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:Inder315

This user was blocked for sockpuppeteering and forumshopping but after his block expired he has returned to his old ways and is making personal attacks against me. Here's the list of his insinuations against me on the Talk:Sonia Gandhi page (in reverse chronological order):

1. Said I was "connected to" Sonia Gandhi [1]
2. Called me "adamant and spolied person"(sic) [2]
3. Started a section titled "ReluctantPhilosopher's creditbility"(sic)[3] (Started section through proven sock Mimic2, then supported through Inder account)
4. Asked me to "go to Sonia and grab a congress ticket ... done enough praise" - by his proven sockpuppet User:Mimic2 [4]
5. Called me a "big fan of her" [5]

He has previously added content like "she enjoys the company of many men" to the article. He was warned by User:Mezaco before for adding non-biographical political criticism to the article. But he just refuses to stop edit-warring and name-calling. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Inder315 (talk · contribs) for easier access. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for the other assertions? Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Done that, thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tearing my hair out here fellas Will someone please help? They guy's providing false references and inserting his opinions into the article!!! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I should reply the allegations on me so that this self proclaimed owner of article Sonia Gandhi scholar does not get benefit of my silence. I don;t know which FALSE REFERENCES he is talking about. If you check the history, you will easily find who started personal attack. He terms "political commentary " to each and everything (including properly sourced material) which he does not agree with or does not like, to be precise. He is also known to find various excuses for deleting a section of part of section which he does not like. Examples of execuses

1. Unsourced or poorly sourced (all the sections which he talks about are properly sourced).

2. Grammatically incorrect (could be, but is deleting a section is definitely NOT a solution to it. Why he does not correct it?)

3. Political commentry (now it is his opinion. What gives him a right to delete a section without a second thought?)

4. Not notable (Who is he to decide it alone?)

5. This does not have a place in wikipedia (Again the same. Is he owner of wikipedia?)

He demands "discuss first, THEN revert" but if one checks his editing history, he had been reverting all sections earlier without any discussion. He started doing it for namesake when he was warned by some senior editors in the very same forum. It is important to note that, he has been cleverly hiding this fact from the wikipedia users.

One day, he raised a query about a section, "I'm going to fix it; if anyone can provide any good reason why I shouldn't, do it now." I answered it in a most elaborate way. Still he removed it without any second though. And looks like in his dictionary fixing means deleting. deletes referenced material.

He is also terming me all the possible terms like ridiculous. He always give reference of events which are telvised but refuse to accept the biggest news of the day as a source. He thinks that a milestone in Sonia Gandhi's political career, is a trivial event.

I personally do not hold any grudge against Sonia Gandhi or anyone. My simple idea behind putting the material in this article is to give a fair and neutral sourced information to all genuine wikipedia users. Seems like this guy has been dominating the article for a while to make the article look like a fan site and a campaigning site. And about the critism section which he always talk about, please check the edit history and you will find that it is me who introduced the section and the above scholar had removed it twice. So Mr. Scholar, do not advocate using that name. Everyone has a right to have an opinion, but the problem arises when you try to impose that opinion on others. And exactly same is happening here.

My aplologies for being so elaborate, but it was important to bring to everyones notice how some people are acting as if they are owner of an article and have started policing, resulting is denial of fair and neutral information to all wikipedia users, for whom wikipedia is just next to bible.

Inder315 (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The false reference is about the Abhishek Singhvi quote which you subsequently retracted. The diffs are there for all to see. And all your content, which consists of nothing more than psephological analysis and a one-day news item, ought to be removed in accordance with WP:NOT, besides WP:NPOV, WP:N and WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 13:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not said false or poor reference only for Abhishek Singhvi quote. You have said it for all other sections mentioned above. The diffs are there for all to see. And I am fed up of answering your comments (may be 1000th time I am telling now), "which consists of nothing more than psephological analysis and a one-day news item" is WHAT YOU THINK. For God sake do not impose it on the entire wikipedia. You may be love Sonia Gandhi, but keep wikipedia out from this. You have converted this site into a fan site and have been dominating the article for a while. It was interesting to see your reaction when i removed the statement "Some people think she is a sanyasi". Who said so? When? Any evidence? If she is sanyasi, why is in politics at the first place. She should be in Himalayas. Why you did not remove this statement if you are so much for evidences and notability? Or was it just because you are happy only when someone praises Sonia Gandhi? I am sure if anyone enters any praise statements without a single reference, you will keep it. So relax and stop blaimng others.

Inder315 (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm perplexed nobody here is saying anything against this user's abrasive attitude. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you have not answered any of my queries (may be you don't have any answers for the same). In stead you have again started personal attack. This shows how badly hurt you are when your dominance on an article is stopped by someone else. You are an irresponsible editor with no respect for others. Now you have started questioning others just because you wanted some action to be taken on me. I don't know why you are not blocked till now. So stop dominating wikipedia for whatever intentions you have. Inder315 (talk)

Anybody?? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so panic? May be someone is putting an information which you do not like? I have told you several times, you are very good in English (that is why you delete sections giving reasons like grammatical error), why you don;t start a blog on Sonia Gandhi. That way you will be able to broadcast any information which you like and no one else would be able to modify it. Inder315 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've created an RfC for this at [6]. Neutral editors are implored to comment thereat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, some user has deleted the above sections. I am also advised to respect the community's opinion. Ok, I would love to respect the community's opinion (community of 2 scholars or may be sockpuppets), but only when I get satisfactory answers to my following queries. 1. Sonia was eligible to get citizenship in 1974 but she accepted it in 1983. What is wrong in this statement? This is a fact. 2. Sonia was in Italy with Rajiv in 1971 during the war. This is a fact. She was also critized for the same. 3. She took shelter in Italian embassy in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost election. This is a fact. 4. She is always critized for her role in letting Quottrochi run from Argentina. What is the problem in putting it in critism section? 5. She could not make Congress win a single election after 2004. This is a fact. Why it is removed? 6. Her entry in politics itself was motivated to hide charges against her husband. Many people say that (including Secular and neutral respected people). Why this statement is removed? 7. She did mass rallies in Gujarat and Congress lost almost all seats where she did rallies. Why this statement is removed? If her contribution to win of Congress in 2004 can be part of this article, if her sacrifice can be part of this article, if she resignation can be part of this article, then why not above statements? You can correct them if you think they are not grammatically correct. I would like to hear an explanation. Otherwise, I would revert back to original version. I hope senior editors will help me and stop this. Inder315 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping. This needs to stay at RFC for reasons given, and your accusations of others being socks is not assuming good faith in the process. Let the process go through, and if community opinion again bears that your text has no relevance or importance to the article, then it should be removed unless you can garner consensus. Edit warring is not an advisable move. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you seriously just accuse someone else of abusing sockpuppets? Last time you were on this board, filing a complaint of your own, it turned out that you have three sockpuppets. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked the comments. They are "rv POV essay, recentism, allegations over-dependent on single 1999 op-ed". ReluctantPhilosopher had been saying it for ages. What about my questions? Are there any answers for the same? Or does wikipedia is a mean of deleting something which you do not like?

