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 discussions

Another User's Talk Page

On another user's talk page, there was a discussion about uncivil behavior. I made some comments, and the user made a couple accusations regarding me which I felt were unfounded. This user has then deleted my attempt to answer the accusation (telling me all future comments by me will be deleted). Then I tried to delete all my comments so that my views wouldn't be misrepresented. This was also reverted.

What is left now is the beginning of the conversation with the editor's accusations ending the discussion.

I know that wide discretion is given to people on their talk pages, but is there anything I can do to keep from another editor from selectively displaying comments I made? I would rather all my comments be shown, or none of them.LedRush (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Buehler?LedRush (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This page used to be more active.LedRush (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You open a topic without identifying who the user is or giving any diffs as to the comments. Do you expect others to search your contributions to figure out what you are complaining about? I started that process, and my assumption is you are upset about User:Fae and his not welcoming your comments on his Talk page, but I don't intend to go any further than that without more elaboration from you as to the problem. As you yourself acknowledge, generally every user has a right to control their own Talk page. (What does "Buehler" mean?)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wanted a general answer on Wikiquette, not an answer on how to deal with something specifically. While you are correct as to the precipitating event, I'd really like to keep this a discussion about general policy/wikiquette, and not get bogged down in my views of Fae's actions specifically.

Yes, I recognize people generally get to control their own talk page. My question is whether it is ok for them to edit threads to make it seem like a conversation has been resolved one way, or whether they can make accusations and then delete your responses, to make it look like you've accepted that argument. My other question is, under those circumstances, can I delete all my comments (meaning, if the user edits my comments, can I choose to delete all of my comments from their user page rather than allow the user to selectively display my comments in a way that I believe misrepresents my views.

("Buehler" is Ferris Buehler from the movie. It just means "is there anyone out there?" or something like that when used as I used it above.)LedRush (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is the forum for discussing what WP:CIVILITY means except if you are reporting an incident and want resolution of that incident (see the instructions at the top of the page). If you want to discuss the policy itself, I suggest you do so on the policy Talk page.

If you want my view, FWIW, short of something that actually violates policy (or WP:OWNTALK), Fae can do what he wants on his Talk page, including the things you claim he's done. If he doesn't like your comments, he can delete them. If he doesn't like part of your comments, he can delete them. If you think the end result is misleading, there's nothing you can do about it. Just move on and forget about it. It is what it is, and it isn't worth much. If (unlikely) you're ever accused of something based on the discussion on Fae's Talk page that you believe he manipulated, the edit history is there for you to defend yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think I am in the right forum for this discussion, and I appreciate your opinion.LedRush (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You could tell your side of the situation in a thread on your talkpage, including diffs to his page. Makes it easier to keep for future reference and/or use. El duderino (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Very good suggestion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

21 Jump Street film being changed improperly and improper conduct towards me

Resolved

 – No movement in several days. Appears to be primarily a content dispute. Should be discussed at the article's Talk page before being escalated. Doniago (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Greenfrogreid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 66.215.204.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 21 Jump Street (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

21 Jump Street film. Rusted AutoParts and others (may be the same person) is all of a sudden changing “is a loose sequel” to “based on”. Both are true but they are saying that it is not a sequel of sorts, is just not true. If they would like to put based on it should not remove “is a loose sequel to” or “is a sequel to” to do so. It is an important fact about the movie that should not be removed. Keep in mind that the fact that the film acts as a sequel to the tv show may even mean there would be no need to put based on. It would be self explanatory.(I am not saying don't put it in) I would be all for it, if it did not remove important information. Rusted AutoParts Used the F word on me then issued me a warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenfrogreid (talk • contribs) 03:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. First off, the f word wasn't directed to you. Secondly, if it were a "loose sequel", then it would imply the TV series was a film and thus making this film, 21 Jump Street, to be called 21 Jump Street 2. A film can't be a sequel to a TV series. And lastly, you wre issued a warning because you chose to edit war and undo the change rather than bring the issue to the talk page. RAP (talk) 16:24 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute rather than a matter for WQA. I note there is no discussion at the article's Talk page regarding this matter. May I ask why not? Doniago (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

