Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

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

Active alerts

User:Landon1980

Stale

 – Complainant gone on wiki-break. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Landon1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user began by editing the Underoath Article against a consensus. The user keeps removing "Christian" label off of bands that classify themselves as being a "Christian band" simple because he thinks that means their religion, not music. Wikiedpia's articles on Christian rock, Christian metal, and Christian music all say otehrwise. He brought the conflict to my user page, and then went on to say I was being uncivil myself. I admit, I haven't kept my cool (because the pages that are being edited have had previous consensus to keep the Christian label and they didn't edit accordingly). I tried to tell him that a Christian band plays Christian music (as common sense would tell), but he refused and went on to edit my user talk page with "I don't understand you at all, isn't it about time for you to convert back over to atheism anyways?" I am highly offended by this, I don't think it's right or even civil to tell someone something like that. I told him to stay off but... I highly doubt he will. He isn't the only one to do this, as there are two others, but at least they have been civil about this. Please resolve this. There isn't a Chrsitian Metal wikiproject and a Christian metal category for nothing. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

IronCrow, you are the only one who has been really uncivil [1], complaining about everything, and getting really angry and frustrated because no one seems to support your point of view (As we can see here [2] [3]) you have even tried to bring people into the discussion to support your point of view [4]. You have also tried to be the victim all the time, giving apologies to people that has edited the Underoath and As I Lay Dying articles, like if articles can not be changed, or something can not be argueable. [5] [6] And, let's not forget you have accused us of sockpuppetry (and it's not the first time he do that : [7]) Seems like you can not stand people with other point of view of what you think of a "Christian band" is. Admins, please read the whole discussion before taking any actions, here [8] and here [9]--Kmaster (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add two cents here if I may. IrønCrøw is a major contributor to the Wikipedia's articles on Christian rock, Christian metal, and Christian music and to cite them in support of an arguement here, or to claim some sort of consenses, amounts to nothing more than saying he says so. That is not support in favor of a position but spamming to win an argument. It's self-righteousness at its very worst. Personally, what I'm seeing here is a wiki member using music to cram christianity down people's throats whether it's appropriate to a topic or not. Unless a band is singing in the choir on Sunday mornings, anybody would be hard-pressed to prove they are anything but makers of secular music. And let's not forget that promoting an agenda is NOT music, it's politics, even if that agenda is Christianity. The inquisition failed a thousand years ago. Don't let IrønCrøw breathe new life into it here on Wikipedia. Willie --216.8.171.242 (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I should start by supplying all the diffs of IronCrow speaking in all caps, calling me silly, ridiculous, a sock puppet, lacking viability, "we are all adults, I hope," etc., but I'm not going to. I also want to say that I never said that Christian bands did not play Christian music. What I said was a bands genre is what kind of music they play, and that just because band members are Christians it doesn't mean they play Christian music. My opinion is if a band is metalcore they play metalcore music, if a band is 'Christian rock' they play Christian rock music, etc. The whole conflict is over the As I Lay Dying (band) and Underoath articles: We all agree that Christian has nothing to do with their genre, and that they are both metalcore bands. Well myself and two other editors feel the lead sentence should describe the band in genre related terms like all the other articles, deeming them a metalcore band, rather than a Christian metalcore band. We moved the fact the band members are all Christians into the second sentence so it wouldn't confuse readers by making them think they were a 'Christian metalcore' band rather than a metalcore band. I realize that a lot of Christian bands play Christian music, but that is when 'Christian______' is their genre. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a bands genre the kind of music they play? Does the fact they are Christians make it Christian music instead of metalcore? Landon1980 (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If they, themselves call the music they play "Christian Rock" then that is their genre. Calling it anything else is original research. If on the other hand they do not call their music "Christian Rock" then it is OR to call it Christian rock, even if they are Christians and they play rock music. If there are significant other sources calling theeir music Xtian Rock then you might mention that, maybe, but should put in some phrases like "have been called". OK?Filceolaire (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• If they're Christians, then they fall under the category of 'Christian persons' or something to that effect that has been used as a category by the relevant WikiProjects - in effect, this is a biographical detail. If they play music that is on Christianity (Gospel music might be a good example), then they can be called 'Christian bands' or 'Christian metal band' or whatever. If they don't play on/about Christianity, then they are not Christian bands - even if as individuals, they may follow Christianity. If you need me (or someone else) to explain this better, OK, but the rest can be resolved among yourselves - both of you need to retract your incivilities (wherever made - by striking through them) and move on. If this is not possible, then please state why not here, because it should be simple to do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Landon1980 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to say anything about the debate, but I agree with everything Kmaster has said. IronCrow is the only one being uncivil, constantly typing in caps and acting like we just committed a crime and are denying it. He even said he was pissed off at us. [10] I was going to cite examples of this but looks like Kmaster already got the major ones. — ^FatalError 03:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil accusations on Pederasty article

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – This is primarily a content dispute, and far beyond the capacity of this noticeboard to resolve. Sorry. Try WP:RFC perhaps? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello. I would like to draw attention to the pederasty article, which is having some problems right now.

Pederasty (as erotic relations between men and boys) is considered from various viewpoints, some historical, others positive, and of course majority views tend to be condemnatory, especially those that are concerned about the legal consequences, and harm to children. I (and it seems some other editors) am perfectly fine with every relevant view to be presented. Editors have expressed concern over POV forking (having a seperate pederasty and a pederasty in the modern world article), and that needs cleaning up, and there are many unsourced POV statements in the article. However, a group of editors (especially Haiduc [11] and AnotherSolipsist[12]) seem to be constantly removing peer-reviewed critical material when it is introduced:

When peer reviewed literature presenting relevant and majority views on pederasty are presented, they tend to cry homophobia, political conspiracy, smear, and propaganda and revert large sections of text [13][14][15][16][17], and as can be seen from the above, they make every attempt to remove material that describes the critical or majority views on pederasty. The accusations of “homophobic propaganda” are also quite ridiculous considering that most homosexuals have a dislike of pederasty and research suggests that they are mutually exclusive anyway [18]. When material is moved to the discussion page for discussion, they tend to totally ignore it [19][20], and focus instead on distracting from discussing material facts by throwing uncivil accusations about [21][22]. They fail to assume good faith, and fail to address the actual facts being presented. Their protestations seem to amount to “I don’t like it”. I have made strong efforts to follow the edit-revert-discuss cycle to all reasonable lengths, but constructive discussion of the material in question is not forthcoming. Any advice or attention will be welcome. Phdarts (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that reliable sources on the topic should be included, especially those pertaining to the majority or critical view. ResearchEditor (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagee with the above editors. In a nutshell, Phdarts and other editors are pushing the bizarre pov that pederasty (an awful and equivocal word!) is pedophilia. Elsewhere I've pointed out that they are different things: I wrote: "How stupid it would be to call, say, Chaplin's (who was much older than me) marriage with an 18-year old beautiful nymphet 'pedophilic.'" It's surrealistic to discuss with pushers who put into the same category Chaplin with, say, a Catholic priest who molests dozens of little kids. Yes: this article deserves attention but since this subject is too controversial this will be my first and last post in this page. —Cesar Tort 14:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Cesar Tort. With respect, pederasty is considered to be a form of pedophilia for many researchers in peer reviewed articles. It is considered to be homosexual pedophilia yet at the same time pederasty is considered mutually exclusive to homosexuality (because homosexuals (similar to women) prefer fit, well toned clean looking mature males, rather than the pederast's "boyish purity ideal"). Pederasty is generally considered to be sexual relations between a male over 18 (usually and in the classical Greek and Roman sense over 40) and a child or adolescent (most often but not always 12 to 16). In most legal juristictions it is illegal. The research says it is generally considered to be pedophilia (in English), and in the US is it considered to be the sexual abuse of adolescents (Crosson Tower, amongst other academics). These are peer reviewed articles and books we are talking about, not just unsourced speculation. Feel free to add any contradictory information you wish, but this is a matter for all relevant views, including the scientific. Phdarts (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so, I'll take a crack at this one... I am aware of a long-running edit war on Wikipedia between pedophile apologists and anti-pedophile activists, but have stayed well on the periphery of this battle. I really don't need that kind of stress in my life, heh.