Given below for your reference once again. All of them are sourced, you can go to the article and check it.

1. Sonia was eligible to get citizenship in 1974 but she accepted it in 1983. What is wrong in this statement? This is a fact. 2. Sonia was in Italy with Rajiv in 1971 during the war. This is a fact. She was also critized for the same. 3. She took shelter in Italian embassy in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost election. This is a fact. 4. She is always critized for her role in letting Quottrochi run from Argentina. What is the problem in putting it in critism section? 5. She could not make Congress win a single election after 2004 barring Goa and Manipur. This is a fact. Why it is removed? If that is the case we should remove the win of Congress inf 2004. 6. Her entry in politics itself was motivated to hide charges against her husband. Many people say that (including Secular and neutral respected people). Why this statement is removed? 7. She did mass rallies in Gujarat and Congress lost almost all seats where she did rallies. Why this statement is removed?

If her contribution to win of Congress in 2004 can be part of this article, if her aam admi slogan can be a part of the article, her role as wife of prime minister (don;t know what does it mean) can be part of it, if her sacrifice can be part of this article, if she resignation can be part of this article, then why not above statements?

You can correct them if you think they are not grammatically correct. Or modify them to make it look more ornamental English. But is deleting a solution?

I am reverting back to the original and unbiased version. Please stop this.

And I read the policies WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:BLP. Nowhere it talks about not entering facts in a biography. The problem is that you don't like facts and so the user User:Relata refero (may be your sockpuppet), the way you answer on his behalf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder315 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, policies do tell us that Wikipedia is not a place for you to stick whatever facts you like: WP:SYN, WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Furthermore, continuing to threaten edit wars and ignore consensus (or the lack thereof in supporting the contested material) is highly inappropriate. You could be blocked for such behavior. Finally, keep your sockpuppet accusations to yourself. Unless you have some evidence, I suggest you (a proven sockpuppeteer) keep the sockpuppet issue off the table. --Cheeser1 (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if the project is served by keeping this chap around. Relata refero (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If we talk about policies, how come the following statements, modified/removed/added by me were reverted. Please explain.

Following is the explanation of my edits.

Added by me: She was eligbile to become Indian citizen in 1974 but she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. (This is a truth, hoe does it violate any policy)

Removed by me: As the Prime Minister's wife she acted as his official hostess and also accompanied him on a number of state visits. (No such reference). This is POV. How does it continue to stay in the article, just because someone likes it?

Modified by me: In stead of 'she', I have modifed to 'her party'. If one knows the civics, one should know that a party recommends a person not a person recommends other person. Why it was removed?

Removed by me: There has been considerable media speculation about their futures in the Congress. If we go by your opinion, what is the base for this statement? It is indeed a political commentry. And POV

Removed by me: The 'general view' was that the action could be seen as part of the old Indian tradition of renunciation. What is this? Whose general view is this? Clear example of a POV. Has no place in wikipedia.

I would like to have answers from all scholars who advocate wikipedia policy. And even if we assume that I am a proven sockpuppet, that means what? I can not edit on wikipedia? If that is the case how does wikipedia allows me to edit? So stop this.

Also, to answer Relata refero's argument, I have started wondering whether you guys have joined the philosopher (supporter of a party) in maintaining this article as a fan site. I have not seen worse use of wikipedia than this (using the site for campaigning for someone). Inder315 (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Inder315, you come across as a bully. Your insistence on harping on "could have been a citizen in 1974" is original research unless you produce a source. Please find a source for that assertion (and for any other disputed issue) or leave the page alone. Leadwind (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mitrebox

Work in progress; comments welcome

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

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

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

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

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

Also, I looked into the matter and the article above, after this WP:WQA is over, should be speedy deleted. You see the content in the article that's all piped? It was added by a user with an unapproved bot, adding obscure European athletes to Wikipedia. [7] An article added that ISN'T in English, containing content that was added by an unapproved bot -- Mitrebox has some reason to be upset over the horribly low quality of Wikipedia. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

64.107.58.130 / 68.60.240.82

For several months now, 64.107.58.130 has been engaging in a seemingly willful, consistent pattern of disruptive behaviour. S/he has repeatedly inserted problematic text (OR, POV, essays, text dumps from other websites, etc.), and continually reinserted it with significantly uncivil edit summaries in response to its removal. See e.g. here here here, here), and here — this is a nonexhaustive list taken just from Chrysler Hemi engine, which was indefinitely semiprotected as a result of this editor's repeated disruption.

Further, and of greater concern, this editor has used various articles' and users' talk pages to launch personal attacks and other significantly uncivil behaviour, to declare Wikipedia policies and norms irrelevant, and to issue statements of intent to continue behaving disruptively — as well as persistently deleting SineBot's automatic signatures of this user's talk page comments. See e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (nonexhaustive list from Talk:Chrysler Hemi engine); here from User talk:Anthony.bradbury, here from Talk:Ford FE engine, and here from Hemi engine.

I have patiently and repeatedly tried to reach out and engage this editor constructively, see here, here, here, here, here, without success. I had a brief glimmer of hope when this editor made some constructive and Wiki-compliant edits to Hemi engine, and I made special effort to thank him/her for doing so, but as you can see from the diffs I've provided, that appears to have been a one-time thing, not an indication of growing awareness or coöperative spirit.

This user obviously has a lot of passion and interest in particular topics, and it seems a shame for that to be channelled into disruptive, uncivil, divisive behaviour rather than productive, coöperative behaviour. I could use some additional perspective on how an editor such as this might best be handled. Thanks in advance. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Scheinwerfermann's characterization of my actions, motives and contributions. I have been forceful in my responses, but only because it has always been 'his way or no way'. I have, according to other editors (Duk) contributed valid and accurate material which has been blocked, deleted and deemed unacceptable by Scheinwerfermann for reasons that seem opaque and obtuse, cloaked in huge cut-and-paste verbiage taking up space, but not addressing the problems. Scheinwerfermann refuses to cooperate, refuses to accept others' viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.58.130 (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please note that I am an editor who has just happened across this dispute, have never edited any of the articles contributed to by the complainant or the plaintiff, and am not a sockpuppet.

Having examined the edit history at Chrysler Hemi engine, as an example, I have to say that most of the contributions by 64.107.58.130 seem to border on original research, introducing a slanted point of view, and with no attempt whatsoever to verify the insertions made during the edits. There seems to be a definite campaign to right some wrongs within the article. Whatever we may think individually of the subject of the article, we should not look to introduce our opinion into it (though we should, conversely, look to remove all other obvious opinions we come across which have been placed by other editors). A thorough re-read of all the Wikipedia guidelines is urgently needed, and, for now, some cooling off is also much required, I think.

And that goes for the complainant also. It is not really policy for blind reversion of complete edits, a dismissive act which should only occur in cases of vandalism. Those parts of the plaintiff's contributions which are not original research or non-NPOV should remain within the article, as long as they are relevant to the subject. Invitation should then be made for third-party reliable sources to be included (where missing), by tagging with the {{fact}} device in the edit.

