sarcasm intended) that you missed my point; that being that I see a clear potential for abuse when every wikipedian cited here is "guilty." I cited my time here to demonstrate that I'm not just some "rube" that fell off the turnip truck. It's 2004 not 2005. And I have cited many instances where misstatements have been made regarding my responses; they've been roundly ignored. A defense is useless if it's completely ignored. Thus my assertion that a cite here is an automatic guilty.

Bfigura: This is not the first time. Please see this. In fact my statements to Dlabtot did not take a more stern tone until s/he posted that. I've asked that Dlabtot's account be checked for possible past abuses. I do note that Dlabtot threw his/her first civility flag a mere two days after joining. That alone seems suspicious to me.

Perhaps we should take this up elsewhere. As was pointed out to me earlier this really doesn't belong here. Suggestions? William (Bill) Bean 16:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there are plenty of instances where complaints here are found to be lacking substance. This is not a witch-hunt, lynching, or cabal. It's a group of people who try to resolve civility disputes by taking complaints, evaluating the situation, and attempting to resolve it. We do not determine guilt, and more importantly, we do not assume that anyone has violated WP:CIVIL (or other policies) until we've seen the situation. I will not dig up examples, but there are plenty of complaints here that are almost immediately turned away as either not having any violations, or having violations that aren't WQA issues. Secondly, Wikipedians are allowed to make complaints at any time, be it two days or two years after joining. You can't defend yourself by saying you've been here for a few years, nor can you dismiss Dlabtot for being here for two days. Wikipedians are also allowed to create new accounts or use multiple accounts. It is not appropriate to assume that Dlabtot is new to Wikipedia, nor is it fair to dismiss his complaint because he might appear to be new. --Cheeser1 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge all of your points. William (Bill) Bean 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to interject with some reality to counter the untrue statement "In fact my statements to Dlabtot did not take a more stern tone until s/he posted that." 'That' being this diff 00:36, 20 September 2007, which actually took place, after, rather than prior to, William (Bill) Bean's vicious personal attack against me 00:22, 20 September 2007, which he still has not acknowledged as being uncivil. Dlabtot 19:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The only recognized authority on Wikipedia, in the sense you seem to be referring to (someone or someones who will make a binding decision), is the Arbitration Committee. If you feel that you need to open an ArbCom case to settle this matter, feel free; but there exists no "greater authority" of WQA who will come in and settle this. Wikipedia just doesn't generally work that way. ArbCom is generally the last resort of all disputes on Wikipedia, and I really don't think this has reached that point.

Also, please consider that if several people who are uninvolved in a matter say the same thing about your behavior regarding that matter, it just might be true. Referring to "lynch mobs" and "cabals" and so forth just smacks of paranoia, and reduces the impact of whatever reasoned argument you might be trying to make at the time. --Darkwind (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering this perhaps it is time to mark this as resolved, even if it has ended badly, it seems to have ended. Dlabtot 22:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wwefan980

Resolved

The user is blocked for two weeks. M.^(er) 05:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wwefan980 (talk · contribs) made this edit to the Sandbox. I chided him with this, which I thought was a civil reminder. He replied by blanking the comment and putting in this edit summary. I replied with a reminder to be civil, to which he replied with this. I thought my comments were proper, and would like a second opinion. Corvus cornix 23:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Your own comments were perfectly in-line with policy and Wikiquette; although your second comment on his talk page was a bit… terse. His replies were definitely out of line. As a normal part of the WQA process, I'd leave him a note reminding him of the proper application of WP:CIVIL, but you mentioned you primarily wanted an opinion on your own comments. Shall I ping him and see what happens? --Darkwind (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind. I don't want to escalate this, so I don't feel I should make any further comments to him. Corvus cornix 03:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a message and watchlisted his talk page. --Darkwind (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've commented a little, but this user seems to take anything as an attack. Asking him to be civil is uncivil, according to him, and thus justification for him to retaliate ("They were rude first"). He's also baiting people to incite edit warring (see here) and threatening to report those of us who are intervening (to whom, ourselves?). --Cheeser1 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT taken to an extreme. --Darkwind (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is also extraordinarily troubling. I think these two may need more than some constructive criticism from the WQA. This is out of line too. --Cheeser1 00:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He has also made similar uncivil accusations on my talk page, seen here. I agree with a 1 week block next time the user is uncivil. M.^(er) 00:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is too bad you aren't an admin Miranda and you are too power hungry to ever be one. I say you get blocked for threatening me by acting like you can block me when you can't. How's that? Wwefan980 21:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The user is blocked for two weeks. M.^(er) 05:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Guettarda

Work in progress; comments welcome

User also resorted to personal attacks and other hostilities (e.g. this edit about "temper tantrums") when problematic edits were pointed out. Jinxmchue 21:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NPA? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Jinxmchue 22:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The incivility looks mutual to me, in tone and content. For example, you called his editing "mindless." I only followed the link you gave, so if there is more I have missed it. Bsharvy 22:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That was not incivility. That was a description of edits that were obviously not done with any consideration as to what was being changed. Jinxmchue 22:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

And there you have it, folks. Everyone else is at fault but Jinxmchue. Odd nature 22:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Only I am at fault for anything regarding all this. Jinxmchue 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Jinxmchue, I think you may not understand what people consider a personal attack. ANYTHING that is a comment about the editor or a quality comment about the edit, when previous comments about editors are present can be understood to be a personal attack. The two WA listings here seem to be a lack of good faith on your part as much as on others, based on the links you've shown. keep to neutral descriptions of comments (i.e., removing unsourced material) when you feel the need to revert someone. Also, try and keep to the talk pages of the articles. It is much easier to stay focused on the article, rather than the editor. Also, if your blog shows a particular point of view be careful editing to strongly towards it, because people will review your edits closely. --Rocksanddirt 22:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I really do think that most rational Wikipedians would agree that accusing someone of having a "temper tantrum" is a personal attack. Jinxmchue 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, not when it's accurate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I see a lot of back-and-forth bickering right here in this alert that could be perceived as violations of WP:CIVIL. I suggest that you ALL read WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL, and take a few moments to examine your comments in that light. --Darkwind (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the last time this came up "Jinx" McHue insisted on replacing reliably sourced content with his own opinion. When other editors did not acquiesce, he complained about OWNership, and when no one reacted, he quit the project in a huff, attacking the project and fellow editors off-wiki. In other words, he threw a temper tantrum. That isn't an attack, it's a description of his behaviour. Now he's back and is up to the same nonsense, inserting weasel words like "purportedly" in front of the (sourced) information he tried to get expunged from the article back in June because he didn't believe the source (a report which quoted the leading scholar on the history of intelligent design). He has made his intentions abundantly clear. While one would have hoped that after his break he would have returned with a little more respect for our sourcing policies, his actions editing the article show that he still holds them in contempt. Per WP:SPADE, since he has resumed his pattern of editing, that I would be rather stupid to assume good faith on the part of an editing who has made it abundantly clear that he is not acting in good faith. Guettarda 03:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I didn't realize that I typed my own handle instead of "Guettarda" above. My bad. Jinxmchue 07:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say there appear to be several ongoing issues underlying this. Resolving the specific issues mentioned in Guettarda's post should probably be addressed in some other forum within the dispute resolution process. As to the complaint which generated this thread, describing another editor's behavior is a tricky proposition because it can be very easy to slip into a personal attack if done incorrectly or if too much emotion is involved. Here, I think Guettarda was simply being blunt in describing the relationship between opinion and sourced material as well as their opinion of Jinxmchue's behavior. Anynobody 08:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we waste the community's time protecting POV-warriors, and attack reasonable editors like Guettarda. Excellent choice. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because Guettarda (and Odd nature) aren't "POV-warriors" at all. Jinxmchue 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Falsely accusing me of being a "POV warrior" is a personal attack. You really want to engage in personal attacks while complaining about Wikiquette violations? Please remove your personal attacks. Guettarda 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's just SPADE, Guettarda. Jinxmchue 14:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda please don't use personal information not disclosed by an editor to address them. While I don't think you were violating WP:CIVIL in this complaint it doesn't mean I think you're incapable of wrongdoing either.

Wikipedia has a pretty strict Privacy policy and right to vanish, and while using this site we should follow them as best we can. Anynobody 06:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Shutterbug

Work in progress; comments welcome

A violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF against myself and Jimmy Wales right here:[3]--Fahrenheit451 01:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks fairly uncivil to me also, and it seems the common tactic for an editer to accuse others of lying/deceiving etc. simply because they disagree with them is decidedly unhelpful. While I bet Mr. Wales could care less about Shutterbug 's opinion of him it does seem that Shutterbug would benifit from a cool down. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This user is the former User:COFS, who has an open ArbCom case. Any comments about this user's current behavior need to be brought to that case page, not to WQA. --Darkwind (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Struck per my comment below. --Darkwind (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not true, see this:[4] That case is evidently closed. This is a Wikiquette matter.--Fahrenheit451 02:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't interpret that comment as meaning the case was not accepting further evidence, but since they do have a proposed decision under consideration, it probably is too late to add this matter. As for this alert, the user's behavior may be a violation of wikiquette, but I don't think WQA has the ability to make this particular user listen to reason when it comes to AGF/CIVIL/NPA, etc. However, if another WQA volunteer wants to take a shot, I won't complain. I've replaced the {{NWQA}} template on this alert with {{WQA in progress}} to facilitate interest. --Darkwind (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Granted, we don't have the ability to force anyone to do anything, much less listen to reason. But any reason for the doubts, or should I just drop a note on Shutterbug's talk? Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 07:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I witnessed an example of what Fahrenheit451 is talking about on L. Ron Hubbard. Shutterbug accused Fahrenheit451 of being a POV pusher. Fahrenheit451 disputed that description on the talk page. Long story, short it seems like good faith is lacking and some of Shutterbug's actions border on incivility. Anynobody 01:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Noroton

Resolved

 – Two good faith editors, settled. --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lately, this user and I have been discussing the an article for deletion. I've tried my hardest to state my position on the article without sounding offensive. I tried my best to do so, but this user persists to make rude comments towards me. I was hoping someone could step in and evaluate the situation. Thanks in advance! Icestorm815 02:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that both you and the user were entirely civil until the Noroton's last comment, when he did cross the line (so "persists to (sic) make rude comments towards me" is probably a little strong). I'll leave a note on his talk page. In the meantime, though, I'd suggest that if you see any WP:COI issues with Noroton's contributions (and for whatever it's worth, I don't), WP:COIN would be a better place to discuss them than an individual AFD. I'd suggest that both of you let the particular thread drop, since you've both stopped talking about the deletion of the article, and are instead arguing over Wikipedia policies that are only tangentially related. Sarcasticidealist 02:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I concur here. Also, I personally didn't see any hints of COI. (COI would apply is he worked at the school, not if he had written an essay to suggest that he thought schools were notable). Just let the AfD handle itself. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation: just stop. You've both !voted, you're not going to change each others' minds. And while I've known Noroton to have some--ahem--particularly strong opinions, I've never known him to have an agenda other than wanting to improving articles. Cmprince 03:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. Unfortunately, this was my first time citing Wikipedia policy in a dispute, so I'm not quite familar with the specifications. I'll be sure to learn from this experience and will avoid making the mistakes I made again. Once again thank you for all your help. Icestorm815 03:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with basically what's been said. AfDs should really not include huge drawn out debates between two people. It appears that perhaps he is wrong incorrect, but honestly, if you've said what you have to say, then stop. The closing admin will review what you've said (and the other votes) and draw the appropriate conclusions. You don't have to convince him, you just have to make your case and wait for the AfD to close. --Cheeser1 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I would disagree that there was no incivility before I finally got a little sarcastic. Accusing me of COI could be the result of a mistake, so the first time Icestorm815 did it, I politely referred him to WP:COI and suggested that he show me how comments on my userspace could possibly be a violation. Then he repeated the allegation, again without any reasoning that linked anything I'd done with WP:COI. That's something more than just being mistaken. There's even a specific link to a spot on the WP:CIVIL page for just that kind of thing: WP:ICA. Wasn't that action by Icestorm815 uncivil? I think it's a bit odd that this editor can repeatedly bring up unfounded accusations of policy violations ("ill-considered complaint[s]" as WP:ICA puts it), even after I've asked him to back them up, and then only my sarcastic reaction is called a little uncivil. i don't understand why there's no note on his talk page asking him to be civil. Please advise. And, ah, thanks Cmprince, although in this particular case, I don't think my opinions were particularly strong.Noroton 03:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you've made a pretty strong case that there was a technical violation of WP:CIVIL by Icestorm815. That said, he was arguing policy rather than personalities, was new at arguing policy, and pretty obviously believed in good faith that you were in violation of WP:COI. WP:CIVIL has to be interpreted in context, and I think context in this case is pretty kind to Icestorm815.