He decided to threaten people with being reported and reverting rather than do the sensible thing. That's why we're here. RAP (talk) 17:47 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That shouldn't stop you from at least trying to discuss it on the talk page. (Side note: Our article on sequels doesn't agree that a film can't be a sequel to a TV series.) --Onorem♠Dil 17:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The people changing the page (like Rusted AutoParts) to based from serves as a loose sequel were reporting us for vandalism and issuing us warnings before we could talk about it.

Well, if a character was returning from the tv show they were played yet again by the same actor as in the tv show. The two main characters are not the two main characters from the tv show. Michael Bacall. Johnny Depp, Peter DeLuise, and Holly Robinson briefly reprise their roles as Tom Hanson, Doug Penhall, and Judy Hoffs

The story was they were revising the undercover program that was used in the 80s. During the TV show. This is a continuation to the tv show. The film is acts as a loose sequel to the tv show. How may we solve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.204.194 (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As this appears to be a content dispute rather than a matter of wikiquette, the best and first course of action would be to start a discussion at the film's talk page, which I have linked to above, so that editors concerned with the subject can weigh in. If you do not reach the consensus you're hoping for there, you could raise it as a discussion at WT:FILM perhaps, but I'm not sure this matter warrants that level of escalation. Your call.

Please note that receiving a warning on your Talk page is not a "report". You should read the message carefully, review any links, try to avoid the behaviors listed as problematic in the message, and above all make every attempt to communicate regarding the disagreement before turning it into a formal dispute.

As content disputes are not the focus of this board, you're not going to reach a satisfactory resolution regarding the content of the article itself here. I would urge you to avoid any behavior that might be construed as edit warring and, again, discuss the issue at the article's Talk page, where ideally other editors will offer their opinions and a consensus can be reached regarding the contentious material. Doniago (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

User: Carptrash harassment of other editor

Please stop this editor from harassing me. I saw some pages had been redirected to a master article, and thought I'd try my hand at helping with the effort User:Carptrash seems to have started to restore the redirects to have contents. As a result, in addition to false accusations at my talk page, User:Carptrash has denigrated me for identifying that the master article for more than 1000 monuments will have about 5 times more display lines if the photographs are included in each row of the master article's table. (There are already 2 Wikipedia galleries for the images.) I think he is trying to discourage me from continuing my attempts at editing, and appreciate your assistance in this matter. 64.134.153.184 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

unsubstantiated edits by a new page patroller

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

• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I am a new contributor to Wikipedia, please forgive me if I place the issue of my concern in the wrong place. I feel I need advice on how to deal with overtly aggressive, not constructive and libelous edits on the article I posted. I welcome any constructive criticism about my article and the ways to improve it, however what the new page controller posted does not help me to improve the article. Moreover, the controller seems to be unaware that he (or she) is being obviously rude and libelous. The controller first posted "biased" tag on my article stating that it was not scientific enough. I replied to the controller's post. Then one hour later (or somewhere around that time), the controller posted "deletion request" note on my article followed by the comment I cite for you below:

"I originally tagged this article with a 'bias tag'. However, upon further review, I've come to the conclusion that this article should be deleted (or, at least, drastically edited.) I find references to "visual reading" in the context of reading, but this is a general phrase that does not appear to have anything to do with the technique Hyo Sang Shin supposedly developed. The only thing I can find related to Shin + "visual reading" are links to the book he's selling. All of the research/references appear to be about general concepts of speed reading, not anything Shin developed. Finally, the claim that students are reading 1,000 wpm w/ good reading comprehension is almost certainly utter pseudoscience garbage. (Either that, or this guy deserves a noble prize, because this claim requires near super-human abilities.) JoelWhy (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)"

As I said, the controller's "further review" took less than an hour. He (or she) has little knowledge about the method the article describes. He (or she) calls a work "pseudoscience garbage" without even reading the book about the method or consulting any other serious literature on speed reading.