There also appears to be a measure of patronis(z)ation creeping into some quite strident posting to talk pages. For instance, describing a fellow editor (whatever you think of their edit history) as "an editor such as this" (see above) is hardly likely to placate them. It's dismissive in tone, and is a veiled incivility, and will naturally inflame both their senses and the situation. Whilst the complainant's talk page posts appear to be quite detached and aloof, I sense that they are not made from such a position, and an element of tension is detectable. If you truly believe you need to bite to protect the integrity of the article as you see it, then perhaps the bite should not be so hard.

To close, I would urge both to step away for 48 hours, and return with the intention of fostering better relations throughout their contact during editing. Hope this helps in some way. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just as willing to let this go for 48 hours as I have been to let things go at the Ford FE engine article and have been willing to let things go at the Chrysler Hemi Engine article. In both instances, I am waiting for some constructive response from Scheinwerfermann. At the Chrysler Hemi article, another editor placed some kind of lock on the article with the intent that it would be removed when we came to an agreement about it. I presented the points that I thought needed to be corrected...I am still waiting for some response from Scheinwerfermann. All I get are large cut-and-paste's that are not on point, just flaming against me as near as I can tell.

Is this some part of some formal 'procedure' here at Wikipedia? Do I need to be combing through articles, talk pages and what-not gathering quotes, instances and history?

Again, I'll give things as much time as anyone thinks is needed. But so far, it hasn't resulted in any kind of resolution other than incorrect articles remaining up, with missing citations and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.58.130 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The lock, as you call it, is an administrators' semi-protect, which prevents those who have not created an account and logged into it from making any edits to the article whatsoever. When you view Chrysler Hemi engine, you probably see a 'view source' tab instead of edit or history tabs. Anonymous IPs (such as yours, 64.107.58.130) cannot make any contributions, good faith or otherwise. The admins' other option is to fully protect the page, in which case no-one but admins can make edits, and we all see the 'view source' tab instead of the activity buttons, logged into an account or not.

In this instance, I have one more suggestion to put to you. Formalis(z)e your editorship by creating an account for yourself. I am not putting this to you as a way round the semi-protected pages, but so that you can feel as though you've joined the Wikipedia community more fully. Because it is a community, containing all the things you would expect from a physical neighbo(u)rhood collective - great acts of kindness, tons of help, but also disagreements and negatives. The reason you're posting here today stems from the latter. It honestly is so much easier to resolve things when one is dealing with a name and not a number (literally, in this instance). I can tell from the way you put your messages and arguments together that you are a very intelligent individual. But your potential here is not being realis(z)ed properly, and I believe that creating an account would be a fine first step to integrating, resolving and then moving on to make some first-class edits to what I'm sure will become first-class articles. It needs a lot of give and take, though.

However, I'd like to get a response from user Scheinwerfermann before we go any further. After his/her input, the future course of things may become a little clearer. Thanks for your so far very civil posting in response to my attempt to help. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref, thanks for getting involved here. I've been observing your recommended time-out, have read your comments a few times, and will read them a few more times before responding substantively. This is just a short acknowledgement note; more to follow soon. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref, having read and mulled your comments at some length, here are my thoughts:

I appreciate your perspective on the tone of my talk page comments directed at 64.107.58.130, but I'm not sure I can entirely agree with you. There was absolutely no explicit or implicit malice intended in my use of the phrase "an editor such as this", for example; I could just as easily have said "this editor", for that's what I meant. Both 64.107.58.130 and I are in North America; I'm speaking North American, while you're across the pond, reading English. Unintended connotations have been read-in over much less, so it seems likely this is at least part of the basis for your perception of my tone. I'm confident my edit history overall speaks well for itself in terms of compliance and cooperation, particularly when dealing with new editors, but perhaps there are adjustments I can make to the way I present the information. It would be nice to have some additional perspectives on the matter beyond the generally favourable evaluations I've had from a few admins I've asked to look over my work.

Furthermore, you seem to perceive my careful efforts to keep my comments relevant to content, format, protocol and procedure as patronising and dismissive. This leads me to wonder what you'd rather see me do in my attempts to reach out to 64.107.58.130. I have no intention or desire to get in pissing contests or mudslinging matches with this editor, so even when 64.107.58.130 has called me a Nazi (amongst many other blatantly uncivil personal attacks) I have continued to steer the conversation back towards the content, format, and protocols at hand. I believe that to be a reasonable, proper, and compliant way of dealing with personal attacks; you seem to perceive it as a "bite", and I'd be keen to learn your thoughts on how such attacks might better be handled.

It's a pleasant surprise to see 64.107.58.130's civil, coöperative tone in this discussion, and I sincerely hope we'll see more improvement in that direction, but it's difficult for me to hold much hope for it, given his/her significant track record of vitriolic, abusive behaviour. The diffs and links I posted are not exhaustive, but they are extensive, so I wouldn't fault you for having not have read them all. As recently as yesterday, 64.107.58.130 was still objecting (on his talk page) to being asked to properly sign his/her comments on talk pages, thus continuing a longstanding pattern of not only refusing to sign his comments, but going in and deleting SineBot's autosignatures of his/her comments. This, together with repeated and strident wholesale rejection and derision of Wikipedia policy and those who adhere to it, make it difficult for me to see this 64.107.58.130's civil tone in this thread as sincere and genuine. I hope I am eventually proven wrong on that point.

64.107.58.130 objects to what he says is "my way or no way" behaviour on my part. As I have repeatedly (and patiently, and politely, and in a civil manner) tried to explain to 64.107.58.130, what he perceives as "my" requirements, "my" rules, "my" policies, etc. are nothing more or less than the standards and norms agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. Tagging uncited facts, adding applicable templates, removing unencyclopædic text (OR, personal essays, large text dumps from web forums, etc.) does not constitute messing up an article; rather, those actions are each a part of working towards that article's improvement within the structures and provisions of Wikipedia. Each time I have tried to present this and other salient points of order and structure in Wikipedia, they've gone unread and explicitly dismissed by 64.107.58.130. Until s/he understands that Wikipedia's policies, standards, and norms apply to us all, I imagine s/he'll continue to feel censored, "wikistalked", and otherwise mistreated — If not by me, then by the next editor who comes along to clean up an article to which 64.107.58.130 has contributed unencyclopædic content.

The question of good/bad faith is not always simple, and I fear this is one of those cases. It seems to me that an editor who is repeatedly asked to cooperate and follow WP policy, and shown where and how to do so, and who repeatedly not only doesn't do so but overtly expresses his disdain for those policies and his willful intent to carry on disregarding them, is editing in bad faith. Ignorance of the rules doesn't constitute bad faith, but willfully and defiantly maintained ignorance of the rules might be a different matter. I realise that 64.107.58.130 is certainly not alone in his views; any kind of enforcement of Wikipedia policies is probably always going to be unpopular amongst those who have a strong passion for the subjects that interest them and aren't interested in formal structures or strictures, but this is an encyclopædia, not an enthusiast website or a blog or a car magazine or a book. Anybody may contribute, but everybody must do his best to do so within the rules and behavioural standards of this community. Just as I am confident my own edit history speaks generally well for itself, I am also pretty sure 64.107.58.130's edit history speaks for itself, only it doesn't paint a very uplifting picture. Having had a few admins look things over and received several confirmations of that view, I'm hoping to avoid initiating official administrator intervention; it's no fun for any of the parties involved and would probably not go well for 64.107.58.130. I sincerely hope s/he'll make the choice to behave coöperatively rather than combatively.