As for posting a civility warning on his talk page, I certainly could go over there and write "Hi Icestorm815 - you've violated WP:CIVIL by making unfounded (albeit in good faith) accusations of COI against another user. Please don't do it again." Instead, I responded to his alert (in part) by advising him that his COI allegations were ill-founded.

In any event, you're obviously two good-faith editors, and I don't think any further parsing of blame for this particular incident would be productive. Icestorm815, please be more careful in the future about making this kind of accusation, and thank you for apologizing to Noroton. Noroton, in the future please don't respond to incivility of any kind (whether good faith or otherwise) by becoming uncivil yourself.

Now, go forth and improve the encyclopedia. That's obviously both of your primary purposes in being here. Sarcasticidealist 04:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I was wrong to finally respond to Icestorm815 with sarcasm after repeated provocations. Icestorm815 turned that deletion thread away from issues and toward accusations against me after exploring my user space and finding some things he somehow thought were somehow policy violations. I take that kind of focusing on personality rather than issues as a serious mistake on his part and one that causes me concern. He's told me he's dropping it, however, so as far as I'm concerned, this is over. Noroton 04:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me like a gross misunderstanding of WP:COI (on his part). I'd say that, in general, don't bother responding to provocations on AfD pages. If a user makes an absurd, irrelevant, or invalid point (especially one that reflects non-comprehension of policy), the closing admin will discount that user's opinion appropriately. Responding unnecessarily starts a sort of back-and-forth thing that isn't very helpful. --Cheeser1 05:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hal Cross

Resolved

 – It appears that the etiquette problems have subsided, at least for now. The editors involved have begun more discussion on this matter, and I believe the WQA-related disputes have been resolved. I may be wrong, in which case this complaint can of course be reopened. --Cheeser1 02:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

I'd appreciate an outside opinion on the conduct of User:Hal Cross. He's been editing at American Family Association since July, and his approach to the community leave an awful lot to be desired. He seems to have ownership issues with the page. He is uncivil -accusing other editors of being vandals, engaging in information suppression, violating policy, etc etc. He engages in tremendously long circular discussions, usually ignoring the responses he gets to his points, and the result has been that just about every over contributor to that page has drifted away. If you want the full history then have a look at Talk:American Family Association/Archive 2 and Talk:American Family Association/Archive 3, but be warned - they're very long.

Recent examples (a small selection from a long, long list):

• [5] - WP:CIVIL (calling other editors vandals and POV pushers), poor interpretation of WP:NPOV
• [6] - Accusation of creating a POV fork. What actually happened is that a long list in the main article was split out into a sub-article, so nothing was removed.
• [7] - Accusation of information suppression, WP:OWN.
• [8] - Arguing in circles, ignoring previous points, protestations of innocence.
• [9] - "Please watch carefully and learn from me and other concerned Wikipedia editors" - I'm not sure if this breaks any policy, but it's not a particularly useful way to talk about a content dispute.

After the third archiving I essentially gave up responding to the same points made over, and over, and over again, so if you want to read my specific responses to his arguments then you'll need to have a look at Archive 3 - but this isn't about the content dispute. It's about the user who is obstructing the discussion so much that he's making consensus almost impossible to achieve or follow. If you want a contrasting example, see here: User talk:Citadel18080/AFA Discussion with Orpheus. Same article, same content dispute, but a resolution in two screens of text that pleased two editors who were opposed at the start. The difference is that Hal Cross wasn't involved.

Also see this AN/I that he filed [10], which was roundly ignored by administrators, but is a good example of his vexatious approach to editing.

Orpheus 09:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Counter-Complaint

Hello all. I am a fairly new editor here, so I would also like some advice on using Wikiquette correctly to handle this long standing situation on the AFA article. I have already been getting some feedback from other editors and admins, and Orpheus has been hassling me about it on my talkpage [11].

I feel its unhelpful to simply point you to archives, so here are some diffs. Feel free to check them to see if they are representative:

• Long term context: Category dispute. Orpheus and CMMK want the homophobia category to be applied to the AFA article because anti-AFA people say that the AFA is anti-gay. I (and other editors) do not want the category because it circumvents NPOV policy, is used accusatively, and it adds nothing to reader’s understanding of homophobia. To my mind adding pop singers to a Michael Jackson article is useful, but homophobia serves no use as a mere accusation towards AFA. Lists have always been encouraged as an alternative[12].

• The past month or two: I have been working to enrich the article with reliably sourced views from the AFA and those with views about the AFA. E.g. [13] [14] That diff was the result of me adding information on beliefs. CMMK and Orpheus objected and removed the information, and I made subsequent improvements and additions. Orpheus both here and above ignores the fact that I have dealt with all objections and Orpheus still makes no effort to discuss the specific points to and adjustments of the edit. [15].

• After I make the adjustments, I restore the new information and it gets deleted. I make civil discussion for why it is deleted. No discussion is made in return for my discussion or questions. Discussion is often dismissed or is highly unconstructive [16][17][18][19][20][21] and some editors are often unhelpful to other editors [22].

• Myself and other editors are getting tag-teamed by Orpheus and CMMK [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. As far as I know that’s a classic example of WP:OWN. Again, it often happens within the hour and without any discussion, or Orpheus makes reference to discussion that happened a long time ago, and ignores multiple changes that have been made [30]. Orpheus refers to a non-existent consensus [31].

• Those reliably sourced additions tend to get deleted within the hour without any discussion [32]. Unreliable negative information gets added, and any positive information, with more reliable sourcing, gets deleted [33]

• Orpheus and CMMK make a lot of edits without any discussion at all, and they fail to reply to civil discussion [34] [35][36][37] despite there being a lot of activity over that information on the article.

• Any one sided comments or headings I will try to make balanced or neutral [38]. From my beginners understanding of Wikipedia policies and recommendations, what Orpheus and CMMK seem to be doing is pushing a particular POV by constantly disallowing relevant views, by POV forking which removes information about why the AFA boycotts certain companies, and via information suppression [39].

• To my knowledge I have done nothing to WP:OWN the article. I have requested outside views on the subject from a variety of editor viewpoints [40][41], and been constructive in my communications with other editors and admin [42][43].

I know it’s a controversial subject that can involve high emotions. For example, CMMK has made discussion rather personal on several occasions [44][45] referring to editors as liars and information as “lies”. I understand that this is a controversial article and that its important not to get personal. To my knowledge I have never removed reliable sourced criticism of the AFA, yet Orpheus and CMMK have constantly removed any information that shows the AFA as having genuine cares and concerns about society [46][47]. I have discussed objectionable subjects as neutrally as I can with reference to sources. If you can offer me any way to adhere more closely to Wikiquette, especially in a way that constructively improves the article, I am very much open to your suggestions. Hal Cross 12:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, please read WP:SELFPUB Dlabtot 15:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I'll be the first to comment and hopefully I'll help. First, I'd like to say that the bulk of this is more of a content dispute. It's hard to evaluate this situation without taking into consideration the content dispute at hand. I'll step past that for a moment. I don't think there's a whole lot of Etiquette problems here so much as misunderstanding particular rules and/or disagreeing about content. I do believe User:Hal Cross is making some false accusations, but it would appear that these are being made genuinely (not uncivilly). He may honestly believe you are trying to create a POV fork, and saying so doesn't amount to breaching WP:CIVIL or anything - it's not like he called you stupid or made other sorts of personal comments.

• Content - On the other hand, I would like to discuss the content dispute, and the various policies that are being cited. First of all, most anti-gay groups assert that they are not homophobic. Some go so far as to say that they are the only ones who are really helping LGBT people, by turning them to the right path. This does not mean that it's true. LGBT people don't necessarily have a cohesive set of goals or an agenda, but groups and individuals have particular desires - to marry, to be treated as equals, to have their sexuality not scrutinized so much. Whatever the case, opposing those goals (in the name of "the American family" or what have you) would appear to be anti-gay prima facie. This is also almost certainly verifiable, it is at least mentioned, I'm sure, in gay-interest magazines. So that's what I see going on in the content dispute - giving the organization's opinion of itself more weight than the reality of its actions and the views of other groups/individuals.
• The complaint - As for the particular complaints against Hal Cross, I believe he may have been acting contrary to policy, but perhaps not in an uncivil way. This is in the sense that none of the diffs you've provided are particularly hostile or rude. On the other hand, Wikiquette also applies to the sum-total of one's actions. It does appear that Hal Cross is being fairly stubborn, and unyielding in his (mis)interpretation of things like WP:NPOV. There is also a complaint that he has been reverting in other people's userspace (see his talk page). I believe that requires a bit of intervention - since he's already here, I'll forgo commenting elsewhere, but would ask that he think things over.
• The counter complaint - To speak specifically, there are a few points. (1) I don't see any POV fork issues at all. These accusations seem totally unfounded, and may serve to make the discussion hostile. (2) Hal Cross consistently reverts people's reverts of his bold edits. This is troubling - it creates an atmosphere of edit warring, and does not seem to reflect well on Hal Cross's willingness to work towards consensus. Hal - you cannot remove content without consensus. If people object, you have to establish a consensus (meaning everybody needs to agree) before you remove it again. (3) The only accusations of incivility I see are things like "he called me a liar." However, this came after what appears to be a gross misrepresentation of policy to support a particular side in this argument. That could easily be considered lying, and I don't think saying so is out-of-line. Orpheus has made efforts to engage you in discussion without edit warring, but the revert craziness seems to go on. Other editors have also asked that this edit warring stop, but to no avail. There was also no "hassling" - Hal Cross (apparently falsely) said that he had been seeking outside views on his editing - Orpheus obviously would have liked to see those views - this does not constitute an attack, hassling, or an invasion of privacy. When it became clear that Hal Cross was either being deceptive, or not forthcoming with the result(s) of any review(s), Orpheus came here to get actual outside opinions, which Hal Cross may have mistaken as an attack. (Again, all this is on Hal Cross's talk page).

The bottom line - the bottom line is that neutrality is hard to maintain. It makes things contentious. It's a hotly-contested content dispute. However, criticism does belong in the article, and categories should reflect that. The fact that the AFA continually opposes gay activism and LGBT people's goals is pretty well documented. Furthermore, this article is not a safe haven for the AFA's idea of itself to flourish. We should be doing our best not to use the AFA's website as as source of information, or at least not considering it a source of unbiased or complete information about itself. The AFA wouldn't be considered a reliable source anywhere outside of this article, and its contributions to this article should be kept in perspective. I think Hall Cross fails to see this, and fails to understand several other important policies. The heated atmosphere is due in no small part to his repeatedly reverting reversions of his bold edits, and his misunderstandings of things like POV forking. His counter-complaints appear to be more or less without merit. I'm not sure if this is incivility or a breach of etiquette, but Hal Cross should accept reversion of his bold edits from now on, and work to form consensus. This will require him to familiarize himself with what is and is not reliable sourcing, what is and is not POV forking, and how to construct a balanced article. --Cheeser1 13:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and considered reply Cheeser1. I agree on not using the AFA article as a source of unbiased or complete information about itself. To my knowledge, I never have, and have always sought other sources on their opinions. Should be kept in perspective: Yes completely. I am working on context all the time. If you can offer ways for me to add more reliable context to the article I will be grateful.

Concerning POV forking. I agree. I am uncertain of how to proceed and would like your advice on the issue that AFA boycott certain companies for certain reasons. How do you suggest that I can present those AFA views neutrally in the article without them being removed to other articles?