I kindly request your advice on this issue. The controller's comments on my article are clearly not constructive criticism. Moreover, they are abusive and libelous. Please help me in addressing this issue and removing his (or her) libelous and unsubstantiated comments.

Kind regards, Azbukva

I have removed the word "libelous" from the section title. Please do not make accusations of libel against editors here - please read WP:NLT. This does not affect the need to deal with your request in any other respect. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I posted my comments on the delete request page, but I'll repost them here for your convenience:

"Escalate" the issue to whomever you like. The scientific evidence has found that speed reading classes cannot improve a person's reading abilities to 1,000+ WPM without massive sacrifices in comprehension. With the exception of a tiny number of people who have had "abnormal" brains, giving them a fairly amazing ability to read at tremendous speeds (e.g. Kim Peek), studies have demonstrated that the human brain appears to be incapable of reading at 1,000+ wpm without tremendous sacrifices to reading comprehension. This page is reselling repackaged pseudoscience and it should be deleted for that reason alone. But, to make it easier for the other editors, the most straightforward reason for deleting this page is that this concept is found in a singe book which lacks notability.

I recommend reading this Skeptoid posting: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4229 It provides a great overview of the scientific evidence related to speed reading (complete with references to peer reviewed journals.)JoelWhy (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• My advice is to post references to independent reliable sources on the AfD page, showing the notability of the topic of your article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and understanding of WP:RS

The following discussion 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.

---

Schicagos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been having some trouble with a new editor today, including blatant personal attacks against me and another editor (here and here), and the addition of material sourced to his own personal wikipedia user page (here). I've warned him repeatedly for unsourced additions, personal attacks and edit warring, but his behavior doesn't seem to be improving. I think his personal attacks rise to the level of a temp block, but if someone wants to jump in and talk to him first, that might be helpful too. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Schicagos removed this section shortly after I opened it, and I posted this issue at ANI to request a short block while the matter is discussed. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Judging by Schicagos' edits and reaction to this posting, this discussion maybe best held on ANI.LedRush (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I commented at Talk:Heptanoic acid‎ and was going to write on his talk, but he's already blocked for a week, so I think this can be closed for the time being. --Six words (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The situation has escalated substantially since I posted this; I was hoping we'd just talk it out and move forward, but that's not what happened. Archiving. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:57, 10 April 2012 (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.

A concerning matter.

• ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Avanu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheDarkLordSeth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Shooting of Trayvon Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user TheDarkLordSeth has made claims of operating with an aggressive bias, misrepresentation, accusations of lying, and operating in bad faith. It all began with an error I noticed on the article space in which the same person is listed as both a 'he' and a 'she' in two separate interviews. During the discussion I let slip a well-marked personal observation on the similarity of the statements as reported by various outlets to the witnesses identity. When I admit I am wrong I elaborate why I was wrong with evidence as to which identified witness caller it was and redisplay the critical thinking in what looked like WP:OR. I also state that the credibility of the witness testimony was questioned by AC360 immediately following the interview and critical responses from the show itself, newspapers and police statements which counter the witnesses statements on the interview as being contrary to known information. While I did not mention it myself, I trying to adhere to WP:BLPPRIMARY because the selected witness paraphrased was not neutral and omitted the controversy surrounding those claims. Since he continues to attack me and another editor named Avanu whenever something reflects better on Zimmerman. The full and lengthy discussion can found here. [1] Fills this discussion.[2] And another third major section which broke into further discussion about me here: [3]

I've previously discussed the matter on his talk page and attempted to explain my feelings about his personal attacks and clarify my argument made by using the source which presents information about the contradictions and issues raised during the interview with that guest. I post diffs showing I am not biased. [4] His response. [5] Where I mention my feelings on the personal attacks. [6] His dismissal of the validity of my arguement and assertion that he doesn't care about my feelings. [7] Trying to explain why it matters and why I feel that way. [8] His dismissal again. [9] Final attempt to explain the self contradiction is important. [10] Then he deletes it here. [11] Two days of no progress on the talk page, I attempt again to clarify. [12] He claims I am making it up despite it being in the source. [13] Final attempt to point it out from me. [14]