Again, thanks for your perspective and whatever further thoughts you may care to offer. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments regarding "cross-pond" use of English (North American? Why do I understand your writing if you are not using English?). When I see a humo(u)rous remark, US or UK, I take it for what it is and laugh. Conversely, when I see a barbed or arrogant remark, US or UK, I do the same, except I don't laugh. Not that I am saying your remarks are anything of the kind, but I am trying to illustrate that 90% of what you perceive as a language difference is a fallacy. Where the difference can lie is in common intelligence, or the lack of it. Ignorance is bliss, but it's also the death knell for anyone wishing to edit successfully here. Luckily, all three of us involved in this discussion are of the former, and able to string three words together cohesively. I therefore cannot agree that 64.107.58.130 can be described as ignorant. I am afraid that, if I sense the "tone" of the words used might be dubious, then it's highly likely that another involved editor may well pick up on that too, whether they come from the United States or United Kingdom. And judging from 64.107.58.130's reactions to some of your postings, he/she is incensed or outraged by what meanings are perceived. Unfortunately, those emotions need to be handled better by the anon editor, or there is no future for them in Wikipedia. I hope I have previously given that impression consistently. And there is no doubt your edit history holds up well, but the matter of your respect or standing in the Wikicommunity is not at issue. We're not here in a Wikiquette dispute to decide which editor was right and which one was wrong. We are looking to find a way in which both can successfully edit in the future in the same areas of interest/expertise.

To use the words "but it's difficult for me to hold much hope for it, given his/her significant track record of vitriolic, abusive behaviour" is, again, unmistakeably dismissive and critical, whether true or not, and whether used here or "over the pond". To deny this is hugely insensitive to a person's feelings (we don't switch them off to edit this encyclopedia, we continue to be human emotional beings throughout, and some thought has to be given to this aspect).

I believe that the root of the problem for (not 'with') 64.107.58.130 is the feeling that nothing they contribute is deemed worthwhile, and that they may expect all their good faith edits to be treated in the same way. Which is why I reiterate that any possibly sourceable, neutral, balanced and relevant information they have added should not just be wiped off in a carte blanche action.

There is a real impression given that this IP editor may well have been initially tarred with the vandal brush, and I am able to see why, but not given enough fair chance subsequently to prove good faith, given the possible sense of injustice I have highlighted above. The matter of whether a person signs their contributions or not is between them and SineBot, usually. It can't really be held up as an indication of what type of editor they are.

I still believe that it will be possible for both of you to successfully edit the same articles, and I would be interested to hear back from 64.107.58.130 once more, although I suspect I have gone as far as I can in trying to set out a common ground from which both can develop. I would also invite other neutral editors to join the discussion with their thoughts on this. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're reading-in considerably more than I put into my comment regarding English vs. American usage. Of course we're all using English; I was pointing out that the connotation of words and phrases can differ significantly between UK and North American usage. "Scheme", for example, can be a perfectly innocuous synonym for "programme" or "system" in the UK, but it has decidedly negative connotations of chicanery and underhandedness in North America. Likewise, I think the way you heard "an editor such as this" in your head is probably not the way I intended it. I'm sure we can agree that communication happens between or among parties involved, so I'm not laying blame or pointing the finger, merely pointing out a linguistic phenomenon that may be at work here.

I am curious what term other than "willfully ignorant" you would prefer I apply to an editor who does not learn the rules and has clearly stated s/he has no intention of doing so. I agree with your supposition that this editor may feel a sense of injustice at the lack of durability of his/her edits. If that's so, the remedy is quick and easy: when 64.107.58.130 makes his/her contributions in a manner consistent with the behavioural and procedural norms of the Wikipedia community, more of his/her edits will survive for longer and longer periods and his/her sense of exclusion will evaporate. That is the common ground upon which all editors can effectively coöperate towards the betterment of individual Wikipedia articles and the project as a whole.

I bear no especial animosity or ill will towards 64.107.58.130, beyond the annoyance s/he is causing by behaving disruptively and abusively on an ongoing basis. Thanks for your participation. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"…Both 64.107.58.130 and I are in North America; I'm speaking North American, while you're across the pond, reading English. Unintended connotations have been read-in over much less, so it seems likely this is at least part of the basis for your perception of my tone."

Funny, I’m from North America and that’s the impression I get too. "

"I'm confident my edit history overall speaks well for itself in terms of compliance and cooperation, particularly when dealing with new editors, but perhaps there are adjustments I can make to the way I present the information."

” Aw hell, you're just being vindictive. I've been closer to these cars than you'll ever be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semi-Gloss (talk • contribs) 07:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)”

“NEXT time, please insert a request for a citation before willy-nilly deleting something. You know, a FACT tag. THEN, you can discuss things further on this page. DO NOT just delete stuff. Zaq1qaz (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)”

"Furthermore, you seem to perceive my careful efforts to keep my comments relevant to content, format, protocol and procedure as patronising and dismissive. This leads me to wonder what you'd rather see me do in my attempts to reach out to 64.107.58.130. I have no intention or desire to get in pissing contests or mudslinging matches with this editor, so even when 64.107.58.130 has called me a Nazi (amongst many other blatantly uncivil personal attacks) I believe that to be a reasonable, proper, and compliant way of dealing with personal attacks; you seem to perceive it as a "bite", and I'd be keen to learn your thoughts on how such attacks might better be handled."

” In the mean time, feel free to remove the "NAZI" and otherwise abusive comments. --Duk 01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)”

So why did the comments remain? Because Scheinwerfermann doesn't WANT to remove them. That's not what Scheinwerfermann WANTS to do. Why all the effort expended on making sure my I.P. address appeared? What is your I.P. address?

I’m picturing a train on a set of tracks that doesn’t understand how it might be a wise thing to maybe curve around some obstacle and not cling to a set of rails so assiduously. The Wikipedia “rules” you cut and paste and refer to soooo much are actually “guidelines”.

”An editor who consistently refuses to learn the rules is being disruptive just as willfully as an editor who knows the rules and chooses not to follow them.”…by Scheinwerfermann.

Let me tell you how I think this should be handled: I went through your contributions page; probably 75% of your activity is with Chrysler and its related subsidiaries articles. I can’t find a single instance where you have contributed anything to a Ford article. Suddenly, you perceive a personal attack and you retaliate with an abusive edit of an article you saw I had recently worked on. Then you go to the Hemi Engine article where you saw that I had put in extensive work and contributions and start the same bullying there. You don’t like anyone messing with ‘your’ Chrysler articles. Not the Hemi articles, not the Dodge Dart article, nothing you have 'blessed' can be allowed to be improved. Errors, inconsistencies, lack of references and citations; they don't matter once you have made a Wiki-cross over the article and locked it down.