The information I have been referring to on reliable information is [48] and [49]. The finer points of those articles are not presented so I would appreciate your input on how to apply these articles in this situation. I have used AFA related articles and web pages, in combination with other information I have obtained from Proquest databases. To my knowledge, that satisfies the crux of those requirements in the articles, though I would like to hear more about your recommendations. The article states “Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.” That is what I have presented and Orpheus and CMMK have gone against those articles I believe. They have used the argument that these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, which goes against the recommendations. I know you are only suggesting caution, though they are acting on total removal of views. In line with your suggestion I would like to know how best to apply caution.

Forming consensus has been hard. Its made harder due to some editors seeming to refuse discussion, or offering dismissive comments and unconstructive suggestions. How do I handle that constructively according to your view of this situation? Regards Hal Cross 14:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As I stated, I believe that you are refusing discussion as much as (or more than) the other editors, especially by reverting reverts (probably the best way to avoid working towards consensus). Dismissive comments may be warranted when certain contributions merit dismissing. Removing boldly added content is not necessarily nonconstructive. Listing the beliefs of this organization in great detail would not necessarily be encyclopedic, nor would doing so by simply repeating what is found on their website. Listing the boycotts, for example, would be the same as listing (for example) every single protest lead or sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition, instead of simply reporting the notable or encyclopedic content. There is a clear statement of the group's beliefs in the lead of the article - concise and in the group's own words. To continue to elaborate (ad nauseam) every single viewpoint or boycott of the group would make this into a pulpit, instead of an article. I realize you aren't trying to include every detail, but much of the details of their views would be considered more or less irrelevant - we need not make this article a list of all the things the AFA supports, opposes, boycotts, etc. Furthermore, the POV of the group may be important to consider, but it should not unduly shape the tone/content of the article (especially in the criticisms section). For example, "first amendment rights" is not the same as homophobia or anti-gay activism. Sure, you could call it that (and that may be what the AFA calls it), but that's sugarcoating/dodging the issue. Calling it anti-gay/homophobic is not non-neutral. The group has stated its opposition to LGBT activism and LGBT rights, and there are reliable third party coverage to document these views and actions. These sources should be used wherever possible, instead of citing the AFA. These content considerations should be discussed on the article's talk page - however, there seems to be difficulty based on your edit-warring and your (mis)use of other policies (as in your counter-complaint) to distract the issue (perhaps unintentionally) and keep consensus from forming based on the policies in question. --Cheeser1 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Cheeser. If you look at the deletions more closely, Orpheus and CMMK are not actually removing all views that are solely supported by the AFA. They are inconsistent in that matter. They are leaving plenty in. [50] but they are removing AFA supported views that put the AFA in a considerate or concerned light. It seems that it is ok for CMMK and Orpheus to have negative information supported by AFA sources, and any positive information is deleted. Hal Cross 16:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, PS, to my knowledge, since I have been here I have not once removed criticism of the AFA from the article. And I reiterate I believe it is blindingly obvious that Orpheus and CMMK have consistently and repeatedly removed NPOV compliant information that sheds a positive light on the AFA. If anyone can give me your views and suggestions on this main point I will be grateful. Hal Cross 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not picked through the entire history, the diffs you provide do not seem to demonstrate anyone acting without neutrality. Much of what they seem to remove is simply a positive statement of the group's opinion by the group itself. Such material is arguably "spin," and shouldn't be introduced into the article. --Cheeser1 14:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective Cheeser1. I am not a member of the AFA, loved members of my family are homosexual and well accepted, I am not a practicing Christian, Muslim, or any other type of Abrahamic religious follower, and I don't claim to be neutral at all. There are outside opinions from other sources that would probably never be called spin. If you can see your way to at least considering that information we will be getting some way towards resolution. Oh, by the way, if I am allowed to present information that you consider spin, will I be ok to present it as spin by attributing you as a source? Hal Cross 14:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to specifics. There is an AFA view that Yahoo provides pedophiles with child pornography. Now that may be considered spin against the homosexual agenda. Basically the AFA believes that the homosexual agenda is full of people such as NAMBLA who like obscenity and their activities will lead to the encouragement of pedophilia. The view is also reported by PR Newswire according to Proquest databases [51] and removed by Orpheus only a couple of hours later without discussion [52]. Now do I censor the AFA as it is "spin"? Do I accept it because I am following WP on reliable sourcing? Hal Cross 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, I accidentally replied above in the wrong section. Please read WP:SELFPUB. The American Family Association should not really include any text that is based on their own website. This really is a content dispute, not an etiquette problem - none of the diffs you've provided really show any violations of WP:CIVIL that I saw. I'd suggest starting over on the American Family Association article, with a version based only on independent sources. Dlabtot 15:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dlabtot. Again I am very much in need of guidance here. Which of these points specifically applies?:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Hal Cross 16:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I believe I've addressed this below. Namely, an individual action alert is not relevant to the AFA's notability (unless there are other sources that address the alert in a non-trivial way). Since it is an accusation against Yahoo, it could also be seen as contentious and involving a claim about a third party.

In other words, if the Random Organization filed a complaint that FooBar Corp. was giving porn to minors, there's no need to include it here unless the accusation has had reliable, independent coverage. (Which doesn't seem to be the case here, as discussed below). --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll sort it outHal Cross 16:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer "Which of these points specifically applies?" - all of them. What the policy is stating is that unless self published material fits that very long and exacting list of requirements, it should not be included in an article about the entity that did the self publishing. Dlabtot 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dlabtot, I was in the process of applying that long and exact list of requirements and was told off for it [53]. There is other more relevant and encyclopedic information to add to that section. Which is why I did not remove the heading. Work in progress. Hal Cross 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitratry Section Break

Hi there. If I can chime in: I agree with you that such content shouldn't be removed without comment as it isn't blatantly violating WP:RS. However, I'm not convinced that Wikipedia should report an action alert from the AFA unless it's picked up mainstream coverage (ie, USAToday commenting on the AFA Boycott). Otherwise it does come across as spin-y. (Since Wikipedia isn't for PR, we probably should have more than a press release, given that there are a relatively large number of action alerts issued). Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A minor point - it wasn't without comment, it was with this comment. Otherwise, I agree with your AU$0.04. Orpheus 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the diff. That certainly is a reasonable justification. For next time though, if there was a reference to the talk page comments in the edit summary, perhaps Hal wouldn't have made unfounded accusations. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bfigura. I agree and have been consistently working to provide whatever mainstream coverage I can get hold of. Where it is not supplied, it is consistent with the context of the secion of the article in question. I am not interested in spin. My main concern is to make sure the actual views of the AFA are not suppressed. From what has happened over the past few months, it seems that suppression is utterly rampant. It will be really easy to obtain secondary sources and in that case all relevant views will be presented again. There are a lot that I have not used because I believed that facts will be more accurate from the horses' mouth. Your solutions seem to be coming together pretty well in my mind. Its just a matter of presenting the other sources I originally left out. Cheers Hal Cross 16:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can show how a particular self-published citation meets all the requirements of WP:SELFPUB, it should not be included, even if it means that the 'actual views of the AFA' are therefore are not promoted in the article. Putting something in the article simply to insure that the AFA's view is presented seems to violate the spirit and the letter of the policy. Dlabtot 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine Dlabtot. The key views of the AFA are described by independent reliable sources so those views can be presented despite the efforts of Orpheus and CMMK towards one-sidely removing them. WP policies will be satisfied. In fact the views will most likely be clearer, more fair, and more compelling this way. Cheers Hal Cross 18:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

But you've been presenting them verbatim or paraphrased from the AFA website. That's the problem. Sourcing is key, and you cannot simply parrot the AFA. Orpheus and CMMK were reverting your changes because you've been adding material that is improperly sourced (and from a nonNPOV source to boot). --Cheeser1 18:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe I know the problem by now. Many of Orpheus' and CMMK's deletions were of reliable sources other than the AFA website and publications. There are many reliable sources where those came from. I'll make sure that AFA views will be supported using independent reliable sources. I have no problem at all with Orpheus and CMMK removing unreliable sources. Its the removal of reliably sourced AFA views that I believe will be the more pressing problem on the AFA article long term. Hal Cross 20:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Outdent. Thanks again for your input folks. I found the advice conflicting and contradictory in a fairly humorous way, and I am making sense of it as best I can. The only things I would actually disagree upon is the assertion that I have not communicated any more than the other two editors, as I believe I have made more room for discussion than any other editor I have seen. I fully agree with suggestions on how to move forward though. Orpheus and CMMK seem to be back into discussion at least to some extent now you have applied a bit of scrutiny, and I am grateful for that as I feel it at least temporarily stops what I see as month upon month of tag teaming. I would appreciate any follow ups from any of you. On overall reflection, I think you have been pretty fair considering the circumstances. Regards Hal Cross 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Getaway

Work in progress; comments welcome

I have noticed a pattern of incivility from this editor against a number of users. I first encountered him when I gave him a warning for telling another editor “That's so liberal jam your opinion down their throats Wikipeidan of you” [54]. He responded with multiple tirades telling me I was “dead damn wrong” and “you are wrong and that is your problem, not mine.”[55] [56]. An admin asked him to tone down the hostility a little. Since that time, others have come into conflict with him, and he has responded in the same manner. After being warned about cut-and-paste edits, he responded with “you came along with your silly, incorrect comments and warnings… You should be ashamed of yourself.” [57]. More recently he has responded to criticism with comments like this: “I never stated that you were ‘deliberately falsifying sources.’ Making that charge against me without having anything to back it really must be embarassing for you.” [58]. I think he should be warned about his incivility.--Dcooper 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I did not state that Seicer was falsifying sources. That is flat out lie.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I will agree with the pattern of incivility. He has been blocked many times in the past for this and for 3RR violations. Here are some diffs --

* [59] The user does not agree to stop willingly insert comments into the middle of replies, which violates WP:TALK. See [60] [61]. His comments also err close to wiki stalking.

* "I will respond however I want to respond. It is not up to you to decide."

* "I will be following my own decision making process and your advice or lack there of will not be concerned or even remotely referred to."

* [62] Revert war on a smaller scale. He claims that the "burden is on you" whenever an editor does a change that upsets his method of editing.

* [63] Accuses other editors of harassment.

* He constantly accuses others of POV violations, such as at Sean Hannity, and when his edits are challenged, he asks for "burden of proof."

* ^ Same at Robert Byrd, where he reverted an edit, calling Slate an op-ed piece and claiming that I falsified a source. [64] I added portions of the article here.

* Similar editing style to WYLAH. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No. This is not true. I do not state "burden is on you" whenever an editor does a change, that comment is simply not true. And, yes, when an editor is going against concensus then the burden is on them. That is fact and nothing to be ashamed of or warned about.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Not true.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will be. Nothing wrong with that.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is harassment when an editor comes to my talk page and write inappropriate comments such as this one: So, essentially you will be wikistalking my edits and violating WP:TALK in the future? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, when an editor does make a comment such as the one that I have quoted Seicer to have made on my talk page, I take that as a hostile, inappropriate and threatening comment and I WILL refuse to engage in anymore conversation with the threatening editor. This forum and other forums and rules will not be enough to make me interact with that editor, which of course in this case is Seicer. As far as I am concerned from this point forward this forum and anything else concerning this topic is merely a forum to discuss how we deal with nasty, threatening comments such as Seicer's that you can review here: Go down the section named In the future.... And once again, I would ask Seicer stop harassing me. I will not apologize for asking Seicer to stop harassing me. It is inappropriate for others to attempt to stop me from asking Seicer to stop harassing me. The harassment must stop.--Getaway 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not know what this is in reference to.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I never, ever stated that Seicer falsified a source. That is just a flat out lie.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't know who this person is. But I would encourage any of the admins who have access to the appropriate tools to check the edits and you will see that it is not me. I've learned that you have to nip these types of false charges in the bud very quickly or they just grow and grow.--Getaway 20:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of stuff to comment on here, but I will just point out, that the statement: "I will be following my own decision making process and your advice or lack there of will not be concerned or even remotely referred to." is not at all in the spirit of consensus. Dlabtot 20:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lots of stuff to comment concerning your comment, but when an editor comes to my talk page and makes the comments that Seicer did then the discussion should be about how we stop Seicer from harassing other editors. Also, Seicer's comments do not exhibit the charms of someone who really cares about consensus, of which you claim to be concerned.--Getaway 20:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There was general consensus to add the bit at Robert Byrd regarding his renouncing of former racial ties. Most of the discussions against it were in regard to the Slate source, where some were comparing Slate to an "op-ed" piece, and disregarding the Charlotte Observer article as being "inferior" to a CNN article. (my initial restoration); (I restored an accidentally removed cite just above); [65]; even Getaway (talk · contribs) agrees.