It appears this dispute is related to that long-running war. Would that be at least somewhat correct?

Again, I don't have any desire to mediate in that dispute, nor do I feel like I would have the skills of knowledge to do so. To put it bluntly, I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole.

So, while I am absolutely not going to attempt to resolve content disputes at Pederasty (dear god, no), what I will offer to do is if there are specific issues of incivility or tedentious editing, I am willing to look at diffs and try to give advice in relation to that. I am willing to warn users about civility (given a clear-cut diff of said incivility, of course), and I am willing to help broker specific compromises.

If you want someone to go mediate on the article itself, you'll have to find someone else. Frankly, I don't think you are going to get a lot of takers on this noticeboard -- over here, we usually just try to soothe tempers when people are getting a little stressed at each other. This kind of complicated mediation is beyond most of what happens at Wikiquette Alerts.

Within these constraints, let me know what I can do to help. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

" I am aware of a long-running edit war on Wikipedia between pedophile apologists and anti-pedophile activists... Would that be at least somewhat correct?" No, it would be 100% incorrect. That's exactly the problem. None of the editors who object to the behaviour of Phdarts are "pedophile apologists", and I would be astonished if they did not object to idiots who labelled them as such. The reason that I consciously used the word "idiots" and the reason why this "Wikiquette alert" is a disgrace are the same. The real insult is to the editors who oppose Phdarts and who feel deeply and quite rightly insulted by comments such as the one you have just made. All the editors who object to Phdarts's edits complain about homophobia, for the very reason that Cesar Tort has given, and that I have also given, without getting any response [23]. Editors are frustrated by the promotion of fringe theory by Phdarts whose activities are essentially protected because of fear of the insinuations by editors who make comments like yours. Paul B (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you so easily PaulB, but I did give a response [24]. If you feel that some of the literature of academics is homophobic, your view is not what counts in the article, and in the abscence of any information that states those views are homophobic, your accusation goes directly to the editors who provide the facts. Using terms such as idiots, and homophobic, certainly feels abusive to those being attacked as such. It feels uncivil and certainly makes discussion and editing very difficult. The article requires a far more constructive approach. From this point there seems to be a great deal of persistent work to do to get to that point. Phdarts (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to contradict you so easily Phdarts, but I did give a response to you, as your diff indicates, since it is the diff of my response. You gave no response to me. Do try to keep to the facts. [25]. Paul B (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul B. The text [26] largely answers your question even though it came before your question, as does [27] and [28]. Older or mature men having erotic relationships with adolescent females are generally condemned as pedophiles. That is a common view in and outside of academia. The same is true with older or mature men having relations with adolescent boys, though the term pederast is used instead. Again, these are not fringe theories at all and they are supported by the literature. This is so basic it should not even need to be repeated. Treating editors as homophobes or idiots really doesn’t help matters. Please discuss cooperatively. Phdarts (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Older or mature men having erotic relationships with adolescent females are generally condemned as pedophiles." This is utter fantasy. If the girls are above the age of consent they absoutely are not. Adult men having sex with teenage girls happens all the time. It is, for obvious biological reasons, normal sexuality, not paedophilia. Your own sources acknowledge that. We have no special word for it, hence the fact that using a special word for the equivalent practice within a homosexual context is discriminatory. Your complete refusal to acknowledge that this is a legitimte and common position is the cventral problem and it leads to extreme frustration. Paul B (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Paul B. If you are interested in fairness, talk to a homosexual who has been persecuted for having an erotic relationship with another homosexual of the same age. It happens. I understand you are frustrated. But then you will obviously be frustrated if you have to countenance all relevant views of pederasty. I think you will have to somehow cope with this. The fact is, pederasty is condemned if not hated by parents and singles alike. Its just a fact of life. Beyond that, the law in many places condemns pederasty. Getting back to definitions, the most common definition of pederasty is always Men and Boys. Then Men and Male Children. Then children of around 12 to 16. In many legal situations, when there is a relationship between an over-16 and a 24 year old, it is often not considered pederasty or pedophilia at all. However, many people in academia and society will dislike the idea of mature men having erotic relations with even 18 year old males and females, and there is a very significant push for having the age of consent as high as 21. Pederasty, to the majority, is erotic relations between 12 to 16 year olds, is generally considered a form of pederasty, and is just one of those things. When pederasts are prosecuted, they get hit very hard in prison, because sexual deviants, especially those who focus on minors, get it really bad in prison. Again, if you find that unfair, I think you are just going to have to cope with that somehow. All relevant views are to be allowed in the article, especially when they come from reliable sources. Its as simple as that. I'd recommend treating it with a detatched attitude. Hope this helps. Phdarts (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no end your offensiveness is there? The constant references to "deviants" and assertions about what a fantasised "majority" are just forms of insidious bullying far far worse than anything of Haiduc's. There is no "very significant push for having the age of consent as high as 21". That is a very extreme minority view. In the UK the age of consent for homosexual relations was reduced from 18 to 16 in 2000 - with majority popular support. There is no debate whatever about it being raised, and the idea that it should be raised to 21 is so very far beyond the mainstream that it is the fringe of the fringe. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul B. Please assume good faith. Yes there have been historical reductions in age of consent, and there have been protestations. These are all significant views that can be represented in the article wherever appropriate. It is your view that an age of 21 for consent is fringe. Try telling that to the father of a young daughter in, for example in a traditional area of the country. Your view is not what matters here. It is the reliable sources that count. Please deal with the material at hand without ignoring the assume good faith recommendation. Phdarts (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is a provisional requirement. It is not my personal view that it is fringe. It is simply a fact. There is no significant debate to raise it. The majority - which you keep claiming support for your view - agreed with the equalising the age of consent [29]. "Try telling that to the father of a young daughter in, for example in a traditional area of the country" Is that supposed to be an argument? Please provide evidence that there is any significant proposal to increase the age of consent. That would mean that major parties supported such a change or that lobby groups with widespread support were making it and that legislators were proposing legislation to that effect. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The pederasty article was having no problems (for many years) until a group of like-minded editors suddenly descended on the article en masse about a month ago. "Coincidence" is probably not the best word to describe the event. Their edits all aimed to depict pederasty as child abuse, and used as stratagem the fact that the word "pederasty" is polysemic. One of its meanings IS indeed "child abuse." But that meaning is well covered at the article(s) on that topic. There is a link to them in the article.

The meaning of "pederasty" that is covered in the article by that name is as defined there: the definition which applies to much of its history and which is used by sexologists, historians, artists, etc. It happens to include many legitimate homosexual relationships in modern times, to the extent that they take place between adolescent youths above the age of consent and post-adolescent or older males. Thus the insistent efforts to impose a child abuse model on all pederasty is, sad to say, homophobia.

The main argument that this crowd has been clinging to is that they want the article to reflect "majority views." But Wikipedia is not a compendium of conventional wisdom. It is an elitist undertaking: we humble editors take the knowledge that scholars and intellectuals (the elite) have created and present it in digestible form for the use of the masses. Not the other way around.

I could say much more, but I respect other editors' time and I am not here to complain. Haiduc (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haiduc. Assuming good faith is very important, especially with this type of article. Your statements about removing child abuse related information might have a little credibility if it weren't for the fact that you also remove critical information that is directly related to pederasty and pro-pederast groups [30]. The dispute does seem to go a lot further back than the "coincidence" you refer to. You might be constructive if you could learn to assume good faith, discuss the actual matter of the edits, and stop using such antagonistic edit summaries. Phdarts (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jaysweet. I understand your reluctance to step in to the situation. Both the articles in question and the style of discussion seem also to me to push away the normal reader or editor.