I have continued to steer the conversation back towards the content, format, and protocols at hand. And yet, the whole Wiki-community is still blessed with a Chrysler Hemi article that contains incorrect information and few citations because you refuse to discuss the points I made so that the protection can come off of the article.

The way I see this being handled is I put in for some kind of tattletale report of Wikistalking, abusive editing, tendendentiousness or whatever this place calls schoolyard bullying.

” he seems to be what is known in Canada as a "shit disturber". It means exactly what it sounds like it means. -- Scheinwerfermann. 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)”

” OK, I can do some of what you ask, like unlock the article for unregistered users to edit, but not if people are just going to keep reverting each other. Can you and the other editors come to some agreement here on the talk page first? Maybe start a new section and pick something small you can all agree on? It might be difficult because of your previous name calling, but if you make the effort, maybe the other editors will too. --Duk 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)”

So this is where it stands. Scheinwerfermann refuses to come on point and discuss the facts that are in dispute. S/he refuses to do anything except complain about my use of an I.P. address instead of a user name. As I stated on my talk page, an I.P. address is more personal and a more reliable means of identification than a made-up user name and I don’t understand the issue here. And I especially don’t understand why it is preventing the correction of a agreed-upon erroneous article that is missing references, citations and additional information pertinent to the subject.

"64.107.58.130 objects to what he says is "my way or no way" behaviour on my part. As I have repeatedly (and patiently, and politely, and in a civil manner) tried to explain to 64.107.58.130, what he perceives as "my" requirements, "my" rules, "my" policies, etc. are nothing more or less than the standards and norms agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. Tagging uncited facts, adding applicable templates, removing unencyclopædic text (OR, personal essays, large text dumps from web forums, etc.) does not constitute messing up an article; rather, those actions are each a part of working towards that article's improvement within the structures and provisions of Wikipedia. Each time I have tried to present this and other salient points of order and structure in Wikipedia, they've gone unread and explicitly dismissed by 64.107.58.130. Until s/he understands that Wikipedia's policies, standards, and norms apply to us all, I imagine s/he'll continue to feel censored, "wikistalked", and otherwise mistreated — If not by me, then by the next editor who comes along to clean up an article to which 64.107.58.130 has contributed unencyclopædic content."

Please note that Scheinwerfermann refuses to discuss changing his viewpoint on the matter. It is my fault, and now apparently your fault. He has made, in this long-winded reply, no real compromise, nor shown a willingness to discuss the article that started this dispute. He does not own up to his abusive editing and stalking of me across two other articles. In short, it really is “his way or no way”.

I would also like to let Scheinwerfermann in on how some of us write. We don’t write an article, with nice citations and references all at once. We may have have some time and write a paragraph, clean up a few paragraphs, then take a break. Then we’ll come back, maybe add a relevant photo, maybe add a citation or two.

According to Scheinwerfermann’s view, it seems, we should have everything all nice and perfect and ready to type in during one session at the keyboard. If we don’t, everything gets reverted, all work gets undone, and who cares about “some” citations when all of them are needed in order to satisfy Scheinwerferman’s “rules”.

” I provided the citation requested, but you deleted the referenced source, and the citation, for the above two examples, as well as for numerous other requests for citations. You seem to be deliberately sabotaging my attempts to provide you with citations. Do you have a problem with a citation from a published book, with an ISBN number, that I cited down to the page number? You are a classic whiner. You can harp and criticize and find flaws, but what exactly are you adding to the project? I’m waiting to see. Signed: Raokman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.221.60 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)”

I went through a bunch of talk pages and history last night. I don't know how to link to inner parts of pages, but I kept a log of where quotes came from. There is a CURRENT history of innocuous edits and softsoaping treatment in his first page and a half of edit history. You need to go back to before he first realized I might report him for a more relevant picture of his 'style' of editing and treatment of others.

So, all I take away from this is that Scheinwerfermann doesn't think anything's amiss. That he's right, everyone else is wrong, and everything should just stay the way it is. Is that everyone else's take on this roundy-round?

(Unindent) Well, you've totally lost me there. Disengaged quotations which I take to be unformulated diffs (and impossible for me to refer to easily), and which have severely backtracked this informal process. Quoting other people's gripes with Schweinwerfermann is nothing to do with this method of resolving differences.

I suggest you both now take this to a higher resolution process, because what is being brought out here is far beyond rectification through a Wikiquette alert. I did try. Thanks and good luck. Ref ^(chew)(do) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

ReluctantPhilosopher

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – This is not a wikiquette issue. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This user is dominating article Sonia Gandhi and is not allowing anyone else to edit/add/delete any information. I had made some recent changes which were reverted by him without any discussion. I had asked hat is disruptive about it? I had already given valid reasons for the same. And in fact, according to him, Political commentry and POVs do not have any place in wikipedia. So why is he worried? And his problem is not anything else, but someone is opposing him with facts.

He is maintaining this article like a fan site and monitoring it daily and immediately reverting any edits which he does not like (I am talking about valid edits). He has also threatened me a lot of times that I will be blocked when he does not hold any such rights.

Following is the explanation of my edits.

Added: She was eligbile to become Indian citizen in 1974 but she acquired Indian citizenship in 1983. Removed: As the Prime Minister's wife she acted as his official hostess and also accompanied him on a number of state visits. (No such reference) Modified: In stead of 'she', I have modifed to 'her party'. If you know the civics, you should know that a party recommends a person not a person recommends.

Removed: There has been considerable media speculation about their futures in the Congress. If we go by your opinion, what is the base for this statement? It is indeed a political commentry.

Removed: The 'general view' was that the action could be seen as part of the old Indian tradition of renunciation. What is this? Whose general view is this? Clear example of a POV. Has no place in wikipedia.

I request someone to help me adding.modifying valuable information to the article on most powerful lady politician in India. The article needs a lot of cleanup and should be saved from editors like ReluctantPhilosopher.

I would like to ask everyone whether it is ok that someone is dominating the article everyday and no one bothers to look at it?

08:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. If you two still have a legitimate content dispute, you should be able to discuss it using the dispute resolution process. You made this exact complaint a few weeks ago, which ended with arguments about who's a sockpuppeteer until it came out that you were the one using sockpuppets and then the discussion promptly died down. Do you think people have forgotten that? Stop coming here to hash out your content dispute. There are no etiquette violations here, at least none that exist outside of a bitter, pointless content dispute (in which you two seem endlessly entangled). The WQA is not the place for this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

confusing behavior from User talk:ApsbaMd2

Could someone please take a look at recent edits by User talk:ApsbaMd2 and see if they can figure out what's going on. This brand new account has started reverting edits as vandalism, but it seems to be almost random. My good faith edit, and those of User:Huaiwei and User talk:Gryffindor have been unfairly accused. IP User Special:Contributions/152.160.39.70 was accused of vandalism to a page that he did not even edit. It addition, this strange revert was also made. I don't know if it's a bot, or just a strange user. Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird. Some, but certainly not all, of this user's revisions have legitimately been vandalism. I'll drop a line at the user's talk page and see what response I get. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave a L3 notice for his continued vandalism, in applying false warning templates to various talk pages. It seems to now be a vandal-only account, although I still hold out hope. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rokus01 (concerning article Nordic race)