Furthermore, he attempted the same tactic at Strom Thurmond, where there was general consensus. (Getaway replaced a Slate source (same one used at Robert Byrd) with one that was nothing about); [66] [67]

Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello all - this is quite the situation. Before I begin, I want to make clear that I'm dealing only with Wikiquette issues. This means that I'm not dealing with accusations of sockpuppetry (which should be reported to WP:SSP). I'm also not dealing with the question of whether User:Getaway accused User:Seicer of falsifying a source; until I see a diff in which Getaway makes such an accusation, I'm assuming that no such accusation exists.

All of that said, I think there are a lot of Wikiquette breaches going on, here. On User:Getaway's side, some of the diffs provided are certainly violations of WP:CIVIL. Moreover, you seem extremely unwilling to assume good faith on the part of people with whom you are in dispute - you are quick to accuse them of deliberately misrepresenting you (instead of assuming that they honestly misread what you wrote), abusing Wikipedia to further their own political opinions (instead of believing that they're genuinely trying to be NPOV), of being too lazy to provide sources (instead of considering that they might not consider a source to be necessary, or some other good faith explanation), etc. Also, your writing style, whether intentionally or otherwise, gives the impression that you are positively foaming at the mouth with rage as you write. I think that it would be useful to focus on short, succinct posts (like you've been making on this page) rather than long drawn out ones. I also echo User:Dlabtot's comments about consensus. Finally, WP:TALK (a guideline) does discourage using responses from breaking up the posts to which they are responding, and you seem to do this rather often; please try to respond to entire posts at once rather than breaking them up.

There is some blame on User:Seicer, too - notably, I don't think what he wrote on your talk page could reasonably be summarized as "So, essentially you will be wikistalking my edits and violating WP:TALK in the future?". That appears to have been an unecessarily inflammatory response.

I think given the bad shape your wikirelationship is in, I'm going to see how you respond to my comments before I start talking about possible solutions. As a first step, you each need to take responsibility for how you've aggravated the situation, and I want to see if you're both willing. Sarcasticidealist 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the citation for Gateway assuming that I was falsifying a source:

1. Stating that the article I cited does not exist.

2. Asserts that the 'burden' is on me to provide a citation.

I explained to him on his talk page that not every citation requires a URL or an online source. Given that there are thousands of citations on Wikipedia that are from books, newspapers, and etc. that are off-line, it would be unbearably difficult, if not impossible, to give summaries or snippets (the latter which I provided at talk:Robert Byrd although it is a copyright-vio) of every citation.

Per the wikistalking comment, it is in regard to this comment: [68]

"I also noticed that your edits seem to protect Byrd and condemn Thurmond. Since they are both avowed racists, you really should think about why you feel the need to provide aid and comfort to an old racist like Byrd. And, yes, you did. You're argument is basically, "See, Byrd isn't as bad as Thurmond!!!" Which is not only wrong, but strange. I'm going to respond to that silliness with a response that goes to your argumentative level, "At least, Thurmond was never in the KKK!!!" Look forward to more of your edits on the Robert "KKK" Byrd article."

I took note on the last sentence, which may indicate he will be monitoring my edits at Robert Byrd and possibly elsewhere for the explicit purpose of reverting them based on my prior edits. Hope this helps, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with the second issue first, I don't think it's fair to infer an intent to wikistalk from his comments - he said he was looking forward to more of your edits in one specific article. All this means is that he's going to monitor the Byrd article for your edits, and presumably for others' as well. It *could* be interpreting as a threat to wikistalk, but I think doing so is precluded by WP:AGF.

The second issue is a little more complex. His edit summary said that the article "didn't exist", which intially appears to be an accusation of falsifying a source. However, if you look at the reference you put in with regards to the Charlotte article, it included a link to the slate article. What Getaway could well have meant is that the Charlotte article didn't exist at the end of the link that was supposed to lead to it. If that's what he meant, he certainly should have been clearer. But this illustrates the importance of WP:AGF: in cases where an editor could have meant different things by his/her words, we should always assume that his meaning was the most innocent of the available reasonable explanations.

This is not to say that Getaway has been behaving perfectly reasonably, and that you stepped in and unfairly ascribed a whole bunch of nefarious motivations to him/her. I think that your interpretation was quite reasonable. However, so was the interpretation I offered above, and I think that we should function on the assumption that it's correct (especially since he/she is adament that she/he never accused you of source falsification) until we see a compelling reason not to.

Thank you for your response. Hopefully User:Getaway will respond as well, and we can start working towards resolving this. Sarcasticidealist 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He initially removed the Slate citation, calling it an opinion reference, and the statement as a whole due to that. There was debate regarding the Slate source, with the users in question calling the source an "op-ed" piece. The Slate citation was restored and the source for the Slate article was the Charlotte Observer, where they conducted an interview with Strom Thurmond. The Charlotte Observer citation was not to reference the comment regarding Robert Byrd renouncing racism, but to provide verifiability to the Slate article.

At Strom Thurmond, the Charlotte Observer citation, in conjunction with the Slate article, provides a solid citation for the comment regarding Strom Thurmond not renouncing racism.

Kind of confusing. Let me know if you need additional clarifications. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with the use of the Charlotte Observer as a reference, even if it's unavailable online. The problem was that the Charlotte Observer footnote (not the Slate footnote) included a link to the Slate article. Users, such as Getaway, could have clicked on that link, expecting to be led to a Charlotte Observer article, and instead finding themselves as Slate. This could easily cause somebody to conclude that this was a faulty reference. Sarcasticidealist 23:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that was my mistake (looking at my original inclusion). But that could have been handled far better and in a much more civil manner, IMO. The citation could have just been edited, since the citation immediately below it contains the exact same URL (I was copy/pasting the template). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it could have been handled more civilly, and I hope that we can get to that once User:Getaway offers a response to my original comments. I just wanted to resolve the question of whether User:Getaway had accused you of falsifying a source. I think that it's fair to assume that he/she said something that was not intended as such an accusation, and that you (not unreasonably) took it to be such an accusation. On that specific question, I think there was a blameless misunderstanding, and hopefully we can stop dealing with that in favour of the various other issues raised by this alert (of which there are, sadly, a great many). Sarcasticidealist 23:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I am the editor that User:Dcooper is referring to as the target of User:Getaway's "...jam your opinion..." comment above. I would suggest that readers have a look at some of Getaway's edit summary commentary on the Sean Hannity article and discussion pages from around the end of August. In particular, this diff, and this diff are quite illuminating. Please keep in mind that I was (and still am) a new editor, and that these are Getaway's responses to my attempts to achieve consensus. There are limits to WP:AGF ("This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary). I assert that Getaway has demonstrated ample evidence of lack of good faith, as well as frequent bouts of incivility. Furthermore, I believe that Getaway has a prior, abandoned account User:Keetoowah in which he demonstrated much the same behavior. The existence of prior warnings (including warnings against legal threats and being placed on personal attack parole) under this username should be taken into account in determining whether User:Getaway is a regular violater of Wikiquette. Ossified 23:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that those diffs are uncivil. I do need to advise you that this page isn't primarily for determining whether anybody is a regular violator of Wikiquette; instead, we try to identify instances in which Wikiquette has been violated and try to prevent future violations by the users in question. Obviously, this requires good faith on the part of all involved (quite often, all it takes is a third party such as myself advising an editor that his/her edits are uncivil, to make that editor look in the mirror and change his/her ways). If we can't accomplish that, there really isn't much else we can do. The next step is generally WP:RFC/U, but we always hope that it won't come to that.

For the time being, let's wait to see how User:Getaway responds to my comments; hopefully that will give us a basis on which to move forward. Sarcasticidealist 23:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I would certainly prefer to avoid any future conflicts with the editor in question. Ossified 23:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gayunicorn attacking other people's religions

Resolved

Would someone please have a word to Gayunicorn (talk · contribs) concerning this edit and his/her refusal to retract it? Corvus cornix 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm less concerned that the comments are offensive, and more concerned that this user seems to be labouring under a serious misapprehension as to Wikipedia's purpose. I've left some comments to this effect on his/her page. Hopefully that will help clear things up.

In the meantime, it might be best that you avoid interacting with this user unless necessary. Regardless of the wisdom of your words, it's apparent that he/she does not wish to read them, and little good will come of continuing to post on her/his talk page. Sarcasticidealist 23:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gayunicorn 00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)for the record I am just stating that our North American culture is based Judeo-Christian beliefs and that the media is a reflection of this, I could care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Thanks for the heads up though I will refrain from personal comments in the future.00:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What? Don't be combining my belief set with yours. And frankly, you're incorrect. And lastly, it would be appreciated by all of us if you take the time to learn about signing your posts. Thanks OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a note regarding his signature on his talk page. As for the religious comment by Gayunicorn (talk · contribs), I added on the talk page of the AFD that a person's religious beliefs should not weigh in as a valid opinion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is definitely just a nonsense AfD vote. The closing admin will surely disregard it, as would be appropriate. It appears as though others have already pointed the user to the purpose of Wikipedia and now it's not a catalog of majority or normative opinion. --Cheeser1 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User blocked due to inappropriate user name, and also tagged as suspected sock of User:Tweety21. Marking as resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs)

User:Gaetanomarano

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Beyond Wikiquette and into subtle vandalism / linkspam. Referred to ANI. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This user put links leading to his website on talk pages of many articles. He adds links to the talk page in the Reference section. He reverts editions that delete his links. This user also claims that Google (and other "lobbies") censor him . Check his entries fore more details Scorpene 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more of an issue for the administrator's noticeboard. This seems to have gone beyond Wikiquette. --Bfigura ^(talk) 13:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will have a look there, thank you for the tip. Scorpene 13:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

User Precious Roy

Resolved

 – Closed, Wiccawikka indef blocked for being a sock --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiccawikka 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)*apprears to be attacking voters in coven(short film)

• making allegations towards me of being a "sock puppet", I dont know what this person is talking about, but not appreciated.
• Appears to be bringing in a personal fight into a voting forum. (has a history of quarelling with a user Tweety21 and other users, and writing derogatory statments in the voting forum)
• Appears to be border-line attacking religious freedom.