I started off on Wikipedia looking at improving material on psychology and therapies in general as that is my background. The pederasty article caught my eye after a general look at the state of the psychology on some of the paraphilia related articles. Similar to the pedophilia article, there seemed to be a long term push to remove some of the pertinent facts about harm to any related party. The huge range of pederasty articles seemed and seems to have a distinct lack of majority views, especially regarding policy, concerns about harm to minors, and psychological harm in general. Information is lacking both pro and anti and I started working on filling the gaps, especially where “Citation needed” was presented.

The feeling I got from some of the editors on the article was any factual or majority view on pederasty should apply only to child abuse articles, and that if it was presented on the pederasty article it would be an attack on homosexuality. Of course, from just a cursory view of literature on homosexual society, its clear that modern and majority homosexuals distance themselves from pederasty. So it seems extremely desperate to me that someone should constantly claim homophobia when a phenomenon (pederasty; erotic attraction to male children) largely seen as a type of pedophilia (erotic attraction to children) has well sourced majority views applied.

I imagine the article will require mediation. Whether there are any anti-pedophile activists or pedophile apologists doesn’t particularly bother me. I am resigned to the fact that Wikipedia will probably have those elements. Its the presentation of views in proper proportion, and the scientific views that largely dictate modern social, legal, and ethical matters that really needs work. Any editors who appear to be pedophile apologists would actually be better off with some of those majority or science views being presented, albeit with all sides of the controversy. But that’s not happening right now, as there seems to be a general fear that the article will look totally condemnatory when all views are presented properly. I don’t think it will be that bad. I believe the main problem is that fear, together with the idea of “article ownership”. Good Wikiquette and discussion will help.

What variety of diffs are you interested in looking at first? Phdarts (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the lecture, sir. I have always assumed good faith, and I have usually been rewarded with interesting and constructive discussions from which I learned a great deal and which almost invariably resulted in improvements to the articles I worked on, whether pederasty-related or not. In your case too I assumed good faith, but you, Phdarts, together with your collaborators, quickly disabused me of that illusion. You have consistently refused to engage in any meaningful discussion, as have your associates. Instead of engaging in a process of reasoning you have attempted to enforce your point of view by force of numbers and interminable repetition of favorite themes, one of them being the imposition of "majority views" and another being the incessant appeal to assuming good faith while destroying that faith through your behavior. I see that here too that pattern continues. Mediation?! Please go ahead. Your own words indict you better than mine ever could. Haiduc (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Haiduc. This is a Wikiquette discussion, and you really are supposed to consider me as in collaboration with you. According to what I understand about Wikipedia (actually Wikipedia makes it blatantly clear on policy pages) we are supposed to edit, and civilly discuss matters when they are disputed. You have not been civil, as far as I can see, in your constant allusion to conspiracy, smear, propaganda and so on. You have also largely been ignoring material facts, and have been focusing on accusations. Assuming good faith, I did doublecheck your assertion on propaganda within the literature, and the only reliable facts I could find were "Durkin, Keith F. & Clifton, D. Bryant (1999) Propagandizing pederasty: A thematic analysis of the on-line exculpatory accounts of unrepentant pedophiles. Deviant Behavior 20,2:103-127.". This goes into detail over the faulty reasoning of pederasts, such as calling pedophilia pederasty, harmless, consensual (even when it is legally non-consentual), educational, and attacking society as homophobic. You nipped that piece of peer reviewed evidence based psychology in the bud here [31] and called it homophobic propaganda. The article has a severe lack of modern scientific material for enlightening the reader. But one good thing at least; I am glad you are interested in mediation and that we can move forward, perhaps even without all the desperately angry and accusational edit summaries, attacks, and discussion headings. Phdarts (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear me, this is why I don't get involved in these discussions. I write a couple paragraphs, and I come back 14 hours later to see several Kbytes of arguing. You anti-pederasty activists and pederasty apologists (I will not make the mistake of saying the pedo- word in present company anymore!) really need to see WP:TLDR. hehehe...

I have a few thoughts about the content dispute, but I am not nearly qualified. I would like to point out that Statutory rape is in Category:Child sexual abuse, FWIW, so even if we accept that pederasty and pedophilia are two separate things, it still seems remiss not to discuss an association between pederasty and abuse. But I don't really know anything about the literature, so I'll just leave it at that observation and not comment further on the content.

So, the Wikiquette issue at hand... Phdarts, to test my understanding, your main Wikiquette complaint is the edit summary that used the phrase "homophobic propaganda." Is that correct?

PaulB, Haiduc... words like "homophobic" and "propaganda" are very strong words, and when you put them together the message is even more intense. I would caution you to be very careful about using words such as this, especially in edit summaries (since they can not be retracted or modified later, not without admin assistance). I, in fact, avoid using words like that altogether most of the time -- and I have edited some pretty homophobic stuff out of articles before, but I try not to use those words because it just antagonizes the other side.

One option to move forward is that Haiduc can acknowledge that the words "homophobic propaganda" are highly charged and agree not to use language like that in edit summaries anymore. I think that is the easiest way to move forward, and it is what I would recommend. After all, if you feel a source is homophobic propaganda, you can still feel free to challenge it, but using less loaded words, e.g. you might say on the talk page (not edit summary, please) that "I feel this source has a clear bias as evidenced by X, Y, and Z, and I would object to using it as a reliable scientific source."

If this is really unacceptable to you, we can talk about other options. But really, does it take away from your ability to edit if you just don't call something "propaganda" in an edit summary? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jay. Yes, you are correct, the most obvious evidence for the reason for my complaints are on the edit summaries, arguments and discussion headings, that tend to scream "homophobia". And this runs on into the general discussion, that generally ignores when the actual material is placed into the discussion page, and instead focuses on accusations towards editors. The material is is simply not getting discussed. Its just getting objected to by editors who like the classical view of pederasty (pederasty as education, rather than pederasty as a sort of pedophilia). All that is really needed is that some editors stop claiming "homophobia" when they see something critical, and actually get down to discussing the author, the journal, and the relative weight of the actual view. As far as I am concerned, all the critical material so far has been ignored, so it can all go into the article, and there is a lot there. Any seemingly pro-pederasty editor are really shooting themselves in the foot here. I reckon myself to be pretty reasonable. That doesn't involve summarily booting peer reviewed articles from the article. Adjustments are fine by me. Any encouragement towards sensible discussion, rather than editwar, would be helpful here. Phdarts (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)PS, your suggestion to Haiduc is also very helpful. Phdarts (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jay, if you cannot see how profoundly noxious Phdart's language is then I am sorry. He maintains the rhetoric of politeness as a strategy, while constantly using very derogatory and divisively judgemental comments that consistently mirepresent the views he is responding to. Referring to an argument as homophobic is entirely legitimate, and certainly no more objectionable than referring to "deviants" and insidiously attempting to smear an editor by association with them. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the literature Paul B, and try to keep a level head about it. I checked up on Haiduc's accusation of propaganda and the literature search led me to Durkin et al 1999. If you find it impossible to countenance the literature, then I think you have a serious problem. It does take a certain amount of self control to deal with objectionable subjects. I suggest you start at least trying to assume good faith, and trying to work with editors who deal with the actual literature pertaining to pederasty, both ancient and modern. Phdarts (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am closing and archiving this debate, and referring the participants to WP:RFC. While I do think there are some Wikiquette issues here, they are too intertwined with the underlying content dispute issues, and those issues are far beyond the ability of this noticeboard to address.