The conduct of User:Rokus01 in the talk:Nordic race needs to be brought to attention. The controversy is about the question whether the sentence: "For example, the later Nazi minister for Food, Richard Walther Darré, who had developed a concept of the German peasantry as Nordic race, used the term 'Aryan' to refer to the tribes of the Iranian plains." This statement is sourced to a biography of Richard Walther Darré by an accepted historian. Common sense as well as wp:NPOV would mandate the mentioning of Darré's theory on the Nordic Race in this article. Rokus01 objects this, but from his writings on the discussion page I personally cannot perceive if has has actually understood wp:reliable sources and wp:NPOV. His opinion is unsupported by the two other editors who participated in the discussion. More importantly, his conduct has left the limits of what is acceptable within the guidelines of wp:civil and wp:assume good faith. In the edit summary I have been asked to " Go to the nazi pages please" [8] and been named a Troll [9] and Extremist [10]. In his last message on the talk page, Rokus01 accused me of conveying "Nazi POV" [11].

In the discussion so far I have avoided any political viewpoint, and I have the intention to continue this. I am only concerned about depicting Nazi ideology (and it's connection to theories about a "Nordic Race") correctly. That I have an interest in Nazi ideology OF COURSE does not allow the conclusion that I would be an adherent thereof, and I totally object these presumptions by Rokus01.Zara1709 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like Godwin's law applies on a much shorter timeframe when a discussion is already about Nazis. Most of what you describe is a content/source dispute. I'd recommend a third opinion, request for comment, or possibly posting on the reliable sources noticeboard. His conflating your agenda or intentions with Nazism is inappropriate and I have left a warning. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I still think that the ARTICLE ISSUE is below a RFC. Darré has written a book with the title: "Das Bauerntum als Lebensquell der nordischen Rasse" (The Peasantry as Live-Spring of the Nordic Race). Usually there should not be an argument about whether it is appropriate to mention a known politician who has written a book on a topic WITH ONE SENTENCE in the article on the respective topic. That is what I meant with common sense. However, since we are talking about a Nazi politician here, this would also be mandated by wp:NPOV. In anyone else on the discussion page does seriously search for a reason why this wouldn't be relevant, I guess one would have to put up an article rfc, but otherwise the only subject for an rfc here is the conduct of User:Rokus01. He continued his allegation that I would convey "Nazi POV" [12]. He now is of the opinion that the sentence in question would be prohibited because "WP:RS also protects Wikipedia from extremist sources". This is most likely related to an edit war he started at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and in which he broke wp:3RR, about which he was informed by Francis Schonken [13].Zara1709 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits of Zara1709 involved the point of view of a Nazi (Darré). Thus, the edits of Zara1709 are Nazi-POV. Moreover, the Nazi-POV was brought in by Zara1709, so it is linguistically correct to say "your Nazi-POV". Why it would be different, because it is Nazi-POV we are dealing with here? Did I say "your Nazi-PPOV"? I don't know Zara1709 at all, nor do I know anything about his personal beliefs or the state of his mind. I did NOT make a statement on his PERSONAL point of view. Nor did I break the WP:3RR rule. That would hardly apply to revert vandalism and undue Nazi-POV anyway, as far as I am concerned. Rokus01 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cebactokpatop and John Zizioulas article

Resolved

 – User blocked and warned about edit warring; parties now seeking mediation.

DanielEng (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite repeated requests to cease, User Cebactokpatop repeatedly bad faith, incivility and several times has mounts unwarranted personal attacks against me:

• 'I have not detected even the smallest desire on your side to learn that there are people out there who do not agree with either JZ or his followers. If you were expecting arguing from my side in typical internet forum fashion - one by one sentence, you are badly mistaken about the mind of the Traditional Orthodox. How low you can be is in the fact that you even modified my own text adding quotation around the first word in the title on this page - Unproven Claims by Seminarist. If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself. In the end, followers of JZ cannot be any better, as the spring they are drinking from, is tainted. ' (01:17, 18 February 2008)[14]

• 'Just because he is the fan of the JZ, his personal orientation should not be emphasized on the Wiki's article. Seminarist needs to learn that other opinions are valid on Wiki, as well.' (20:28, 17 February 2008)[15]

• ' This below is for your own benefit and speedy revival from the falsehood of Zizioulas, Afansiev, Shmeman, etc. "Even if false hierarchs, while being in heresy, will succeed in deceiving and enticing a certain number of ignorant ones and in gathering even a considerable number of followers, then they are outside the sacred walls of the Church just the same. But even if very few remain in Orthodoxy and piety, they are in the Church, and the authority and the protection of the ecclesiastical institution resides in them. And if they should suffer for true piety, then this will undoubtedly contribute to their eternal glory and salvation of their souls." - St. Nicephorus the Confessor' (05:56, 17 February 2008)[16]

• ' You are continuing with the vandal approach putting unverified claims "pro" while removing references to the voice of those who recognized in JZ - a faulty man with heterodox ideas.'(14:25, 16 February 2008)[17]

• 'you are trying to push down the Traditional Orthodox View, by creating numerous sections' (21:32, 15 February 2008)[18]

• 'Nope. You came as vandal and backed off only after my reaction.' (21:08, 15 February 2008)[19]

• 'Your constant quoting attitude whenever referring to the term - traditional, explains who you are and where you come from.' (21:05, 15 February 2008) [20]

• 'Your attempt to hide the fact that many people disagree with his work is obvious. What is very low is the way you are tying to do it.' (20:11, 15 February 2008)[21]

• 'This person is trying to quiet down the voice of the traditional Orthodox people who do not see the work of JZ as Orthodox. That is precisely what we call vandalism, and that is why you deserved tag - vandal.' (20:06, 15 February 2008)[22]

(The context of these remarks is a dispute in which I wish to have removed POV material from John Zizioulas article - see Talk:John Zizioulas.)

I do not believe such comments are acceptable on Wikipedia.

Seminarist (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai

Stuck

 – If administrator attention is required, you'll have to go to an administrator's noticeboard. In general though, posting repeated warnings isn't helpful - if you're complaining about someone's behavior at a place like this, it's best to let others warn him (and only once). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a situation where an editor (who is also an admin, for what it's worth) is exhibiting unprovoked rudeness and belligerence. The user is also expressing an attitude in clear defiance of WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS.