Wiccawikka 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

These sockpuppet accusations are made on some pretty inconclusive grounds. I would say it's pretty uncivil to label everyone a sockpuppet of someone just because they agree. Not sure where to proceed - others, do you have any ideas? --Cheeser1 16:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The puppet Tweety21 was using yesterday, Gayunicorn (now indefinitely blocked) was very vocally anti-Wicca. (Also note, I haven't accused the other "keep" !voters of being socks.) I can list many reasons why I say Wiccawikka is Tweety21's puppet if you want, or you could wait for the Checkuser results. Precious Roy 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You can list the reasons? You better. If you don't, then your accusations are unsubstantiated and uncivil. And until the RFCU in question is finished, I'd suggest you not use its possible outcome as the explanation for your actions. You're supposed to assume good faith, which includes assuming someone is not a sockpuppet - if you have substantial evidence to the contrary (now, not evidence you might have pending the RFCU), you must present that, and you should do your best not to repeatedly make your accusation. Labeling most/all of the user's comments as "this is a sockpuppet" or "this is an SPA" (not to mention repeating the warning/accusation) seems quite premature. --Cheeser1 17:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't jump all over me. I wasn't saying anything about the possible outcome; I was giving you the option of either asking me for my reasons, or waiting for the outcome—conclusive or not. Also, I have not "repeatedly" labeled her comments. I put a "suspected sockpuppet" tag on her talk page, and labelled one of her comments (the first one) on the AfD page. Precious Roy 18:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to ask. Accusations like this require an explanation. As for repeating your accusation, you've accuse her in several places of sockpuppetry. One accusation, with at least minimal justification, would suffice, until conclusive (ie not circumstantial) evidence is found. Wiccawikka is clearly a new/inexperienced user, and confronted with accusations like this can be confusing and disheartening. When these accusations come with no explanation or justification, it becomes fairly uncivil. I'm not saying she isn't a sockpuppet - I have no proof, but I've assumed that she isn't until we know that she is. This means you should treat her civilly and explain your accusation, including explaining what you're accusing her of. No one should have to ask, especially not third parties like me. --Cheeser1 18:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding her experience level, take a little time to review Tweety21's level of expertise. She'd been around longer than me (almost 2 years) yet edited like someone who had just started; helpful tips (even down to telling her how to sign her comments) went unheeded. The asking part I was referring to was in regards to this forum. If you want an answer, you have to ask me. Precious Roy 19:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My reasons for suspecting WiccaWikka is Tweety21 include 1) the time of day the edits started 2) that she went immediately to the Coven AfD (which her last sock, Gayunicorn, was causing problems in yesterday), 3) when she leaves comments on people's talk pages, she almost always posts them at the top and usually leaves them unsigned 4) she frequently makes multiple sequential edits 5) in the AfD she says "I usually don't get involved in these kinds of forums" yet she is familiar enough with the formatting (Tweety21 was involved in a number of AfDs—2 examples:1, 2), including "Strong keep"' 6) problems with spelling 7) makes baseless accusations (that I'm "attacking voters", I "writ[e] derogatory statments [sic]" in the AfD, that I have a "history of quarelling [sic] with a user Tweety21 and other users", etc). I could go on but I realize that none of this is ironclad proof. You're the admin, you tell me—do I have to open a new sockpuppet report on this user? I'm hoping the checkuser will settle matters but since it's the first time I've used it, I'm not sure what to expect. Precious Roy 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you've misunderstood this process - no one here is necessarily an administrator, we're not here to take administrative action, but to mediate disputes between people who are (in general) editing in good faith. Even then, administrators aren't here to tell you what to do. These things are circumstantial. 6 is irrelevant. You opened the window for 7, since you brought up Tweety21. 5 means she can mimic bullet-points. 4 - plenty of people do that. 3 - many new users do this. Again, none of this is conclusive, but alot of it can be explained by the fact that she's new. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you've elicited a complaint, and your conduct may have been colored by how dismissive you were (due to the assumption of sockpuppetry) and the fact that you didn't explain yourself (which can only be justified by the hypothetical future outcome of the RFCU). I will admit that you've raised suspicion, but when the user asks "what's a sockpuppet?" directing the user to the person to the sockpuppet complaint against GayUnicorn isn't helpful. My only point here has been, from the start, that you assume good faith - this includes assuming that this person is not a sockpuppet (no matter how erratic her behavior) until you have more-than-circumstantial evidence. --Cheeser1 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I do plead ignorance to the process here (I've never visited before today). I did say outright that none of it is really proof; I know it's all circumstatial, but people have been convicted in court solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The poor spelling is not irrelevant; it, like the rest, establishes a pattern. Regarding #7, the only one I've "opened the window for" would be a history of quarrelling—but only with Tweety21, not "other users" (being partially based on fact does not make something true). I've never "attacked" anyone, made derogatory statements (not even when accusing of sockpuppetry), or attacked religious freedom. #5 It was more the usage of "Strong keep" than the bullet points. And #3+4, yes plenty of new users do that; it's not any one of the things I've listed—it's all of them put together. As I said on your talk page, I have taken what you've said to heart and will be more gentle in the future with any suspected sockpuppets. Precious Roy 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I overlooked her claim that I'm "attacking religious freedom". I've never made a single edit that could be misconstrued as attacking religious freedom. Ever. Unless one considers nominating a film called Coven for deletion an attack on religious freedom. Precious Roy 19:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spelling out the reasons. Next time thought, I'd at least provide a link to the place where the reasons can be found (the checkuser, or RfC, etc). As far as reporting goes, can't you just add onto the old sockpuppet file? --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As a note, this is also on ANI in this thread. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New Complaint

I've moved the following comments from a section below, as I think the user meant to place them here. (If wrong, please let me know). --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiccawikka 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)User:Precious Roy

Wiccawikka 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)User: Precious Roy again engaging in Harassment, has already been warned once before, constantly accuses me of being a sock puppet

I was alerted by another user of the following abusive comment he left about me (below comment by Precious Roy after being warned against abuse) he constantly puts sock puppet on my user page, I'm pretty fed up with this abuse, was warned by User Cheeser1 I am quite concerned about his fixation with abusing me. I noticed he has an entry about a serial killer as well.

Hello m'dear!

My pleasure. Music is the one area where I would dare claim advanced levels of expertise (20 years working in music, don'tcha know). Every once in a while I've gone behind an editor's back and created an article that had already been declined. In most cases I had to do a little extra work because references or content wasn't up to WP snuff (like today). I've been busy dealing with a sock whose user has been a thorn in my side for about a month now. It's my own fault for getting involved but it bums me out that I could've been doing actual helpful stuff around WP but instead spent most of the day dealing with nonsense. C'est la vie. Precious Roy 19:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Wiccawikka 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I need to continue to defend my actions here or not; I thought this was considered resolved. Here is the post that Wiccawikka has included above. Notice that there are no names named—she is assuming I am talking about her. I don't recall being "warned against abuse"; I think I was cautioned to WP:AGF, which I agreed to do. If you feel I am not living up to that, please point out specific edits where I have failed. Precious Roy 16:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This has really gone too far. He was not warned for making the allegations, I simply reminded him (a bit too sternly) that he needed to justify them. He was not being abusive, he was simply jumping to conclusions without explaining himself. There are actually a number of things that indicate that you might be a sockpuppet of the other user - similar IP addresses used when posting anonymously, similar topics, your account started up when the last sockpuppet was banned and participated in the same discussion. Is this conclusive? No. But it is suspicious. Saying so is not against the rules. --Cheeser1 17:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I don't there's been any civility violation here that hasn't already been dealt with. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Madrus

Resolved

 – Impersonating user indef blocked. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The user has copied all of my own user page and most of my talk page unmodified to his userpage and his user talk. Here's his contributions page. User Madrus is a new user since 19.09.2007 14:00. I learned of all this when he announced about his new pages on my talk page.

The difference between his and my usernames are two letters: mine is Mardus, his is Madrus. In Estonian language, they also mean two different things, so it doesn't appear that much to be a username hijacking, but it still feels like that.

I didn't want to notify him of this alert, because he has copied all of my talk content to his talk page. I checked the different resources on user conduct, but couldn't find the correct specific place (other than here) of alerting about the incident. What can be done about it? -Mardus 02:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the type of thing WP:U#Doppelganger accounts addresses.

It is acceptable to pre-emptively create another account with a username similar to one's own, with the purpose of preventing impersonation by vandals.

What to do when it actually occurs is probably best handled on Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Anynobody 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I blanked it for the interm with the edit summary: "Blanked as it is a direct copy of user:Mardus: Possible conflicting username that should be brought up at WP:UFA". This needs to be brought up there. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't had any chances to attend much of the above, so here's thanks for resolving the issue. The copied pages and notification of these in my Talk came as an unwelcome surprise. To pre-empt doppelganger accounts, I would have used a different method. I was also more interested as to who did that and where. -Mardus 10:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

69.115.34.186

Stale

 – No response from editor in question. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This IP adress keeps reverting my edits on LeChuck. My images are a lot better than the previous, and they don't really display the character itself. The best thing would be to either block the IP adress or semi protect the page. The Prince of Darkness 13:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute, not a Wikiquette issue. Further, it appears the two of you are close to breaking (if you haven't already) WP:3RR. Also, after looking at the page, your comments here appear to strongly violate WP:CIVIL. I'd suggest that you be WP:COOL and read there are no angry mastadons. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The only Wikiquette issue is the incivility with which you are both behaving. A block of User:69.115.34.186 would be absolutely inappropriate. I'm personally of the view that page protection would be excessive, but you can take it to WP:RFPP if you'd like.

In the meantime, though, you should take User:Bfigura's words to heart - User:69.115.34.186 is no more in the wrong than you are, here. Sarcasticidealist 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree; to quote a famous historical figure, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Don't open a Wikiquette alert if you're not prepared to have your own behavior examined, and comments like "I will keep on reverting you till you give up"[69] display a fundamental lack of understanding about the wiki process. --Darkwind (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A note was left on The Prince of Darkness's talk regarding this discussion, but given the lack of response, I'm marking as stale. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also commented at the article in question. --Cheeser1 19:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pushing POV

Stuck

 – This is essentially a content dispute involving a disagreement about content and a

User Jtrainor is trying to push his POV on some articles about russian military tech. For example here and here Necator 19:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you'll check the edit history, you will find that it is Necator who is adding unsourced irrelevant material and trying to establish a POV. Jtrainor 19:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks a lot like a content dispute. If either of you thinks that it is in fact a Wikiquette dispute, please provide some specific diffs. Sarcasticidealist 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My conclusion too. Aside from the two of you ramping up into an revert war, I didn't see anything terribly objectionable. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that its violation of Wikiquette in terms of

• Don't ignore questions.
• If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.

Because Jtrainor does not provide any sources when asked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necator (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some diffs. Sarcasticidealist 20:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As an example [70] -> [71] and here [72] Necator 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the original sentence merely stated that this capability was claimed, I agree that there's no onus on any Wikipedia editor to prove that it's physically possible. I also agree that it is inappropriate to add a claim that such a capability would be physically impossible without sourcing it. I'm still not sure that this is a Wikiquette issue, though, so I won't provide any further comment here, and would encourage you to open a WP:RFC on this issue if my opinion doesn't solve the problem. Sarcasticidealist 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be a subject of WP:RFC if there were some constructive discussions. But i, myslef, did provide severeal sources to prove my opinion and Jtrainor didnt provide even one. Necator 21:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Again, to me this seems to be a content dispute, but since we're all here: I agree with Sarcasticidealist that the only source needed is a source proving the claim (regardless of how true it is). Remember, the guideline for wikipedia is: verifiability, not truth. Now, if Jtrainor would like to counter that claim, he needs to provide sourcing, otherwise it's pure original research. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Now, if Jtrainor would like to counter that claim, he needs to provide sourcing, otherwise it's pure original research" But the problem is Jtrainor does not provide any sources at all and keep pushing his original research by brute force. There is nothing about content. Its about behaviour. Necator 23:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. And since he's participating in this discussion, he should have seen our comments. Just to be sure though, I'll leave a note on his page. If he keeps it up after being warned not to, take it to AN/I. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well... he keeps it up [73] Necator 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

From Jtrainor page: "The consensus seems to be that a source is needed to justify the the claims about the missile withstanding the blast (regardless of how true it is)" It seems like you are not clear with what is going on. It's not about one article. There at least 2 different mentioned by me above. And if you check the list of his contributions, you'll realise that such kind of behaviour is normal for this user. Necator 23:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Also, don't try to ignore the issue with S-400_Triumf. You are clearly pushing POV with your edits to that page-- people should check the history there and make comparisons to how it was before Necator started editing. With regards to the Bulava, as long as it's made clear that it's purported capability to survive nuclear detonations is simply claimed and not fact, I have no issue with it. Jtrainor 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Issue with S-400_Triumf is absolutely the same. I did provide you sources you did provide me phrase "I will continue to revert your attempted POV-pushing" The diff [74]Necator 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) As mentioned above, this is not a content dispute forum. We only deal with cases of Wikiquette, which this has ceased to be. If you're interested in getting someone to give you an opinion on a content dispute, please try WP:3O or Wikipedia:Neutrality_Project. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• shrug* Works for me. Necator wanted to bring you folks into this, not I. Jtrainor 00:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in that I agree with Bfigura. This is a content dispute, more or less, so it's not WQA material, but I would say that a source is a source, especially when we say "____ claims that ____" - trying to contradict a sourced claim (especially one like this) with an unjustified claim should be reverted, and it shouldn't be re-added until a source is found for this "it is physically impossible" statement. There's no burden on the editor to prove the claims of the Russian government. --Cheeser1 01:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of that? [75] Sources were provided and once again changed to original research. So, i can not agree that this is content dispute. There is no dispute at all. There are sources from one side and reverting from another. I've change the template back Necator 01:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Has the S-400 been tested against or shot down a stealth aircraft or not? If it has not (it hasn't), then any claims to it's performance against stealth aircraft are just that, -claims-. Jtrainor 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jtrainor - it's not up to Necator to verify the claims that can already be verified in reliable sources. It's also not up to him to prove your assertions wrong. You are making the fallacy of assuming things without evidence, based on your belief that statements to the contrary require proof. This is not valid. Certainly, we expect something to be physically impossible until it is known or proven to be possible. But you have no proof of its physical impossibility, nor do you have a source saying so. That means there's no basis or source for your claim]. (Here I'm referring to the missile thing, but it's the same across the board.) If you want to call attention to the fact that these are claims, or that these assertions (despite being in reliable sources) are not scientifically proven, then maybe you can discuss making such a change, and if others agree, then do it. Pushing those disputed changes on the article isn't going to help. Please abide by these policies. --Cheeser1 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious you are only paying attention to one aspect of this dispute. Unless you're going to look at BOTH articles and Necator's history on both of them, I have nothing more to say to you about this as you are not paying attention. Jtrainor 00:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Jtrainor: I'd like to reiterate what was said further above: Wikiquette Alerts is a forum for resolving interpersonal disputes and difficult communication brought on by violations of Wikipedia's civility policies (WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc) and guidelines (WP:COOL, WP:POT, et al). We are not in a position here to resolve content disputes or to take sides in matters of content - if one of us can contribute to a content dispute, we will take it up in the appropriate article talk page. In short, WQA is here to help people get along and to educate them on WP civility policies - to help cool you guys down and get you back to a point where you can discuss the matter civilly.