For instance, I wish people wouldn't throw around words like "homophobic" or "propaganda," but we can't really call it a cut-and-dry Wikiquette issue unless we establish whether or not an academic source criticizing pederasty can be considered homophobic -- and I'm going to cowardly refuse to even participate in that debate, sorry.

I have discussed this with another editor who is heavily involved in resolving requests on this noticeboard, and he agrees -- we just don't have the right people or the right resources to deal with it here. If an uninvolved editor would like to bravely take a crack at this, they may remove my {{discussion top}} and {{discussion bottom}} tags and reopen the discussion, but I would ask that nobody who commented here does so. As I said, we just can't help you here. I am sorry. Try WP:RFC. Best of luck. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SlamDiego

Resolved

 – Appears to be a retaliatory report. Will re-open if Blackeagles provides diffs --Jaysweet (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

highly uncivil and if you check the start of his edit history he doesn't act like a new guy hence I suspect he's also a sockpuppet. --Blackeagles (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide diffs of the incivil comments you are referring to? Thanks :) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How about his accusing me of be a salking horse "last-caught sockpuppet" or that "Maybe you need to blow your nose, then."

Or he's obvious grudge against people of faith that taints so many of his posts and that's just in the last 7 days if one checks his edit history you'll find he makes remarks like this all the time. And then there's his sockpuppetry. My experience has been that most people start an account on wikipedia to edit articles (not to talk or argue) and as a result they start editing in articles. SlamDiego started editing in a talk area and went right from that to starting an article with a redirect, and not long after showed the kind of knowledge of wikipedia that only comes with working in it for over a year [32]. It's pretty obvious been on wikipedia before and under a different name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeagles (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you go all the way back? His first contributions were in August 2006. (no opinion on recent comments I haven't looked at them.)--Cube lurker (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just as I noted here, there is an open checkuser request from SlamDiego on Blackeagles here. Adam McCormick (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Adam, for the info. Marking as resolved, unless Blackeagles can provide diffs of actual incivility. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How about his accusing me of be a salking horse "last-caught sockpuppet" or that "Maybe you need to blow your nose, then." Or he's obvious grudge against people of faith that taints so many of his posts and that's just in the last 7 days if one checks his edit history you'll find he makes remarks like this all the time. --Blackeagles (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Blackeagles, please follow the link I provided in my first reply to you, to see instructions on how to create a diff. (You should look at the Simple Diff Guide, which can be found here) I will not dig through SlamDiego's contribs to try and verify these comments; you really need to provide a diff so that we can rapidly locate the comment in question and then judge it in context. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and if you are concerned about the allegations of sockpuppetry, please wait for the Request for Checkuser to be resolved. If this exonerates you, it could potentially reflect poorly on SlamDiego, and we could consider it at that time. Please wait for it to be resolved, though. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't assert that you were a stalking horse; I wrote “Plainly, this nomination is a stalking horse.” And my assertion was that Hoofheartedinthewinnercircle was the “last-caught sockpuppet” of Grazon. As to the edit-summary suggestion “Maybe you need to blow your nose, then.”, I remind you that it followed your summary “This doesn't smell right” (for an easily verified assertion, already supported by the refs of the article, but for which I provided an explicit link). Anyway, I will hold any further comment here until after the completion of checkuser/Grazon. —SlamDiego_←T 22:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I recommend everyone reading this check SlamDiego’s edit history from the start even if you disagree with the rest of my statement it is a fascinating read.

The fact is though that people who are new to Wikipedia don’t start out editing like SlamDiego.

He’s a clever one SlamDiego, chances are he’s working from a server with a rotating IP address.

He’s not new to Wikipedia he’s been here before under a different name.

He doesn’t operate like most disruptive editors though.

He limits his edits and conceals his disruptions from most people with the shear volume of his grammar corrections, and further dissuades most people from confronting him by employing a large vocabulary when he isn’t threatening to have people banned.

He’s the equivalent of a cumulative poison that takes years to kill a person but in the end it does.

I’ve also looked into grazon and while he did a lot of damage it wasn’t hard to spot.

I suspect he was a leftover from an earlier time from before the Seigenthaler incident.

SlamDiego is a new kind of creature and if you don’t keep an eye on him he will be more destructive that grazon ever was. --Blackeagles (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Blackeagles has also produced Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:SlamDiego. My inclination is to believe that I should (for the most part) ignore it, until and unless it is transformed into a properly filed accusation. —SlamDiego_←T 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Er: He's also created Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SlamDiego (no “User:” before “SlamDiego”), and has transcluded it into Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. My guess is that this is more a matter of flailing than an attempt to misdirected me about which page held the charge. —SlamDiego_←T 01:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The allegations about SlamDiego not being new to Wikipedia are completely asburd. Here are a number of reasons why I don't want to hear about the crap ever again:

1. SlamDiego's first edit was a question on a Talk page. This is about the most normal first edit I've ever seen. He didn't even try to edit an article. There is nothing to see here.
2. His next 14 edits were totally average edits, creating a stub article, fixing typos, etc. This is just normal new user stuff.
3. His 15th edit was an attempt at a disambiguation page. That's a little ambitious for a new user, but SlamDiego was not new by this point -- he had been editing Wikipedia for two months! (Aug 2006 to Oct 2006) So all this proves is that SlamDiego is not a complete and total idiot. I mean, are you really saying that if a user takes less than 60 days to understand how a disambiguation page works, they must be some kind of supergenius? Um, no.
4. It's totally irrelevant anyway. Even if we assume that back in freaking 2006, SlamDiego was not new to Wikipedia, there is nothing to prohibit users from starting a new account in order to get a fresh start, as long as they do not use it disruptively. SlamDiego has not been disruptive (unlike, ahem, certain other people). There is no evidence of him engaging in sockpuppetry whatsoever. Incidentally, that is why your WP:SSP report is a completely malformed and bogus report -- you are not allowed to "fish" for socks, you have to actually have suspected sockpuppets to report. But you have none. You have zero evidence, but have created a tedentious sockpuppetry report anyway.

I am sorry if I am being incivil (and on the Wikiquette Alerts page, no less, heh..). This just really irritates me. See, it's one thing to make tendentious, retaliatory allegations against someone. But the least you could do is have those allegations be NOT STUPID. Learn how to actually fill out a WP:SSP report before you filed a bullshit one, okay? Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well put. This is another example of how this page is consistently misused by editors seeking to game the system instead of genuine breaches of civility. WQA seriously needs a rethink to stop this kind of nonsense. Eusebeus (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:GHcool

Stuck

 – No change. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:GHcool is interested in me that he mentions me many times in his user page. I don't mind that, but what I do mind is him speaking bad of me: "even after this claim had been exposed as a falsehood". Per Wikipedia:User_page#What may I not have on my user page? this is a "perceived flaw" and should be removed from the page. I civilly asked him to remove the sentence but he declined to do it. Imad marie (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Given his response to your request, unfortunately, I don't think we can influence him to remove it. However, you may have better luck if you file this at WP:AN/I. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

People have had issues with GHcool's user page in the past. I am not entirely sure how I feel about it -- I am not convinced it violates any policies, but I'm not convinced it's a very good idea either :D I have dropped GHcool a note trying to find out more about this. I'd appreciate it if we could wait for a response from him before taking it elsewhere. Thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - my thoughts are the same too, but more towards unconvinced it's a very good idea. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to go over it now, but here is a link that provides links to previous discussions regarding the user page, including an MfD. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless the name(s) are removed, I don't think this can be closed as resolved. I've left the user an extensive final note in more detail. In the meantime, Imad marie has also engaged in incivility/personal attacks so a warning needs to be given. I leave the rest back to you. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I warned Imad Marie for this comment, which was extremely unhelpful, particularly given the timing. On the same token, I am not happy with GHcool's use of the word "whining" shortly before that, and will probably say somethign to him about that.