I do not care to argue with this editor endlessly or endure attacks on every post. All I want to do is restore the peace which existed before this. I've twice tried to resolve this on his talk page, but my attempts have failed. The discussion in the talk page has failed and is not the best place for it either. Because of this continuation that is why I am requesting assistance here. Additional note: TheDarkLordSeth made a post on MBisanz's talk page about WP:FORUM, MBisanz disagreed. May I notify this on MBisanz's talk page as he is an admin who responded to TheDarkLordSeth about my post? I do not want to be accused of WP:Canvassing, but he was a party to the interaction

I take it I'm supposed to post here as well. Feel free to delete if I'm not to take a part in this process. First of all, I'm curious about where I ever used the phrase "aggressive bias" or accused him of lying. I don't remember at all where I said "you're lying." I'm sure the accuser could kindly provide the necessary diffs for his allegations. Second, I'd like to point out that the conflict already moved on by now. We're actually working on it from the start under a section in the Talk page. Third, my objection started with this post: [15] I saw a clear sign of using the Talk page as a forum to evaluate the information in the sources rather than the sources themselves. Two other members agreed with me [16] [17] pointing out that we shouldn't abuse our role as an editor. Chris actually accused others of attacking him as well [18] so I'm a little touched that I'm the one that's focused here. Though, it was mostly me who pursued the discussion on not introducing our own arguments to the article. If you read the "Anonymous eyewitness on AC360" thread on the Talk page you'd see that it's like a forum thread where people are throwing ideas about witness based on their perception of what's logical and what's reasonable. I even tried to address his points and raised an issue with an other witness [19] to see his reaction which he kindly ignored. After that point I no longer assumed good faith. I also read the sources he posted which is how I realized that he was making stuff up. I asked him to kindly quote the sections [20] which he kindly dismissed it. Now, we can all behave as if the Talk page is a blog page but we shouldn't. We can't start dissecting information to use them against each other. The example I always gave was that if a witness involved in a case stated that Earth is flat in his testimony then our job is to say "the witness X stated that Earth is flat" and not try to refute this statement because it sounds illogical to us. That's what I and some other members felt about Chris's and some of Avanu's posts. I believe that's the essence of the matter. We're working on the edits now and I'm genuinely trying to understand what he wants to add. So, if anyone can tell me the point of this I'd appreciate it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As requested. You accuse me of lying with comments like, "Let's not make stuff up, shall we? Your link doesn't even say what you say it says." [21] Though I'll focus on the matters of bias for now. First instance which begins it all. [22] Another. [23] Again. [24] Accusation of Avanu's bias. [25] Again on Avanu. [26] Another bias claim. [27] Though this response sums up the disconnect in our views of Wikipedia nicely. "Second, we're not here to spoon feed people. We're here to convey information not to explain it. So, we say that the funeral director said that he didn't see any bruises on Martin's body. Readers are free to read the whole article and find the contradicting findings from different sources themselves." [28] He doesn't care if the material has conflicting information he wants to represent a selective portion of a primary statement. Even the contradictory statement comes from the source itself. Even after Avanu links to WP:ABOUT and WP:Wikipedia in brief he continues to contest the matter. Avanu's post. [29] His reply. [30] Avanu's comment. [31] Accusation of pressing bias as noted before. [32] While the discussion itself is easier to read then all these diffs, I will if requested post many more. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not gonna comment on accusation of "lying" as the quotes speak for themselves. Second, I'd like to point out that in this particular one [33] I'm not claiming that Avanu is biased but I'm asking why he wrote "Potential bias" in the edit summary section of his previous post. So, please read more carefuly before accusing me. Third, I asked you to show where I accused you of operating with aggressive bias. I never rejected that I accused you of bias. It took me a while to actually make such a claim though and I was not the first one to make that claim about you even in this particular case. The fact that you're focusing on me is quite touching. Fourth, Avanu posting those links doesn't really end the discussion on his claim that we should evaluate what the sources (witness interview footage) say and try to use them accordingly (pointing out the holes in their stories) even if we're citing them for what the witness testimony says. Once again, the links of diffs you provide after that point is not about me claiming that Avanu is biased but about me referring to the "undue material and bias" phrase that Avanu himself used initially. You're accusing me of harrasment and I can only ask you to present these diffs accurately. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Music of Canada dispute