If the situation is such that one person is pushing POV and ignoring consensus (I haven't read the whole discussion, so I can't judge), a more appropriate forum would either be WP:AN/I or WP:RFC/U, depending on the severity. Please also consult the dispute resolution page for more information on the overall process and the various options available to you. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding a rude editor

This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.188.24.125 has been insulting me nonstop despite my trying to calmly explain something to him and I'm just wondering why such a rude person is allowed here to begin with. I'm not the first person he's shown a bad attitude to. He's very egotistical, ill-mannered and obviously lacks the ability to show common courtesy to others. Wouldn't it be better for the site if he was permanently banned? Bokan 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan

In general, IP's are only banned in severe cases due the risk of collateral damage (i.e., if the IP is dynamic, innocent bystanders can get whacked). That said, I'll leave a warning on the talk page. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed here - even anonymous people who are rude. Until they are banned, they are still welcome on Wikipedia. This user seems extraordinarily disruptive, and may require more banning - possibly: it may be difficult or inappropriate, since it's an anonymous IP contributor (which might ban more than one person, even innocent parties who share a computer). Based on the conversation on his/her talk page, the editor may have no intention of obeying WP:CIVIL, so I don't know if we can help. If the user vandalizes any page or does anything else actionable, you may request administrator action at the administrator's noticeboard. However uncivil his comments here might be, please keep in mind: (1) your edits are original research and actually don't belong in that article and (2) you brought up his/her past editing history (which may not even belong to the same person) as a way of discrediting him/her in the content dispute - this is actually a violation of etiquette guidelines. Clearly this user has a history of incivility, and has made no exception with you, but responding with incivility back-and-forth isn't going to help. --Cheeser1 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikimachine

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Try AN/I or Arbcom given the severity of the issues and the history of the editor. --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have recently walked into an ongoing "feud" spread over several articles between a number of users, one of which is a subject of a current arbitration case (Liancourt Rocks). I call this a "feud" because of the persistant animosity displayed by this editor against those who he does not agree with, whom he subject to automatic POV labelling. For example, arguments presented on the basis of WP:NPOV are repeatedly only met with accusations that editors are "using WP:NPOV to further their agenda" [76]. He even goes as far as to refuse a RfC on the basis that the general Wikipedia community is biased [77]. He publically states his disdain for other editors [78] and persistantly resorts to uncivil / childish language in response to perfectly reasonable comments [79][80][81][82][83][84][85].Phonemonkey 14:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

An arbitrator has proposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Proposed decision that this user be banned from the entire project for a year, so the matter has probably gone beyond the point where a Wikiquette alert is going to be helpful. If extreme disruption continues, you can post to WP:ANI for an admin to consider a block, or request a temporary injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Workshop. Newyorkbrad 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway

Stuck

 – Parties involved do not seem willing to mediate - please escalate via WP:DR, or drop, as deemed appropriate

Follow up: An RfC/U was created for this matter. --Cheeser1 04:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't always agreed with Tony, but I've long respected him and valued his contributions. This is why I'm quite distressed to find myself unable to resolve a dispute that evidently arose for no reason other than the fact that we disagreed with one another. I've tried very hard to communicate with him in a courteous manner, only to find all such attempts rejected. I want to once again be on good terms with Tony, and I seek advice on how to accomplish this (and hopefully avoid further conflict in the future).
The dispute began at Phil Sandifer's talk page, where I was expressing my disapproval of Phil's decision to overturn a bureaucrat's closure of Kelly Martin's RfA. Tony expressed strong disagreement with me (which was fine), but he did so in an uncivil manner. Eventually, the discussion migrated to Tony's talk page and began to have less and less to do with the RfA. The original thread (up to the point at which Tony removed it from the page) is preserved here. The most recent replies were posted after said removal (which occurred while I was asleep). I brought this to Tony's attention, and he declined to continue the discussion.
My perception of the events that followed is conveyed in a reply that I posted to Tony's talk page earlier today. I now reproduce it below (following the message to which I was responding):

---

I shall not apologise for saying that to tell an editor in good standing that he cannot edit a wiki page is unbelievably stupid. Certain editors should be bloody well ashamed of their conduct towards others, and I will not be hounded to withdraw this well founded opinion, by the fact that the despicable conduct has now been turned on me for saying that they're wrong, These attacks disgust me as they should disgust all Wikipedians. Further attempts to hound me will also be ignored. Clean up your act. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to note that from my perspective, this isn't even about the RfA any longer. Speaking purely for myself, I never once requested that you alter your opinion or apologize for expressing your belief that people were wrong. I merely argued my own opinion, which you then referred to as "disgusting," bullshit," "idiocy" and "pure wankery" (while removing the discussion before I'd had an opportunity to respond). You also referred to the closing bureaucrat and other unspecified editors as "loonies."

When I attempted to politely discuss my concerns regarding the above, you removed my message (which you deemed "utterly unacceptable") and took it upon yourself to also remove a good-faith discussion (once again labeled "wankery") from Phil Sandifer's talk page. When I politely requested that you explain how my previous post was unacceptable, you removed that message as well (this time claiming that I was "badgering" you).

I find it remarkable that you would accuse others of attempting to silence your opinions while simultaneously purging (and refusing to address) all criticisms directed toward you (and engaging in blatant incivility and personal attacks against everyone with whom you disagree).

As you condemn other users' "despicable conduct" and demand that they clean up their acts, I once again ask that you step outside of your glass house and examine your own behavior. I assume that you shall remove this response (presumably with a rude edit summary), and I can only hope that the Tony Sidaway I've long respected, defended and supported soon returns to the wiki. —David Levy 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Sure enough, Tony removed the message (with the edit summary "More attacks and false accusations ignored as promised.").
As noted above, what frustrates me the most is that this is not some random editor. If it were, I wouldn't bother pursuing the matter. But this is Tony Sidaway, and I hate being on bad terms with him. I don't believe that I've engaged in "attacks and false accusations," but I welcome any advice concerning where I've gone wrong and what I can do to resolve this dispute. I'm inviting Tony to take part in this discussion and convey his viewpoint (which obviously differs from mine). Thanks in advance for any assistance that you're able to provide. —David Levy 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

hmmm, my off the top advice is to drop it. What he's taking your comments and questions for now is harrassment, and will not respond to it. So, if you drop it, in two months after the issues is dead and gone he might see that you had a valid point, but not if you bring it up. He will need to come to this realization himself. good luck. --Rocksanddirt 22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm displeased by some of Tony Sidaway's comments and tone in the past two days, but it seems clear from his last edit that he is disdainful and dismissive of this forum and/or of the concern that has been expressed, so I am not convinced that further discussion here will be productive. Newyorkbrad 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in seeing the edit history on this topic (including seeing it removed by the party in question and then restored with an edit summary saying that the WQA forum itself should be deleted) that it doesn't seem further discussion here will be helpful. Marking as Stuck. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already made my extreme distaste for this issue plain, and have asked the offending party to stop hounding me. He persists despite my every attempt to make it absolutely plain that I regard his attacks on others, and on myself when I intervened, as unacceptable. Carrying it to this forum is hard for me to regard as other than an attempt to keep this bleeding sore open. I strongly urge David Levy to stop trying to rake over this extremely painful matter, and hope that others will enjoin him to disengage, too. I myself have made every effort,without being intrusive about it, to communicate my extreme pain over David's conduct to him. He will not take the hint. My disgust remains but I expressed it and want to move on. Hopefully David will stop hounding Phil Sandifer, too, but it will be noted that I have not harassed David in any way. I ask him to extend the same courtesy to me. --Tony Sidaway 01:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Can someone (I use that term because Tony obviously isn't interested in continuing this discussion.) provide some diffs for these "attacks" that I've allegedly perpetrated? If I have written something that constitutes an attack, I want to know about it (as that certainly wasn't my intention).

2. Is it crazy for me to believe that our policies regarding civility and personal attacks are important and must be followed? Am I wrong to feel that Tony has no right to hurl such insults and then declare the conversation finished (claiming that anyone who expresses concern is harassing him)?

Was it unreasonable for me to attempt to discuss my concerns with Tony on his talk page? Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

Not once have I called Tony any names or accused him of acting in bad faith. I made it very clear that it was my respect and appreciation that led me to pursue amicable conflict resolution, and he responded by referring to me as a "troll" (as he removed this thread). Where have I gone wrong? I'm doing my best to set things right, and I'm truly depressed over my failure to do so. —David Levy 02:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's where you have gone wrong, David: by not letting it go. You've both hurt one another's feelings; neither of you feels you've done wrong or violated any policy; so just accept the impasse and move on. What good could you possibly hope to derive from continuing to drag out these grievances? Validation that you're the good guy? Some sort of formal censure? Do you wish Tony to magically assume a meeker, more repentant personality? Just focus on something else for a while. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I want nothing more than to resolve the conflict. I want to know how (other than by disagreeing with him) I've hurt Tony's feelings, and I want to make sure that it never happens again. Likewise, I want Tony to attempt to understand why people are upset with his behavior (and take these concerns seriously). Is that so unreasonable? —David Levy 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is unreasonable. Accept that there are behaviors we will never understand.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. I care about people's feelings and expect the same in return. I believe that WP:CIV and WP:NPA are important and shouldn't be cast aside. I believe that problems should be resolved (not buried). Perhaps I'm idealistic, but this is who I am. —David Levy 03:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Matter now at RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 4. Viridae^Talk 02:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User WaltCip

In User Categories for Deletion, The discussuion of removing the category Category:Wikipedians who survived cancer was rather personal when User:WaltCip responded to my comment to "go ahead and delete the category but have you read previous debated archives dealing with this". I noted his first comment was a rather personal slight but I did not attack anyone personally. His next comment clearly equated my actions as similar to anti-semetism which is very offisive and highly personal as the subject at hand (surviving cancer like I did) has zero to do with religion. I ask that the volunteers review this discourse and rener any appropriate decision. Respectfully, Mikebar 07:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

His somewhat personal, sarcastic comment was more likely in response to this comment from you: "The zealots who cannot read previous archived discussions win." In other words, sarcasm begat sarcasm. The point of the analogy regarding anti-semitism had to do with deleting categories, not to call you anti-semitic. It wasn't the most prudent analogy, since it can be easily misinterpreted as a suggestion of racism. But it's possible to assume good faith about it. To me, it looks like just cooling down and taking a break from each other is the best solution. The etiquette violations are on both sides, and relatively minor (assuming he didn't mean to call you racist). Let the personal dispute go. Bsharvy 09:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with Bsharvy and would say that this is incredibly minor. Unless this incident has caused some sort of hard feelings or ongoing dispute, you both seem like you'd just as easily let it drop and never have a problem again. That's definitely the way to go. --Cheeser1 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Race-Hate website, article links to it