I want to read the MfD regarding GHcool's user page before I am certain, but I think you may be right that we'll have to call this Stuck. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, it seems GHcool is not willing to change his user page, any advice on how to proceed with the dispute resolution? Thanks. Imad marie (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Give me 15 more minutes. There was a previous ANI thread about his user page, but it is deeply-archived, I want to see if I can find it first. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I can't find it. Heh, what's more, the user who started the report apparently left Wikipedia and asked that their User page and all their contribs be deleted, because there is no record of him whatsoever.

I will start a thread at WP:AN to discuss it. I remain on the fence on whether the page is prohibited or not. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Maldek

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

Maldek and I have been involved in a long running "difference of opinion" over reliable sources on the Burj Dubai article - Maldek saying an fan-boy blog site is an accurate source of information, and me and many others saying we need verifiable information from reliable sources even if it's not completely up-to-date, as per Wikipedia policy. Now for once Maldek believes we have a small point of agreement over the proposed height of another middle eastern skyscraper, Al Burj, when in fact I was simply copyediting another editor's contribution and assuming good faith that they had subscription access to a source. Unfortunately, Maldek is now taking this as some kind of endorsement that must be correct because I am "the man in charge" or "the God of Wikipedia". I really don't think such edit summaries are appropriate and is coming close to being a personal attack - but what do you guys think? Astronaut (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• • It would be useful to provide diffs to illustrate the instances you reference above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • We don't need diffs for the obvious (check contributions history). In any case, I'm not sure how to settle this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• (reset indent). I came here to decide to post a WP:WQA or WP:RFC/USER on User:Maldek and notice that someone has already started a WQA so I'll elaborate on a similar issue related to poor choice of sources and poor method of editing by the editor. User:Maldek has very poor (IMHO) judgement on what constitutes a reliable source. They post huge numbers of links to talk page as justification of their edits and don't add (any) references to their actual article edits e.g. [33], [34]. The weirdest one though is accidentally mistaking some Wikipedia mirrors as being the sources of the Wikipedia article and accusing Wikipedia articles of plagiarism [35]. Back in March the user wanted to be deleted [36]. Maybe someone can ask if they want to be blocked from editing ? Ttiotsw (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

anonymous IP:69.158.150.249

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

This anonymous IP just appeared today specifically to edit in the Mexico Talkpage using very uncivil manners, insults and cynical comments[37][38], his only 8 contributions have been done in that talkpage and he even warned me that he was going to change his IP before it could be block admitting that his only interest was to troll in Wikipedia, therefore I ask for the blockage of his IP and hope that when he changes it we can detect him. Supaman89 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like a very troubling case of sockpuppetry - referred to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone pour oil over troubled waters?

While adding material to Relationship between religion and science article over the past two weeks or so, I keep encountering what I perceive as rather strong language from User:Hrafn on the article's talk page Talk:Relationship_between_religion_and_science: the latest is "I will work on any part of the article I damn well choose," but in the past it has included such phrases as "Put up or shut up" I also am encountering rather pointy behavior. Recently, he or she followed me over to the unrelated project WP:Articles for deletion/McDonald's Menu Song where he or she brought up several other AfD's I had just contributed to (I don't think I went too far, but maybe I did. For I cited WP:TROLL). Plus he or she then tagged several of my other articles (e.g., Aydin Sayili). More recently, i.e., last night, he or she made drastic removals to the Relationship between religion and science article regarding well-sourced materials from H. Floris Cohen's 1994 book The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry in an apparent response to my additions of a small section, which I well-sourced to Peter J. Bowler's 2001 book Reconciling Science and Religion.

• Now the colorful language, the following me around, I could overlook and would ultimately hope to forget and forgive (and be forgiven too), but in the meantime I would like to work on the article Relationship between religion and science without undue language and behavior issues. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs of specific edits? The way the discussion is currently structured it's very hard to follow who said what... Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

As the editor in question, here are some difs. Firefly322 has:

1. Made material misinterpretations ("Not at all a minority viewpoint") of edits that he has made ("A few yet significant number of scholars");
2. Made accusations of "POV", "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" & "WP:TRUTH" being the basis for my editing;
3. Repeatedly removed legitimate maintenance tags;[39][40][41][42][43] and
4. Repeatedly accused me of being a "WP:TROLL"[44][45][46]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

hmph... I would be happy to take a look at this page (partly because I didn't know it was there and it looks interesting), but I am currently in a bit of a tiff with Hrafn on a different page, and I don't want to export trouble. I'll take a look regardless, for my own interests and to offer what support I can, but unless H is willing to trust me to be objective on this issue I can't really feel comfortable making any comments. --Ludwigs2 04:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Total non-expert just throwing my .02 in, but looking back at the history of the discussions and WP:SPADE, there is some colorful language in this section that probably didn't help the process. At this point, my impression is that neither editor in this dispute is being particularly civil, and "who started it" is kind of irrelevant. Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As to the "I will work on any part of the article I damn well choose" comment:

• I was doing general maintenance on this article (which I had previously been requested to pay attention to, and on which I had recently performed major restructuring, unrelated to the dispute) in an area unrelated to the dispute with Firefly322, and documented my reasoning on talk.
• Firefly322 first inserted himself into that thread, then had the audacity to complain that my maintenance/documentation activity was in some way a "confusing distraction" because it was unrelated to the disputed material.
• I don't think that taking umbrage at such an accusation, and forcefully invoking my right to edit areas unrelated to the dispute, is unreasonable.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As to "Put up or shut up", that is a selective quotation -- my full statement was in fact "Put up or shut up, instead of making wild and WP:AGF-violating accusations. Provide the requested quotes."[[47] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have started with Firefly pushing for the addition of "A few yet significant number of scholars see religion and science as patterns or subsets of human consciousness itself ... " to the lead and rejecting rather than collaborating with Hrafn's reasoned concerns about this badly written reference to a minority view of questionable notability. In exasperation, Hrafn has used some terms which met with immediate accusations of incivility from Firefly. My recommendation is for Hrafn to take care to avoid the more obviously colourful terms when dealing with this sensitive editor, and for Firefly to pay more heed to Hrafn's advice and not take umbrage at comments on actions. In my experience, Hrafn has a sound and detailed grasp of issues, and should be taken seriously. . dave souza, talk 05:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Smith

Storm Rider (talk · contribs)

I wonder if someone could have a look at the comments being directed at me on Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.? - Juden (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Juden, it would be much easier if you could provide wp:diffs so that we can see what comments in particular are bothering you. happy to take a look if you do. --Ludwigs2 04:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of things like this (note the edit summary) and this , which seem to have poured over to this. - Juden (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - well, at least he's got a flair for sophisticated insults.  :-) my guess, here, is that you tweaked his religious beliefs and he's fuming about it, and since these diffs only cover maybe a couple of hours it will probably blow over. but I'll leave a message on his talk page and see if I can figure out what's eating him. believe me, though - I've seen SOOOOoooo much worse than this. --Ludwigs2 04:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really gone on for months... so perhaps it's unfair to involve you. I mostly wanted a sanity check. Nearly every edit he objects to is instantly reverted and only occasionally discussed - usually vituperatively. You're right that it's all religious stuff. I think the problem is bigger than you think :) - Juden (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

you may be right; I'll see what he has to say. religious issues are always tricky, because almost everyone who edits them is convinced they know the right of it, and different opinions can lead to a lot of friction. keep in mind, if he reverts you more than a couple of times in a day, or with an unpleasant regularity over a period of time, you can always ask for assistance from an administrator (see wp:3rr), but I'd save that as a 'last resort' kind of thing. it's much better to figure it out and get some kind of working relationship going.--Ludwigs2 05:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I took a look, and while some of Storm Rider's comments are pushing it in terms of civility and good faith, the edits Juden is adding have some problems. The allegation that Joseph Smith fathered children with women other than Emma smith is a tinderbox, and would need to be well-sourced. Even if it was well-sourced, care would have to be taken regarding the Undue weight policy. I know quite a bit about Mormonism, and I think I've only heard that allegation once or twice (doesn't mean it's not more common than I think, but I am a little skeptical).