• Miesianiacal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• UrbanNerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Template:Music of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Within the context of a content dispute at the aforementioned template, there appears to have been numerous breaches of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL by a number of editors, both at the template talk page and at the various other places to where the dispute has spread. The first violation came with the first eruption of the dispute in December 2010 and continued through that phase. Since the dispute was revived in February 2012, other editors became involved and more breaches occurred.

A quick browse through the discussion both at Template talk:Music of Canada#Royal anthem and Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada and the associated talk page edit histories (lookng at edit summaries) easily shows how long the breaches have been occurring, their frequency, and who is most consistently doing so. Some specific examples include:

• Template talk:Music of Canada: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]
• Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada: [39], [40], [41]
• Wikipedia talk:Consensus: [42]

These are unnecessarily contributing to the ongoing inflation of what should be an otherwise routine content dispute. Some coaching for the offending editors (including myself, if need be) a watchful pair of eyes (or more) would be appreciated, so as to reduce friction now and in future. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You will notice that M is the focus of three editors anger. Notice also that these are long-time editors. Why do you suspect that M is the focus of this? Could be that the anger directed towards him is justifiable due to M's lawyering and otherwise unpleasant behaviour?

As a contributor to resolutions of past disputes here I fully recognize how my behaviour in the above edits appear but there are few editors as unpleasant to work with as the complainant. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Response to the edit that caused the edit conflict: The only "coaching" I feel necessary is to M to stop wikilawyering and dragging-out debates until everyone else tires of discussing and he wins by attrition. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Diffs showing wikilawyering are necessary.

You're contributing to "dragging-out" the debate as much as I am. (Though, I wonder why you think I've been taking the debate sequentially through the varios steps of the dispute resolution process. Note: resolution process.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that diffs of your behaviour are not required as your behaviour is not being reported. However, if participants would like to see who started all of the new directions, I'm sure that my point would have a foundation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As for resolution, it seems the only resolution you're happy with is your position, not that of other editors. Another case of wikilawyering. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's behaviour in particular is being reported. You raised mine and categorised it. It would help substantiate your categorisation if you provided supporting evidence. Otherwise it might be regarded as just an unfounded opinion.

Your theory as to why I've taken the debate sequentially through the various steps of the dispute resolution process seems at least one-sided (if not also in bad faith). Are you still engaged because the only resolution you'd be happy with is the one that favours your position, not that of other editors? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Did you just break WP:AGF? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Haven't you learned yet? It's different when Mies does it. Anyone else is a bad person. → ROUX ₪ 18:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

By asking a question, I don't believe so. But, the question asked if you do what you accused me of; so, you tell us if WP:AGF was broken or not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me while I attempt to understand what you wrote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is more of Miesianiacal's bullshit. I have no interest in feeding his nonsense. Piss off. → ROUX ₪ 16:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This sort of behaviour is not particularly civil, but summarizes the feelings of the other editors. It's certainly not a violation of WP:NPA. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Would be best if we could get a new group of people to look over the debate - without input from the old parties and see what conclusion a new group of people come up with. The old group of people are not able to overcome the personal conflicts that have started over this (from the past) and new editors are needed to look over the sources and arguments.Moxy (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's very optimistic, however when it was last debated on the Canada talk page, voices against were many and clear, but were ignored. So I'm not sure how bringing new voices to the table will change the outcome. However, this is the incorrect forum for discussing that option. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No project members other than myself, who is involved in the dispute, have bothered to enter the discussion. Since official mediation has been requested, shall we close the discussion? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