• My post

Mikkalai's response

• My post

Mikkalai's response

• My post

Mikkalai's first response

Mikkalai's second response

• My notice that I had opened the above discussion (I placed this template on each of the relevant article talk pages)

Mikkalai's response (he posted this same response to each instance of that template)

As far as I can surmise, Mikkalai took issue with my first post, in which I agreed with someone else's opinion (someone with whom he appears to have already been arguing) on a simple matter of style, and from that point on appears to have decided that nothing I say is worth any of his time. Everything I've suggested with regard to the articles in question and his conduct has been met with rudeness and an attitude that says, effectively, "Go away, you don't know what you're talking about, I own these pages and I'm making the decisions". I don't think that this is appropriate behavior for any editor, much less an admin. -- Hux (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the above edits, User:Mikkalai is being unnesecarly rude to you, and is not appreciative of Wikipedia's policies. I will leave a warning with this user. (Note to anyone: This is my first case, so if I am doing anything incorrectly, just say.) Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting help from others as User:Mikkalai is levaing me rude messages now. I will leave User:Mikkalai another warning. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai is deleting any and all warnings left by me. As I am now being attacked, I shall no longer be a mediator in this case. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai's responses to my warnings As you can see from the link, User:Mikkalai is attacking me more. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Case is now at an administrator's noticeboard. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I posted a response on Mikkalai's talk page regarding his Wikilawyering accusations, the nature of which suggested that he didn't fully understand what the term meant. -- Hux (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that now he's simply deleting all record of communication regarding this issue from his talk page. For example, Southern Illinois SKYWARN's warning about personal attacks and a violation of WP:OWN was reverted by Mikkalai one minute after it was posted. The same user's notice that he'd opened a case at the admin's noticeboard was reverted five minutes after it was posted. A few minutes after that the entire talk page was blanked and replaced with an attacking message that clearly refers to this alert and the ANI case. He also did the same thing with his user page. This latter action is kind of interesting because of what was blanked out: a story that appears to lay bare his general attitude of how Wikipedia should work.

Taken together, I think it's obvious that he has no intention of being part of this process (indeed, he appears to be actively trying to cover up its existence on his talk page, along with any other criticism) so I doubt this alert will solve the problem at hand. -- Hux (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove messages from their talk page. As much as this does or does not demonstrate a willingness to participate in the WQA or whatever, he is allowed to remove such messages. I will not comment as to how that reflects on the current dispute, but you should be aware of the fact that users are free to remove whatever unwelcome messages they want from their talk page (whether or not they should be unwelcome is another matter). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that users can never remove messages from their talk pages. (If you inferred that then that was my mistake.) However, I believe I'm right in saying that removing such content when it is relevant to an ongoing dispute in order to cover up one's actions, or otherwise influence the resolution of that dispute, is considered bad form. That's the reason why I made note of Mikkalai's user/talk page activity above. -- Hux (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, that is true. However, since it's Mikkalai's talk page, he is entitled to remove the comments whenever he wants, with no explanation. Removing warnings and blanking the page are, for purposes of this type of issue, taken as a sign that he has read those warnings and acknowledges having received them - at that point, if he continues doing the things that the warnings are being given for, further action can be taken, and a reviewing admin will be able to see the prior warnings in the edit history. Meanwhile, it sounds like you're right to take this to the Admin Noticeboard - we can only really help you here by providing guidance on how to resolve disputes, but that can only help so much when one party is unwilling to cooperate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I appreciate it. And yes, I agree that this WQA isn't going to accomplish much unless Mikkalai chooses to take part which, given his recent actions, is unlikely to happen. -- Hux (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Prester John

Resolved

 – Capitana (talk · contribs) indef. blocked as sock of Lancastria (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Prester John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prester John seems to (for lack of a better word) "follow" articles related to Islam around and suck the life out of the and insert images and content obviously intended to portray Muslims badly.

I will counter-claim that this brand new disruptive user is a SPA sock designed to harass me with baseless personal attacks. A checkuser request soon should re ban this user. For clarity my responses shall be in bold' Prester John (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This "brand new disruptive user" will quote "Checkuser is not for fishing" --Capitana (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs_and_antisemitism&diff=190695993&oldid=190642446 - Ignores consensus and adds an image because he wants to (without a coherent edit summary).

   A blatant falsehood. See the relevant consensus at the talkpage here. Prester John (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Hicks&diff=prev&oldid=190524982 Removes chunks of text without a summary.

   Quite funny this one. Sock originally deleted a whole slew of my edits in one go here with no edit summary whatsoever. Prester John (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs_and_antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=190701033 Undoes my reversion of his image citing WP:Stalk

   Well, It is obvious, Prester John (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prester_John&diff=190526378&oldid=190347374 Removes simple warnings from myself and another user with the edit summary "trolling".

   Which they are, and which I'm entitled to do.Prester John (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shama&diff=prev&oldid=191989588 Removes adjectives in an Islam related article this time citing WP:PEACOCK - a welcome change from WP:MOSISLAM. This is a fine example of Prester John rigidly quoting policy to further his own ends.

   User seems to unable and unwilling to follow the rules and regulations laid out by wikipedia.Prester John (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

6. His username itself! See Prester John. Apparently Prester John was a king responsible for "resisting Muslims". An obvious indicator of PJ's contempt for the religion and (in my view) his sheer racism.

   A coment that should get this user indef blocked for WP:NPA. How he thinks he knows my race is very interesting.Prester John (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=176736988#User:Prester_John_on_another_delete_rampage Prester John's previous community backed block (for reference).

   Is digging up a previous block relevant to the Wikiqette alert section?Prester John (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stolen_Generations&diff=prev&oldid=105742385 Insults the victims of the "stolen generations" (just look at the edit summary!)

   Keep in mind this edit is over one year old, this dude is totally stalking me.Prester John (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=88774784 An early edit of Prester John's - one of many where he insults the previous user's edits.

   This edit was made in 2006, hardly relevant to Wikiquette alerts.Prester John (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Wood&diff=prev&oldid=88782647 "Morons should not create articles" says Prester John.

    Another edit from 2006.Prester John (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prester_John&diff=prev&oldid=170663669 Here Prester John shrugs of admin advice "boring, I know what a sources is"
12. Prester John has previously been reprimanded for referring to "left wing scum" - still trying to find the link I had it five mins ago!

In my opinion, Prester John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is behaving in a racist manner - however as I have stated in the talk page of David Hicks - as a human rights activist it would be a Conflict of Interest for me to get involved. I therefore request comment here. Also if you look through his contribs he seems to make niggly little edits at every corner to Islam related articles such as removing "holy" from Koran, changing "makkah" to "mecca". He basically uses WP:MOSISLAM to the letter (the parts he agrees with) in order to make nasty edits where they are not needed! His block previously seems to have done little or no good at all as he is still exhibiting the same behaviour as always.--Capitana (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the user has repeatedly interfered with this report (see history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=192345406&oldid=192197739 ). --Capitana (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are being a dead horse into glue at this point. Many of these vios. date back to 2006 or 2007 and some are really not specific to wikiquette. Further, some are content removals without edit summaries, hardly the work of a vandal -- although if it continues on and is persistent, then an issue can be raised regarding that. I noted that Prester John was blocked previously for prior vios., so including those vios. that date to 2006 and 2007 into this report is pretty much voided as a result. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And although inserting comments into other user's replies may be considered bad form, it is by far not interference or incivil. I made a notice on the user's talk page regarding this, and he has corrected it by adding in signatures to note that the inserted comments were made by him, and not by someone else. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A CU request has been made under Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Capitana. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And... Capitana (talk · contribs) == Lancastria (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mrg3105 and articles with accented characters in their titles