Juden, if you would like to pursue this further, Storm Rider should be notified of this thread. Let us know what you'd like to do. It looks like Ludwigs has already asked Storm Rider to tone it down. Wikiquette Alerts is not intended to mediate in content disputes, but if you are continuing to have trouble with reverting each other, I could probably take a look (Full disclosure: I was raised Mormon, but have not been affiliated with the church for pretty much my entire adult life, and I hold little sympathy for the organization. I believe I can mediate without allowing a conflict of interest to get in the way, as I do not consider myself to anti-Mormon either, but I am not completely uninvolved either) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:SmackingMonkeys

Resolved

 – User blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Has violated the three-revert rule on 2007-08 Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team. Also, see the comment he left on my talk page. --UWMSports (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, here is an updated link to the comment: [48]. You don't need to post an alert if the user has already been blocked. --haha169 (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link. And yes, it seems to be already resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

USER:PokeHomsar

Resolved

 – Although somewhat premature, user has been advised. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• PokeHomsar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Wow, where to begin... it's probably easier to just reference his contribution history... from his massively offensive userpage, to his incendiary accusations of "liberal bias" everywhere (only one diff given for brevity), to his false claims of "admin persecution", this guy takes the cake. He has even gone so far as to demand that contributors self-identify their political beliefs so that he may evaluate them. I suspect we're dealing with an adolescent, but in any case swift WQA action is in order. Thanks in advance. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that this is already on the Admin noticeboard, it seems that a comment from WQA is a step back. If there's already an open case there, this could be seen as forum shopping. Given the description of the editor, an informal notice like "the community is concerned about etiquette" is unlikely to dissuade him or her. Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Right right... I just made notification here because last time I was faced with POV warrior type it was suggested that WP:WQA might be more appropriate. Things have escalated significantly since I made the post here, which kinda negates its utility. Thanks anyway... just trying to do due diligence.  ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it make sense for those voting on a POLITICAL issue to be completely neutral on their POLITICAL beliefs? Or is it just me? I have had this problem before with another liberal admin, Gamaliel. I am seeking to add neutrality to the actual articles, but I see the talk page as a place for me to voice my concern and beliefs about an issue. Just tryin' to be fair and balanced.PokeHomsar (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "neutral" on political beliefs. By definition, a belief is a position. Holding political viewpoints is not a problem - otherwise there would be no editors on Wikipedia. Our system relies on good faith debate between those of differing political beliefs, as a means of reaching a neutral and mutually-acceptable article that accurately describes the debate without taking sides. FCYTravis (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for labels to be thrown around during a content dispute, so this really could've been dealt with without pursuing formal steps of dispute resolution. In any case, the user has been advised accordingly and there's nothing else to see here. Move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I am more concerned with a couple of PokeHomsar's edits to politics-related articles yesterday than I am with his user page and his talk page comments. He has been warned about NPOV, though, so we'll just need to keep an eye on things.

I do wish Poke would stop calling everybody "liberal". That's just annoying. Not really an WP:NPA or WP:CIV problem, but just annoying.--Jaysweet (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

His recent conversation on User talk:Dayewalker is also disturbing. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, at WP:ANI, he also accused me of making a personal attack against him because I said his user page pissed me off on a "personal" level. Which is incredibly ironic, because his user page includes the text "I hate liberals" and "gay rights (WRONG!)". I don't particularly consider myself a liberal, though I suppose some people would -- but in any case my wife is definitely quite liberal, so his user page says he hates my wife, and therefore I don't care for it on a personal level. If he doesn't like that, maybe he should stop talking trash about my wife?? :p

Poke, if you are reading this, please take a step back and try to consider your actions from the outside. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol...yes, calling everyone liberal is irritating - I thought that's where it ended. If there's more problems, please do replace my resolved tag accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the resolved tag is okay for now -- the Poke hasn't quite crossed the line to warrant any action against him, so I think a warning is fine for now. I'm just very concerned about the efficacy of a warning, given the other stuff that has happened. But we'll wait. Like I said, I hope that if Poke sees this he can take a step back, and maybe stop viewing everyone as enemies. Even though I found his user page personally very aggravating, I do not consider him an enemy, nor do I hate him (unlike the way he feels about my wife apparently, heh). I hope we can all reach that same level of understanding. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Vapour

Resolved

 – Editor warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am having a discussion with Vapour (talk · contribs) at Talk:MV Oceanic Viking over their desire to include a quote from an Australian political columnist Dennis Shanahan in this article (we were edit waring, and have taken the matter to the talk page - please see [49] for the text in question). During this discussion Vapour made a number of insulting comments against me. He/she has stated that "You do not seem to understand the policy of this site", that my edits are motivated by my political beliefs and that I am tying to censor other views. I have not mentioned my political views or views on whaling in this discussion, so they seem to be assuming that I hold various positions, and the wording I've proposed identifies Shanahan as the source of the comments and links back to the opinion article in which he made them, so I don't see how I'm suppressing his views. Vapour seems particularly upset that I called Dennis Shanahan right-wing, but he has admitted not knowing who he is, and this is simply a statement of how Shanahan is widely percieved (see for, instance, [50] and [51] for a couple of published examples which briefly discuss his leanings towards the conservative Liberal Party) and I would have removed similar quotes from left-wing political writers praising Australia's current left-wing government as being unsuited to the topic of the article (a ship).

More seriously, Vapour is now claiming I am abusing my admin status by trying to throw my weight around. I'm not sure how I could be doing so, however, as I only mentioned this status to rebut his abusive comment that I don't understand Wikipedia policies (eg, as I wouldn't be an admin if I didn't have at least a rough idea of the key policies), noted that it's no guarantee that I'm right and haven't used any admin tools on this article. Could someone please look into this and issue a warning as appropriate? Nick Dowling (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide (more) diffs? I'd like to see (for myself) what the actual comments are and where they have been made before moving on this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All the relevant comments are still on the talk page - nothing has been archieved and I don't think that anything has been otherwise removed. [52] is me being told that I don't understand Wikipedia policy and that I'm not allowed to touch the quote, at [53] I'm accused of censoring opinions I disagree with and at [54] he/she ignores the fact that the text I'm proposing specifies and links to Shanahan and again accuses me of censorship. [55] is the really objectionable comment where I'm accused of abusing my admin status and making edits based on my politics (please note that this came about 36 hours after my last comment, so it's not part of a hot-blooded argument). Hope that helps. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a warning regarding that conduct. Also, the editor clearly misunderstands content policy, and has been using it inappropriately - but this is the outside the scope of a WQA at this stage. Article RFC and mediation are options you need to consider exploring for those content issues. Hopefully the matter is resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think that the content dispute is that big a disagreement - it just needs to be discussed politely. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to really see where the user acted impolitely. Can you quote that portion for me? El_C 11:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

He/she assumed bad faith (eg, that my edits were politically motivated and made in ignorance of Wikipedia policies) and that I was miss-using my admin status. That's impolite behaviour in my opinion. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that you "lodged a complaint" a bit prematurely. El_C 11:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this wasn't a particularly bad case. However, I took a break from editing that article in the hopes that it would cool things down (which normally works in my experiance) but instead the attacks continued, and in some ways got worse. I didn't see the point in continuing to butt heads on the article's talk page so I took the matter here to get a second opinion as it seems to be the correct resolution process for etiquette issues. Thank you also for your comments. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did come close to dismissing this as premature too, but there is some cause for concern, and after all, it's better to deal with now than later when it's escalated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(I was about to post this response, then I was informed that I got a message. So please be aware of that fact.)