request to stop personal attacks

• 1292simon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Common_rail#common_rail_vs_direct_injection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#no_personal_attacks (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:Andy_Dingley#no_personal_attacks|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I considered the quote from the Common Rail talk page to be a personal attack, so I notified the editor in his talk page (as recommended by WP:NPA). His impolite response continued the personal attack, so I request that this be investigated please.1292simon (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. Where are the diffs of the personal attacks? I See

"shows such a lack of knowledge about the topic" and

"you obviously don't have a clue about the subject matter"

WP:NPA doesn't deal with this sort of thing. Was there something specific you had in mind?

This is the closest which essentially denigrates American youth in what is almost an "ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". However he seems to think that the other editors lack WP:COMPETENCE in the subject matter, and that may be a case of not assuming good faith.

So what specifically do you want us to look at? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought the Gran Turismo references were in violation of "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". 1292simon (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Iterated personal attacks

• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Nazism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Radical right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[43] clear personal attack

[44] clear personal attack

[45] removal of obvious adjective with absurd claim that "radical" is "OR" when referring to the "Radical right"

[46] He is quick to assert other editors have "insulted" him!

[47] snark on other articles

[48] further snark about yet another editor accusing him of "projection"

[49] accusing an editor of deliberately misrepresenting policy

[50] You appear to have difficulty understanding what Courser is saying, but I have explained it pretty clearly

[51] The result of your edit is to inject bias, and place the Tea Party in a more favorable light than it is normally seen. That is POV-pushing. (the edit was to actually quote the source!)

[52] Collect, do you understand the difference between someone saying "most scholars believe x, but I believe y" and saying "y is true"? Our role is to accurately represent opinions on the basis of which they are held in mainstream sources, not to shill for the Tea Party

[53] again about another editor And you seem to characterize all writers with whom you disagree as Marxist. This is circular reasoning [54] Instead of coming to this article with a pre-conceived view ("Tea Party good, liberal pointy-headed professors bad") Collect should commit to reflecting sources accurately

[55] Instead of pushing your views, you should try to ensure that articles represent published views weighted to the degree of their acceptance. You have made your views clear, but we are not here to argue our personal views but to explain how subjects are viewed in mainstream sources. I really wonder at your tenacity to continue to argue points long after clear evidence has been presented to you

[56] That is original research, the sort of argument one expects in articles from 9/11 truthers and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists

And that is not even going back a full month of the attacks and snark about multiple editors.

He also asserts that he knows a lot such as [57] the cited source is wrong

The Four Deuces has been repeatedly warned about personal attacks - including at [58] his own talk page by another editor entirely just today. Some of the other attackess as well as Paul Siebert have also now been notified. Collect (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem - I have abided by DNFTT enough at this point: Collect, it is unfortunate that you are unable to distinguish between mainstream and fringe theories and I was trying to be helpful. TFD (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC) , I am pointing out the inherent anti-Semitism in the point of view you are pushing. TFD (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC), and on and on and on. Collect (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In the first example, I responded to an editor who said that the article on Nazism was incorrect on Martin Luther's influence. I responded,

"A footnote quotes an article by Johannes Wallmann in the Lutheran Quarterly (1987) saying, "The assertion that Luther's expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment have been of major and persistent influence in the centuries after the Reformation, and that there exists a continuity between Protestant anti-Judaism and modern racially oriented anti-Semitism, is at present wide-spread in the literature; since the Second World War it has understandably become the prevailing opinion." Do you have any sources that question this statement about prevailing opinion? TFD (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"[59]

Collect then misrepresented my remarks in three separate postings:

"...All of which is somewhat in countervention to your assertion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"[60]

"...My first comments were about TFD's poorly chosen "claims."... I trust you noted the sources I provided above (in agreement with you) - that the Catholic basis for anti-Semitism seems quite important, contrary to TFD's assertions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"[61]