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Referred to the reliable sources noticeboard. --Cheeser1 21:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me if this is a "Race-hate" web-site, and advise me what I should do when seeing it presented as a "Reliable Source". Linking from the home-page I find blanket references to Palestinians as "Arab terrorists", hatred of human rights observers who report on what the Hebron settlers are doing and a virtual justification of (but no link to) the abusive behaviour of one of the settler women caught on camera. It's not just the web-site that is dubious, because the same (?) group of people were, for instance, accused by an Israeli "senior military man" of carrying out "a pogrom against the Arabs of Hebron, with no provocations on the Palestinian side" in 2002. I'm seeing the link recommended in Talk and see it is linked to from the lead of the same article here. PR^talk 17:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any wikiquette issue involved here or is this just a debate about a source? Dlabtot 18:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the reliable sources notice board is the place to go. and off the top, it doesn't look like a reliable source. --Rocksanddirt 18:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Although calling someone a terrorist is terribly uncivil, this is more of a content/sourcing dispute. But yeah, that does not look like a reliable source in any way (racist fringe theories of a self-published website). --Cheeser1 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The touch-stone for race-hate websites (as I see it) is the Institute of Historical Review (since everyone agrees we'd not link there). The question boils down to "Is this as bad or worse than David Irving?". The Wikiquette issue becomes "Should I revert with a comment about race-hate sites"?, and, if other editors persist in including that link, should I then take it to RfC, AN, AN/I or direct to ArbCom and seek to have them blocked? PR^talk 21:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask, if need be. If/when its resolved that the source is unsuitable, if people still insist on including it, you can either make a request for comment (probably of the "society" variety) or just report it to the administrator's noticeboard (being sure to explain that these sources have been determined to be race/hate sites). --Cheeser1 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be awkward, but this is not a "Reliable Source" question. I would think it would be quite difficult to disqualify the IHR from ever being referenced in the encyclopedia again on grounds of accuracy, I'd be surprised if it contains material as contested as what appeared in the books. We don't use it because we associate David Irving with race-hatred. I suggest that www.hebron.org.il should not be linked to for the same reason (except much, much more so). Frankly, I don't want to have to trawl through their claims to separate the wheat from the chaff (just as I'm not prepared to go to David Irving to check his work). I don't go to the IHR site because I may pick up something that is provably false and accidentally use it here or elsewhere, giving rise to immediate nasty accusations against my motives and views (personal very nasty experience of this, right here in WP). We should not use a source entitling articles "Palestinian duplicity" for exactly the same reason we don't use sources speaking of "Jewish duplicity" (that example actually comes from a different source, but you know what I mean). PR^talk 11:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed consensus-building at Talk:D. James Kennedy

Editors involved in quickly reverting material on the D. James Kennedy article they personally deem to be not following Wiki policies and guidelines are virtually uninvolved in the process of building a consensus on the talk page. Notably, Guettarda, Odd nature, FeloniousMonk and Orangemarlin are "the usual suspects." Their defenses of reversions range from personal attacks to claims of consensus being reached months ago (completely ignoring this) and more. Recent attempts to politely discuss the issues have been met with silence (last contribution from any of them on the talk page was September 27th, as you can see here. How is a dispute to be resolved and a consensus built when editors involved refuse to participate in any discussion? Should refusal to participate exempt such editors from dispute resolution and consensus building? Jinxmchue 18:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the discussion, and while there are a few times that people seem to be invoking SPADE, I'm not seeing hugely blatant personal attacks -- just a long content dispute with a few uncivil comments (ie "POV Warrior"). So, while people should be more civil (and I'll say so on the talk page), I don't think this is a cabal). To me, it looks more like a consensus. If you think you have valid points that haven't been heard, than the RfC is the right direction. However, if that fails to attract users who support your point, I would consider either dropping the matter (as you'd probably be going against the established consensus) or taking it up to Mediation or some such (I don't think this is the best way to go, but it is an option). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Raidon04

[86] Do I need to say anything more? The Prince of Darkness 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User warned. Hopefully he's just a new user not aware that standard internet ettiquette is not the standard at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. He needs to understand that free use images are more preferable than fair use images. The Prince of Darkness 20:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That too, although that's not a Wikiquette issue. Anyway, he's blanked his talk page since I posted my warning, which of course communicates that he's read and understood the warning. We'll see if his behaviour changes from here on in. Sarcasticidealist 20:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also put those images up for deletion. Blatant copyright violations, and fair use equivalents were already in the article. --Cheeser1 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Eyes Wide Shut wikipage

Resolved

_{A content dispute, a sock puppet case, two users blocked, and legal threats...it's why I hang around here.}

Will someone please, please peek in at the Eyes Wide Shut wikipage? A link [at the external links] to a document on my website [87] which I did not add to wikipedia (I will swear on a stack of bibles) has been removed by editor MarnetteD. The link was up for over a year. My website is purely scholarly and offers no self-promotion at all (some of my work isn't even signed by me at all!). I would hope that the link could be restored. But MarnetteD, in my opinion, is acting stubborn and I have become disheartened and distressed by this intractable situation. Wikipedia is a wonderful place for students to look first (on whatever subject) and my link at the Eyes Wide Shut site can only enhance students' examination of the theme.

It is my personal failing, but I find the wikipedia rules kind of murky. I have various scholarly documents on my website [88], each relating to a different subject. So I myself put a link to the Barry Lyndon wiki page, and the Full Metal Jacket wiki page; I also had a document linked to the John Milton wiki page; and to the Alfred Schnittke wiki page. All of these links are to different stand-alone scholarly documents which have been put online for purely scholarly purposes. MarnetteD erased all of these links. This editor has accused me of "self-promotion" because of the various links. But the links are to very different subjects, and are all scholarly, and involve no self-promotion at all (as a quick glance to any of the sites will show). I feel I have been done a great wrong, for I want to be a part of wikipedia and I hope an impartial judge of my work that was originally linked to the wiki-page(s) in question will restore the link(s) which have been up for over a year, links which many students from around the world have visited for their benefit, and for the enhancement of wikipedia (and not for my own enhancement, as a quick glance at my website(s) will show: there is NO self-promotion!). If I can have only ONE link, please may I have the "Eyes Wide Shut" link restored? Thank you for considering my predicament.Scrooby 05:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I`m not an expert on WP:EL, but it looks to me like this is a site that would be eligible to link to under the policy, but not required to link to under the policy. This means that the question of whether or not to link to the site is one that must be settled by consensus - it`s a content dispute. Because I`ve had next to no involvement in film-related articles (and because last time I offered an opinion on a non-Wikiquette issue on this page, I regretted it not long thereafter), I won`t be a part of forging this consensus - I just wouldn`t value my opinion enough. If you want to get more voices involved, try WP:THIRD (assuming this dispute has been limited to the two of you) or WP:RFC. If things between you and User:MarnetteD become uncivil or otherwise difficult (from a stylistic rather than a substantial perspective), please feel free to bring it up here.

As an aside, I think you might be interpreting "self-promotion" a little narrowly. It needn`t mean promotion of your*self*; it can also include promotion of your own work, which I gather is what MarnetteD means here (not that I necessarily think you`re guilty of self-promotion, since it wasn`t you who added the links in the first place). Good luck! Sarcasticidealist 05:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur that it might be up to consensus, but frankly, the status quo version seems to have contained the link. Boldly removing the link requires more than just "rm spamlink" or "omg self promotion." It's clearly not spam, and it doesn't become self-promotion until Scrooby says "hey, what about the status quo version, which included a link to my site?" I mean, if somebody removed all links from Pokemon pages to Bulbapedia (a Pokemon wiki), and the owner of Bulbapedia said "hey what happened to those links?" it would be just as much an issue of self-promotion as it would be of bold edits that go against status quo consensus. --Cheeser1 05:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was getting a little ahead of myself - before you can have consensus, you need to have discussion, and before you can have that you need to stop the blind reverts. Good catch on that. MarnetteD needs to be committed to discussing this on the talk page. Sarcasticidealist 05:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sarcasticidealist. I think MarnetteD had demonstrated his/her opinion in the matter(s) and I suspect discussion on the talk page won't get anywhere. I briefly tried, and was roundly smacked down. So I'm sad about this. I just looked at WP:THIRD and it looks quite complicated!Scrooby 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sarcasticidealist. I have gone back to the Eyes Wide Shut talk page and see that you have added a helpful comment. Thank you very much. I appreciate it greatly.Scrooby 06:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The link appears to have been boldy removed, and then when reverted, MarnetteD reverted the revert (repeatedly), initiating an edit-war. S/he should have brought it to the talk page. There is a discussion in the talk page but, oddly, it's a third party in this dispute, who goes on a very long, uncivil tirade about MarnetteD. I issued a bit of a warning. --Cheeser1 05:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I went back to the Eyes Wide Shut talk page, though I said I was through with it (because I was saddened by MarnetteD's attitude) and I can roundly say that I am not Ouillah, and while Ouillah may or may not agree with my situation, I have no opinion at all at this time of Ouillah's comments. But now I have learned a new word: sock-puppet. And isn't it unfair to be accused of being someone else? I would complain about this, but I am getting worn out now. Scrooby 05:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

While this situation has been resolved with Scrooby's being blocked I just found these two little gems [89], [90] clearly disproving his statement above. Considering the vitriolic personal attacks that this editor and his sockpuppet made against me I just wanted to note this for the record. MarnetteD | Talk 15:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sarcasticidealist and Cheeser1. I had just written a long reply to Sarcasticidealist, then something went wrong. Oh well. Sarcasticidealist, you say I should go to WP:THIRD? Cheeser1, do you agree? Or can someone fix the problem from here? Thank you again for your reply, and you too Sarcasticidealist.Scrooby 05:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I am so very pleased that this issue has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I have thanked Sarcasticidealist in the proper page (Eyes Wide Shut talk page), but here I want to thank Cheeser1 for assisting; namely, restoring the status quo of the Eyes Wide Shut page which endured for over a year without a single other editor raising an issue. In fact, I have received many positive email responses to my link from people around the world during this time. This can only be a help to Wikipedia -- and not to me specifically, because, personally, I get nothing out of it (nothing sold on my website; no self-promotion; nothing!). Thank you again. I am very pleased that the "system" worked properly here and I will continue to praise wikipedia far and wide. Thank you for you help, Cheeser1.Scrooby 19:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! MarnetteD strikes again! Cheeser1! Sarcasticidealist! I wrote an informative discussion on the merit of my link at the "Barry Lyndon" wiki site talk page[91] and the "Full Metal Jacket" wiki site [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Metal_Jacket] talk page. These sites have each contained a link to separate scholarly articles which involve no self-promotion (the "Full Metal Jacket" article doesn't even have my name on it!!). For over a year these links have endured, and no one ever took issue. Indeed, I have received much praise from students and scholars from around the world. The way I see it, worthwhile external links can only reflect well on Wikipedia. All I ask is for the status quo to be restored. MarnetteD has removed the links without a single comment on the talk page!Scrooby 21:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I have to add, Scrooby, that I just had a look at your earlier talk page discussion with MarnetteD (I had hitherto been under the impression that there hadn't been any such discussion), and you rather seriously violated WP:AGF in assuming that somebody had a personal vendetta against you because she/he removed a link. Some of your comments, especially the ones surrounding grammar, were pretty uncivil, as well. Whatever else comes out of this, please familiarize yourself with those policies. Sarcasticidealist 06:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Sarcasticidealist. Point taken. I agree, I should have been calmer. I guess I was in a kind of shock. It wasn't just one link, it was all of my Kubrick links! So I was kind of in shock. However, generally speaking, I think wikipedia can be brought into disrepute if the editors are not using proper grammar. Wouldn't you agree?Scrooby 06:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good grammar in articles is essential. Good grammar on talk pages is merely desirable, especially given that there are quite a number of people making valuable contributions to Wikipedia whose grammatical skills are very poor (sometimes owing to a lack of fluency in English, and sometimes owing just to whatever it is that causes people to have lousy grammar in their native language). Certainly it would be nice if all of these people suddenly started using perfect grammar, but I'd rather have them stick around with middling grammar than leave the project entirely. Sarcasticidealist 06:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Sarcasticidealist. I am very pleased to have found such a pleasant user on wikipedia such as yourself.Scrooby 20:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Thewinchester

I'd like to report The Winchester who it seems to always attack the editor or creator of an article, where he disagrees with the article rather than limit his critique to the article itself. Mine is not the only case where his comments have been uncivil and appear to be an attempt to aggrivate the situation rather than resolve them. When I have pointed out that I considered the comments that he made to be inappropriate and not constructive he has continued to abuse me as an editor.Dan arndt 07:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dan - please provide some specific diffs of The Winchester's alleged Wikiquette violations. Sarcasticidealist 07:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== Civility ==

Normally I would let comments such as you posted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QStik Records (2nd nomination) pass without making an issue of them however judging from comments from other editors you seem to be making a habit of posting uncivil comments about other users. There are a number of issues that I wish to raise with you firstly:

"The editor in question who has recreated the article is well known to members of my local project for his self-promotion activities on the wiki"

What are these alledged 'self-promotion' activities - as I have no relationship with any of the bands or record labels or in fact any of the other articles I have edited

I replaced the article after I had provided what I considered reasonable justification that the article was notable - I still disagree with the rationale on why it was considered non-notable but am willing to accept that others have differing views (a view that you don't seem to take).