This is Vapour. Thanks Nick Dowling for informing me that he made a complaint. Here is my response. I made an edit sourced to the Australian, the biggest national newspaper in Australia. Then someone deleted it due to its being (right leaning) criticism/opinion. When someone's objection is not about the reliability of source but opinion expressed in it, it is a sign that the person is not familiar with wikipedia. Nick Dowling has not stated what is his political affiliation. That is fine. His or my politics is not an issue as long as edits are reliably sourced. However, he made his politics an issue by deleting an edit due to its politics/opinion. To my surprise, Nick Dowling turn out to be an admin. To make a matter worse, it is he who told me this. It is my opinion that it is extremely unwise for an admin to state his admin status in an edit dispute then later, make a complaint higher up because the other side was not nice enough to him. Admin is a judge, jury and has many system privilege. An admin shouldn't behave like other wikipedian by spinning wikipedia policies and system to his advantage like a lawyer do, then imply that, since he is an admin, he know the policy. Him taking the complaint higher up made the matter worse. Now it is an another admin who have to declare who is right. If I wins, then it shows that an admin doesn't know an elementary application of policies or worse, admin bend policies for his partisan bias. If Nick Dowling wins, it is "who you know" not "what you know". Lastly, this dispute could have been easily settled if Nick Dowling left my sourced edit alone then went on to look for a sourced statement in support of Oceanic Viking Vapour (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think remaining focused on the content, concisely, rather than making speculations about "partisan bias" and so on, is what's likely to advance the dispute forward. As mentioned, one problem with the edit is that it's 90 percent quote, 10 percent summary — it should be the other way around. Then you could try to reach a compromise about the wording. Thanks in advance. El_C 12:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also key to keep in mind balance and due weight, and to carefully attribute views accordingly. El_C 12:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider application of Undueweight guideline in this instance to be bogus. Few sentences by a political editor of the biggest national newspaper is not same as a paragraph or a section sized editorial of Holocaust denier or Flat Earther or Young Earth scientist. And I have been pointing out repeatedly that the issue can be solved easily by finding favourable opinion of Oceanic Viking. I made it explicit that I won't touch such edit if it is sourced properly. Instead, Nick Dowling made it explicit that his intent is to censor Shannahan's (right leaning) opinion from wikipedia. If he want to add left leaning or anti whaling or pro shipping edit, that is his business. By invoking this guideline, he is implying that it is my task to do all the work to make sure that all different opinion are presented in the way he see fit. Vapour (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact of matter is that censoring an sourced opinion is not fair. If he is admin, he should know that. Instead, he is filibustering the issue. If an admin doesn't want to lose, then what? Admin acting like a street lawyer to an average wikipedian is not fair. That include making Wikiquette compliant when opposing side point out that his policy argument is weak (and biased) and he, an admin, should know better. I usually leave sourced edit alone no matter how much it conflict with my POV, as long as edit is sourced from media or academia. Why can't I expect that kind of fairness from an admin. Vapour (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Vapour, there are a number of points that you've raised (and failed to acknowledge) that are troubling. You may need to look back at the article talk page after some points below.

1. The Australian (I'll call it Newspaper-TA hereafter) is a reliable source.
2. The quotation you keep trying to include in the article is in a reliable source (News-TA), but is made by Dennis Shanahan (the author). Saying that the quotation is made by or on behalf of The Australian is a misrepresentation/original research and is known as synthesis.
3. Also, beginning the sentence with "According to" is considered weasel.
4. You made a large assumption of bad faith in suggesting Nick Dowling does not know policy, with no basis at all. Nick Dowling tried to move your attention back to the content, by pointing out that he would not be elected as an admin or a WikiProject coordinator if he did not know policy in the way you suggested. You then proceeded to claim that this was a misuse of administrator status - it was not. You must assume good faith in your interactions with others.
5. Although you are the only two users who discussed this content at the time, consensus must be reached before you re-insert content into a page. There was no consensus - but you continued edit-warring. You must refrain from edit-warring.
6. Wikipedia is not to be used as a battleground as if a user wins or loses.
7. Users who have grievances are expected to (and encouraged to) pursue the Wikipedia dispute resolution system. If Nick Dowling did not come here, and this continued, then you may have been blocked immediately for disruption. You need to understand that your conduct is unacceptable.

You must familiarize yourself with the relevant policies, and understand them, and should not (at any time) game the system. If you cannot comply, and continue to edit disruptively, then this matter is not resolved and stronger measures will be used as necessary. Does this clarify it for you - have I made myself clear? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I still maintain that it's key to aim at balance (representing all views, proportionately) and to try not to overquote. Also, try to follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. El_C 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Neon white‎

Resolved

 – Both users cautioned that templating may be perceived as incivil, and both have agreed to stay off each other's talk page for awhile. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Neon white (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is misciting and misusing WP policies and warning templates, is accusing me of doing the same, and is refusing to stop posting to my talk page after being asked to stop. Groupthink (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can take a look, but please be aware that you will get a much faster response if you provide diffs showing the edits in question. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency of interface... sometime page top, sometimes page bottom... sigh... anyway, diffs per request. [56] [57] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupthink (talk • contribs)

I have notified Neon white about this thread. I took a look at the pages in question, and while I think that Neon's warning in regards to edit warring was made in good faith, I also think your request to cease talk page communication is reasonable. I will see if he is amenable. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that you will still have to work out the Eric Rudolph edit war somehow. Also, be warned that even though you may feel your change is sourced and unbiased (I have not examined it yet), if it were to come down to 3RR, Neon white would be unlikely to be blocked, because there is an exemption to 3RR for good faith WP:BLP concerns even if those concerns turn out to be invalid. Not saying you are wrong (again, I haven't looked at it), but just be careful. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted and much appreciated. Groupthink (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Neon white has agreed to the compromise: Both of you should stay off of each other's talk page, at least until this blows over, and pursue other venues for dispute resolution. I see Neon white is already in contact with PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) and hopefully some understanding can be reached.

I would caution both users to remember that templating another user can be perceived as incivil, even if you don't mean it that way (see WP:DTTR), and that the worst thing you can do in that situation is get in a retaliatory template war. Both users are trying to do the right thing, I believe, so there is no need to "get all up in it". :D :D

I am marking this as resolved for now. Best of luck with the content dispute! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A warning about edit warring on Groupthink talk page was completely justified and continues to be justified as the reverting of any edits to this page without discussion by Groupthink which has been going on for a number of months as the [58]] can confirm continues. However the use of templates as a retaliation is clearly incivil and a misuse.[59] As has been pointed out controversial info about a living person has to be removed from an article without question, this is not misrepresenting policy, in fact it is a policy that cannot be taken seriously enough. I have asked the admin that protected the page to removed the contentious info inline with this policy until the issue is resolved. This is being discussed in a civil manner with other editors on the talk page. --neon white talk 16:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:I am me93

Resolved

 – Editor advised/warned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User originally stated on their userpage that their IQ was "probably higher than yours". I thought this was rather provocative, and removed it. Kd lvr then reverted me, and I am me93 left me a rather aggressive message. Me and IAM93 then discussed the matter- his talk and my talk. IAM93 continued to be aggressive and completely missed the point that his userpage isn't his own space to do whatever he likes. After reverting back and forth, we were left with an even more aggressive userpage. I don't want to revert war, so I bring the matter here for a third opinion. Never used this page before, apologies if I have done this wrong. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a glance at Wikipedia:USER#Ownership_and_editing_of_pages_in_the_user_space. User pages are a wee bit different from normal pages, and as long as the content isn't blatantly offensive it's generally given a wide latitude. Editing other people's user pages isn't strictly forbidden, but it's generally frowned upon. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise that, I was basically asking whether I was being too sensitive suggesting that the message crossed the line. However, regardless of that, IAM93's conduct since I removed the message has hardly been perfect. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think IAM93's initial statement about his IQ was over the line Jtroska (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the new additions to the user page (all the "none of your business" stuff). It's sort of funny, because I don't offer any of that info on my user page either, but I don't feel the need to toot my own horn about it.