"...You specifically cited a source as "prevailing opinion" that Luther was the one who is behind modern anti-Semitism.... I provided substantial sources (note Paul's and Kim's comments thereon) which clearly countered your assertion about prevailing opinion....Collect (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)"

Collect imisrepresents my posting by saying that I made claims or assertions, when I merely mentioned the sources for the information in the article. I certainly did not cite a source as prevailing opinion, but cited a source that made a statement about prevailing opinion. This attempt to associate editors with the opinions expressed in sources they provide creates a battleground atmosphere. The result is to confuse other editors and start an argument that detracts from article improvement. Note that a discussion about Nazism, Martin Luther, Protestants, Catholics and anti-Semtism is likely to attract strong opinions and Collect is attempting to stir up a hornet's nest, and create discord on the talk page rather than improvement of the article. Collect has a pattern of similar behavior accross a range of articles.

TFD (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In the next example, Collect says, "Again you assert that anyone to the right of the Republican Party is "radical" which is absurd.... Collect (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)"[62] Of course I said no such thing and Collect is again misrepresenting me as he has done continually throughout the discussion on that page. TFD (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Examine the edit:

[63] in order to have the first sentence of an article read:

The radical right consists of American political movements that are more conservative than the main political parties.

How can anyone read that as not saying that anyone to the right of political parties is "radical"? Note that TFDs edit was to remove "radically" from the sentence, so the intent is crystal clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "radical right" was coined by Daniel Bell, {Martin Lipset]] and others to describe groups to the right of the Republican Party, and is the most commonly used term, although some writers reject it. You are aware of this because you posted extensive comments on the talk page and it was repeatedly explained to you. (See archives.[64]) and voted to have the article deleted. You throw a loop by claiming both that these groups are not racial yet adding to the lead that they are. TFD (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In the next example, I removed "radically" from the lead of an article with the notation "Remove OR".[65] Collect had added the term description which does not appear in sources, hence is original research. Certainly not a personal attack. TFD (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire sentence is unsourced - so how can adding "radically" to a sentence which starts with "Radical" be OR? Amazing! Collect (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Re Collect: A few of the comments could have been phrased a bit more politely. However, pointing out differences of opinion is not a personal attack, but a necessary part of any robust discussion. In my experience, you do indeed seem to suffer from reading things out of context and interpreting them strongly flavoured by a particular world view and preconceived notion that is often at odds with academic consensus. As far as I'm concerned, if you continue to argue your point of view, you must accept criticism of your arguments. We can "tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it", but you cannot get a free path by claiming hurt from legitimate if sometimes forceful argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD also attacks other editors, StSch -- not just me, and this is an ongoing problem of his, noted by others. Attacking the messenger seems quite odd here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how anyone can treat Collect, whether you lack basic reading comprehension or are being deliberately obtuse, your continued misrepresentation of other editors' statements is very annoying and a disservice to other editors and I am pointing out the inherent anti-Semitism in the point of view you are pushing and That is original research, the sort of argument one expects in articles from 9/11 truthers and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists as simply "robust discussion"! Collect (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been on the receiving end of Tdf's barbs on several articles i edit. [66] The source was an encyclopedia from 1901, which I supplied the page number. To this day the mention of this early National Socialist is not included in the article about such. "The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to present original theories not previously published. I suggest you remove your comments while are disruptive and boring. TFD (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)" Darkstar1st (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Another example of personal attacks is at The discussion about sockpuppetry can be found here. You admitted sockpuppetry but no action was taken because you had registered an account. TFD (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC) The problem is that the SPI case specifically resulted in an IP registering is not sockpuppetry. meaning TFD knowingly accused a registered editor of sockpuppetry who had been cleared of that charge - which, last I checked, is a "personal attack" Cheers. Can anyone doubt that such an accusation after the editor was cleared is an impermissible personal attack? Collect (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)