I also take offence that you have suggested that I be blocked

"issue the user a stern warning (and maybe find an admin who might consider a block for at least 72hrs)"

which according to Wikipedia's guidelines on civility is a serious matter.

I am not trying to start an edit war or have any ongoing conflict with you but just want you to be aware that your comments are hurtful and are not constructive to the Wikipedia community. Dan arndt 09:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you can't handle the heat, then get out of the kitchen. You are out of line with your constant recreation of articles, and you are out of line with your comments now which amount to nothing more than winging about some comments which were stating what is blindingly obvious to anyone aware of your activities. Please take a long walk off a very short electronic pier. Thewinchester ^(talk) 01:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

== "Responding to a moron" ==
Why don't you try to learn how to act in civil manner towards other Wiki editors? Perhaps you should peruse Wikipedia's policy against name calling. There was no need for that insult. ExRat 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

==Recent changes==

A user decided to take it upon themselves to make massive changes to this infobox without any discussion on talk, precedent, and not withstanding the fact these changes were just adding unnecessary pollution to this infobox. If you'd like to make wholesale changes, please as per standing community practice open a discussion on the talk page first instead of just going headlong into it. Thewinchester ^(talk) 12:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but those changes added use without having any effect on existing pages that use the template. You do not own the page (WP:OWN) even though you created it! I can make good faith improvements to the template on my own, and I saw now reason to discuss them on the talk page as they just added functionality without hurting any existing instances of the template. As for my improvements "polluting" the infobox, I respectfully disagree. Also, your reversions broke many instances of the template that use the new features. --CapitalR 18:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Then here's a novel thought - build consensus before making major changes. It's simple, and something you should have known if you are such a prolific editor as you claim. Boohoo that the reversion broke the implementation on some pages... that's likely caused by your poor understanding and failure to use parser functions properly, which won't get you an ounce of sympathy from the community because you were the one who caused it. OWN isn't going to win the game here either, as there were a large amount of significant editors both on an off wiki who contributed to this template, and already a large number of templates have become depreciated because of this one because it's so well structured (particually because it learned from the lessons of how and why these predecessors failed to gain acceptance). Provide a reasonable rationale for the changes as to why they are needed, and then the community can talk about it and thrash it out to decide if they are appropriate or necessary. I'll tell you now that I would oppose the changes as they not only are they infobox pollution (infoboxes should be short, simple, and contain only top-level information which is relevant across all areas they could be used in), and in any case added US-leaning systemic bias which is strongly discouraged. Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with CapitalR. This is not your template, Thewinchester. Consensus is not required for changes, no matter how significant. I, myself, have watched beautiful articles and templates I've created get all edited by other editors. That is the WikiWay. "Pollution" is your opinion, not a Wikipedia policy. See: WP:OWN, WP:Be Bold. Your approach in this discussion above has been unpleasant and unhelpful, Thewinchester, and your reversions are inappropriate. You may ask for protection, then you would perhaps need consensus for my fellow Administrators and I to consider it. Thank you.—Markles 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

are just a few examples... as I said this is not the first time either - User_talk:WJBscribe/Archive_6#Block_on_Thewinchester. Dan arndt 10:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User Geoeg

Work in progress; comments welcome

• User Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This newly registered account drew attention when a request was listed for a third opinion. It's not yet clear whether the articles written by the user should be {{COI}}/{{COI2}} tagged.

The user has persistently violated the civility policy in his posts to npov editors who have attempted to address article issues appropriately.

• Talk:Vaníček analysis (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Sections: Move proposal and What is it?   Examples: 1 2 3 4

• Talk:Petr Vaníček (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Sections: Petr Vaníček notability and Third opinion.   Examples: 1 2 3 4 5(a) 5(b)

The article talk pages are not long (articles are new). — Athaenara ✉ 03:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a COI here, but the implied legal threat made here is more troubling. I'm going to leave a warning for the user. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as the rest of the COI goes, this seems to more of an issue for the conflict of interest noticeboard, since most of the issues here stem from an intimate involvement of the editor with the subject in question. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, I missed that one. It supports the perception of bullying, big time. You're quite right, also, that this needs some COI noticeboard attention. — Athaenara ✉ 04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Geoeg. — Athaenara ✉ 08:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As Geoeg's incivility continues it is a Wikiquette as well as a COI issue. I think it is appropriate for this section to remain open a bit longer for input from other editors. — Athaenara ✉ 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have had much interaction with other editors; you and I are the only ones who challenged him, and he immediately lashed out abusively at both of us. In his latest, he calls me "Dickhawk", and the tags I placed as "naughty repellant-tags." He doesn't seem to be willing to listen to what the tags mean or are good for. Dicklyon 21:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have identified his sockpuppet and probable real identity (now looking more likely that my original conjecture was correct) on the COI page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Geoeg. Dicklyon 21:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

After looking at all the pages, it seems this still could be further addressed. I'll respond on Talk:Vaníček_analysis, since that's where the dispute seems to be. But in short, while legal threats and personal attacks are unacceptable, so is trying to expose someone's identify. (I know this was more of attempting to find the reason behind a COI, but it's probably still against policy). (I'm not sure it would fall under WP:OVERSIGHT, but it's still not a good idea). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments there. If it's true there's a policy I violated, I apologize. But please try to find it and point it out to me so I can learn. Dicklyon 03:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. After looking, it's not really against the letter of policy (WP:HA#Posting_of_personal_information would be the relevant one), but it might be somewhat against the spirit. I'm saying 'might' because I think there's a balance between privacy and COI here, and I don't know which end should carry more weight. (I.e., the right to personal privacy, or the right to point out someone's COI by naming their involvement). In any event, I think you were acting in good faith, so I don't think it's an issue. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

On the question of how far editors should go in looking into someone's real life identity, while investigating a COI case, please see a recent item on the User talk page of arbitrator Charles Matthews discussing this. See also Durova's comment in the same thread. These two editors believe you should not reveal the real-life identity of anyone on-wiki if you have determined it only through your searches off-wiki. If there is an actual diff where the user says who they are, the case is different. (According to Matthews, Arbcom has been known to discuss real-life identities on its own internal mailing list). If you have seen a number of these issues on the regular wiki pages, you will note that editors can use careful language to circumvent having to explicitly state someone's real-life identity even in cases where it is rather obvious (e.g. through the whois information on a web site where the user's views are stated). EdJohnston 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User: Dave souza

Work in progress; comments welcome

Dave souza (talk · contribs) is an administrator who has made various personal attacks. He first referred to me as a troll to which I asked him to withdraw his attack or support it. Then he responded further with another personal attack.

Are adminstrators allows to get away with abusing people with personal attacks? I have been on wikipedia for over a year, and haven't ever received this treatment from another user let alone an adminstrator. C56C 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing abuse or a attack here. It looks as though some of your edits may have violated WP:BLP, and Dave souza said as much. Stating that users was incorrectly removing information, when she appeared to be following policy does raise questions as to your motivation. I'm not saying that you were acting in bad faith, just that your actions might have given others that impression. Perhaps Dave souza should have AGF-d a bit more and not called you a troll, but I don't think it meets the level of a personal attack. (See WP:SPADE, although this can be a fine line issue). However, I'll mark this as open so others will comment. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to me how The Faith Healers or The New York Review of Books is NOT a WP:RS? Or how using these references violate WP:BLP? Then explain why I was called a "troll" and asked if I "speak English" by an admin by using these sources. C56C 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also I was pointing out that she removed the tag.[92] I still think she incorrectly removed it because she didn't provide a source, but in the edit summary said "no doubt". I don't honestly see how anyone can disagree that she "incorrectly" removed it as dmonstrated later when she removed the claim when ONLY pressed further. Seeing those edits further convinced me that she mistakenly removed the Richard Roberts material I added (she left no detailed reason for those reverts). C56C 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I agree with you regarding the 'troll' and 'speaking english' comments. They were uncivil. However, I think a large portion of this could have been avoided had everyone exercised more WP:AGF. If your comment on gwen's page had assumed good faith and asked her why she was doing what she was, Dave probably wouldn't have responded. (And of course, had he AGF'd more, we wouldn't be having this discussion now). In any event, Gwen seems to have explained her rationale, so this seems to be largely academic now. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User : Anastrophe.

User:Anastrophe. put this in a talk page about me: "you seem to have come completely unhinged." He states that I am pushing a POV (06:25, 11 October 2007 Anastrophe. (Talk | contribs) (90,083 bytes) (Undid revision 163748979 by WikiDon (talk) a one day old interview - appropriate for wikinews, not WP. WP:WEIGHT probably also.), which I never have been accused of, and am personally offended by. He knows NOT of any of my views on Dick Cheney or Jimmy Carter, but yet supposes that he does. This is RUDE and OFFENSIVE. WikiDon 07:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll post something on his talk page - some of his language is a violation of WP:CIVIL, in my view. That said, you might want to take a look at your own behaviour. Writing in all caps (shouting) is uncivil, as is giving an order to another editor ("LEAVE IT"). Besides that, your behaviour (as well as Anastrophe's) is conducive to edit-warring, since you're both reverting each others' edits rather than waiting for consensus to develop. Moreover, I would strongly advise that instead of being as defensive as you have been ("EXCUSE ME!?"), you should calm down and try to discuss this rationally. Not only is that the Wikipedia way, it will be more likely to draw in other editors, which is the only way that a consensus will develop here.

I make no comment regarding the content dispute itself. Sarcasticidealist 08:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize to user wikidon for my 'unhinged' comment which was uncivil; it was in response to incivility directed towards me. fighting fire with fire in this case only lent itself to a bigger fire. i stand by my rationale for reverting the edit. Anastrophe 15:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:SpigotMap

I ran across some comments that SpigotMap let on Talk:Bong. While I respect that SpigotMap wants to increase the quality of the article and the article desperately needs attention, SpigotMap is following a course of action on the talk page that is in direct violation of WP:CIVIL. I left a message on his talk page informing him of this, informing them that as a member of this community they must abide by the community guidelines including WP:CIVIL, and that failure to follow those guidelines can result in blocking. The response they left on my page was not in the spirit of cooperating or Wikipedia, basically coming down to "if others are not civil to me, I will not be civil to them." I do not wish to block this editor but I get the idea that they do understand the community guidelines, they do understand the ramifications, and they just do not care. Can someone please give this editor (or me, if I'm in the wrong here) some neutral feedback so they can understand how important the community process is? Triddle 15:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm reporting User_talk:JTBXJTBX for disruption of PlayStation_2 (see history)

- I have put warning on his page that he should not post NON-neutral viewpoints. - He just keeps erasing the warnings. - In addition, he keeps trying to add "most successful console" WITHOUT any citations. - .... even though he's been asked by the other editors to stop doing that & stop adding non-neutral viewpoints. - Thus his additions have gone from merely "non-neutral" to annoying & repetitive. - i.e. Vandalism.

I've had enough of his refusing to listen. - Theaveng 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)