As far as the original IQ comment, I think it just makes him look like a tool, far more than it has the power to offend. If you were really concerned about it, the proper way would have been to open a thread here or a similar place first, rather than removing it. As SDY said, user space is a little different and WP:BOLD/WP:BRD don't really apply there. Unless somebody makes a blatant and direct personal attack, or a legal or physical threat, their user page should not be edited without first getting consensus. (obviously reverting vandalism on another user's page would be an exception, that is always fine)

The kicker: The page now reads "IQ -- High than yours". I guess if I had a higher IQ, maybe I would use poor grammar as well! :D --Jaysweet (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I am me93's page was and is fine, but these two responses weren't. I left another message reminding him to stay civil, but would suggest that J Milburn doesn't remove the IQ statement unless it's again directed at a specific editor. --Onorem♠Dil 14:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Jaysweet, and endorse Onorem's reminder. If it doesn't escalate, then this should be resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the input, I'll leave it now. J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dragon695

This comment is a personal attack accusing me of being a tendentious cabal. This sort of harassment was discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design but apparently Dragon695 didn't get the message. I'd like it to stop when I return to that page. Odd nature (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a little oversensitive to consider that a personal attack or "harrassment". We don't tell people they can't engage in any criticism just because the recipients of the criticism don't like it. Kelly ^hi! 17:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Using the word "cabal" to describe activities is considered a personal attack. Dragon695 has absolutely no evidence that Odd Nature was doing anything other than requesting an apology. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. Accusing anyone of being tendentious is a personal attack which violates WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL. Accusing anyone of being part of a tendentious cabal compounds the insult. Look at my comment Dragon695 attacked me for. Really, sort of incivility needs to stop. Odd nature (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah! I see Odd Nature has shown up to solicit a round from the ID boo-hoo brigade, well I stand by my statement. You and the rest of those WP:TE members of the ID Cabal will either change your attitude or face the music, so don't think the whole OrangeClownFish affair gets you off the hook. My comments pale in comparison to how rude, loutish, and completely out of control some of the things you guys do to newbies and unrelated editors who show up at pages your "Wikiproject" WP:OWNs. The so-called scientists who claim to defend science are actually hurting those of us who really care about science. Real scientists are gentlemen and scholars, not oafs and louts. If anyone wants diffs, the Intelligent Design RFC is chock full of them. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The "the ID boo-hoo brigade"? "ID Cabal"? "Oafs and louts"? Clowns? Amazing. Please, read WP:EQ and WP:NPA. If you insist on attacking me, this the right place for it; you'll save me another trip. Odd nature (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And between here and here you go out of your way to insult OrangeMarlin calling him "OrangeClownFish". That's just unacceptable. Odd nature (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I resent these personal attacks from Dragon695, and request an immediate retraction and apology. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Really, nothing's going to happen. He can attack you two with impunity. He won't be censured or even asked to apologise. You will just have to get over it. In a word, you are casteless. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably. My punishment, I suppose.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that the phrase "self promoting" is said to be a sanctionable offense [60], and many editors charge that identifying them as "Wikipedia Review editors" is a personal attack and uncivil [61] (even if they are editors who have accounts at Wikipedia Review) and even listing Wikipedia policies [62] is viewed as an uncivil attack [63], and even questioning this is viewed as a personal attack [64], it is a bit hard to imagine how this outburst is not problematic. Can someone explain it to me?--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd nature, Filll, and Orangemarlin, there's a little bit of irony in the fact that, to complain about insinuations of cabal-like behavior, the three of you showing up here acting like, well, a cabal. Dragon695 apparently realizes he shouldn't have made some of the comments he did, and has gone off to do some constructive article work. Might I respectfully suggest that you all have a nice cup of tea and do the same, rather than escalating the drama. Thank you... Kelly ^hi! 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No more cabal-like than you defending Dragon695 here and elsewhere yet again. Pot, meet kettle. Odd nature (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the response I expected, Kelly. Seriously, fellas, you really didn't expect to get support here, did you? Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really expect much different. I have been collecting examples of silly extreme examples of sensitivity to "incivility" and inconsistency at [65] and this just gives another great example of something weird with our implementation of our WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies. Just more of the same. It is good however to register a complaint and compile the evidence of hypocrisy and ludicrous application of policy, because eventually these examples can be studied for useful information I think.--Filll (talk | wpc) 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's weird, I don't think I have ever defended Dragon695 before. To my recollection, my only previous interaction with that user was mildly chide them for inappropriate use of WP:BRD. But I'll look forward to your correction if I'm wrong. Regards... Kelly ^hi! 20:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. Ok another one for my list. Thanks.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to go do something else and leave these people be, for now. I'm sorry about that outburst, it could have been worded better. I will stand by my original statement: Odd Nature, Filll, and company will either modify their behavior or find themselves sanctioned by the community. Attempts at obfuscating the issue by FT2's one-off mistake will not succeed. I feel strongly that these editors who all have claimed, at one time or another, to be champions of science do more harm then good to the project. More importantly, they make strong believers in science ashamed to be associated with them due to their persistent odious behavior towards anyone who disagrees with them (see ID RFC for diffs). They certainly don't represent the highly regarded, well mannered, scholarly scientists I've ever met. Vigorous debate yes, but the tear–down, scorched–earth campaigns against those of opposing viewpoints is just outrageous. What you did to Mrs. Picard sometimes makes me want to reconsider my principled, strong opposition to WP:BLP. That is all I will say on the matter for now. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Picard? What on earth are you talking about and what does it have to do with your incivility? What assurance do we have that you're not going to repeat this episode later? As far my seeking an apology from FT2, I've gotten one from another arb, so clearly one is owed. I suggest you do not insert yourself into that matter again. Odd nature (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I hardly know where to begin. Thanks to people like Dragon695, I have stopped editing these kinds of articles completely. Am I not allowed to defend myself? Is no one involved with ID allowed? And I still have not seen how we did anything bad to Professor Picard. Have you talked to Professor Picard? Do you know what her position is? If you are so concerned about the statements about Professor Picard, why not mount a lawsuit against the New York Times, which is where we obtained our information? If what we did was so terrible, then what they did was clearly many times worse. What is amazing, is that Dragon695 believes that Picard episode justifies any kind of outrageous behavior on his part, or anyone else's part. Good heavens. I also think that Dragon695 does not know many scientists or much about science.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have found Dragon695 to be friendly and constructive as evidenced by such comments as [66]. So, I believe that he is a benefit for our project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:This is not a forum for further personal attacks or vague threats of retribution. If you cannot be civil here, don't expect an outside voice to be sympathetic to your concerns. Insulting the process is unlikely to help. Somedumbyankee (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Since I've started engaging on ID-related subject matter, I find Filll et all's position, as custodians of these quarters, much more understandable. They are dealing with people who will argue ad infinitum over points of terminology day after day, in what seems a form of filibustering, so i can understand a few "off-the-cuff" remarks now and then. That being said, Dragon695 is obviously being pointedly incivil here, but perhaps he's had a rough day. Everyone was upset with the Orangemarlin arb case, however for widely different reasons, apparently. Still, once we've aired our grievances, we should take everyone's feelings into account and try to cut each other a little slack and move on. In parting, I for one am in no way ashamed to be associated with the ID wikiproject, and urge more people to put these articles on their watchlist so that there are more eyes on these matters. Amerique^dialectics 23:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)