This user has been adding "disputed title" tags on dozens of articles (mostly Romanian cities/regions), arguing that any article whose name contains diacritics (such as the Romanian letters Ă, Ş, and Ţ) indisputably violates WP:UE and must be changed to an accent-free form. See, for example, Chişinău (the capital of Moldova), and its talk page, where prolonged discussions of the issue seem to be going nowhere. Could we please get some outside input as to whether Wikipedia policy really demands that all articles in the English Wikipedia must have diacritic-free titles? Richwales (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify that my tagging was intended as an exercise in trawling and not trolling, to see if anyone other then User:Eurocopter tigre will join the discussion --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wiki to make a point. Placing dispute tags for no other reason than to try to drum up editor attention is inappropriate and can be considered disruptive. I'm sure there's a Wikiproject Romania, so if you want to get other editors interested in certain pages, why not try asking there? Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I accept your advice. I have replaced the tag on the one article with a suggested alternative title to reflect ongoing discussion on the dispute. I have also requested advice on the 3RR rule. I am also in an ongoing discussion elsewhere on a related issue. Thank you --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 09:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. I would suggest that the titles remain with the proper accents, FWIW. There's nothing on the English Wiki that prevents accents being used in proper names. On a lot of Wiki pages for places and people with accents in their names, the unaccented title is a redirect to the proper accented one (for instance, Andreea Raducan leads to Andreea Răducan). You could always do the same thing for Chisinau, et al. Best, DanielEng (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you are not suggesting we discuss this here. If you wish to join into the discussion in Wikipedia:Naming conventions, I'd be glad to explain to you why the Wikipedia editors were mistaken during previous discussions, and how your proposal can not be applied. I strive to use only Wikipedia policies, guidelines and conventions and not to use my own POV to arrive as the conclusion that accents are not something that should/can be used in Wikipedia.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 10:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not even remotely interested in joining any content dispute. I was just offering a suggestion you might not have been aware of. If you wish to debate this, I suggest you do so at Wikiproject Romania et al with the relevant editors. In the meantime, please be reminded of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT. Best, DanielEng (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POINT. I will soon be submitting a proposal for policy change on Village Pump which has Worldwide consensus, not on one, but two points of Wikipedia policy. By the way, would you agree that Wikipedia policy is there to make a point? Administrative enforcement of Wikipedia policy is therefore not same as WP:POINT? Am I correct in this?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. Wiki policy is a set of rules developed through consensus, trial and error and any applicable laws (as in BLP) and they are there to keep the project in some semblance of order, not to prove a point. At the moment, you don't have any official policy or consensus to back you up--only your belief that the current consensus is wrong--and so yes, you are trying to prove a point. You've already stated that your reason for tagging so many articles was to 'trawl' for user response. If your naming convention is accepted by consensus as policy, that's fine. If it's not, you'll have to accept that the majority does not agree with you and move on. It really won't be the end of the world and there will be plenty of other articles to edit. Best, DanielEng (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

USER:Andyvphil personal attacks

Stale

 – Incivility on both sides, and clearly no willingness to work through the WQA constructively. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

---

This user has become increasingly incivil and the personal attacks, including Straw Man discrediting attacks, failure to WP:AGF and generally hostile comments have recently culminated in this edit. More diffs available if needed. WNDL42 (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional Diffs:

• here
• here

More as time allows.WNDL42 (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit perplexed at how an editor can make a personal attack, and strike it through originally. Strike-through is almost always for comments retracted later. To make a personal attack, strike it through, and say "oh sorry, forgot about WP:CIVIL" doesn't seem to respect WP:CIVIL at all. His talk page indicates that he's had issues mislabeling his reverts as "rvv," making personal attacks, not assuming good faith, edit-warring, etc. I've left a warning, however, this incivility seems to be a piece in a bigger picture (the bias/agenda that are quite transparent in his contributions regarding Obama). I'm not sure what kind of attention is necessary here, so I'm hoping somebody else has a better idea. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WNDL42 keeps accusing me of being a Moonie MEATPUPPET for User:Jkuhner, better known as Jeffrey T. Kuhner, editor of the online magazine Insight. I debunked this when he first did it a week ago but he keeps doing it.[23] And he's been giving me bogus 3RR warnings for about a month. You write of similar activity "This kind of bullshit (and that is what it is) le\d me to stop contributing so actively to the WQA and has made me reconsider the value of spending my time here at all", and I suppose I could follow suit. Buit for now I will continue to undo WNDL42's attempt to transform any mention of the Insight/madrassa controversy into an assertion that Kuhner lied about being told lies about Obama, a BLP violation if I ever saw one. Outside of Insight (magazine), that is, where I am POINTily letting him have his head in the expectation that the stink level of the POV may finally reach the nostrils of someone who will object to it.

And, no, I'm not a Moonie and have had no contact with Kuhner outside of Wikipedia. And he didn't respond to my comments when he objected,[24] to a much less tendentious (pre-WNDL42) version of his bio and the Insight article. Do I really have to say this?

Let me emphasize: I don't know if Kuhner is telling the truth about what he was told. But I know I don't know, and I know WNDL42 doesn't know, and I know the various (non-principal) sources we quote don't know, and that any assertion to the contrary is a falsehood directed at Kuhner, a "smear" at least as mendacious as that directed at Obama by (party uncertain). And I won't stop writing and rewriting the necessary distinctions into articles where they are not made.

Btw, I searched my user page for "rvv" and didn't find it anywhere. What are you talking about? Andyvphil (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost the entirety of your response has nothing to do with the civility complaint lodged against you... --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither was your assertion that my bias was transparent. I chose to respond to that rather than deny the obvious, which is that WNDL42's POV-pushing "bullshit" (your word) has sorely tried my patience. So, tell me: what is my bias/agenda if it's not what I've said it is? If it's so transparent it shouldn't tax you much to describe it. And the description will tell us a lot about your biases and suitability to sit in judgement on this matter. Answer my question before you change the subject. Andyvphil (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You've decided to incorporate personal attacks based on decontextualized and unrelated items from my userpage into this discussion, which should have nothing to do with me and everything to do with your inappropriate conduct in the middle of a content dispute in which you, as I said, appear to be adding nonNPOV material. Because you've decided to lash out at me in an inappropriate fashion, I am going to discontinue responding to you in this complaint. I've made my assessment of the situation, and your opinion of my userpage has nothing to do with that. I will point out that the users who've made a habit of personally attacking WQA respondents, third opinions, or mediators, they don't get alot of help around here, so maybe you should try changing your attitude about the dispute resolution process. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I've made a "personal attack" on you??? Where? Quote me. Or, if you won't reply any more, anyone please quote the "personal attack" in question. I don't see it. What I do see is someone who's accusing me of adding non-NPOV material (no specifics or diffs specified) and having a "transparent agenda/bias" (which he refuses to specify), and who sees evidence of my having "issues mislabeling his reverts as 'rvv'" where none exists and who feels free to call the actions of other editors "bullshit" (which indeed they may have been) telling me that when I do the same I'm supposed to be contrite. nb: You can't "discontinue responding" to me if you never responded in the first place. But, no, I see no evidence that I should welcome your input. Andyvphil (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's break this down to a bit more simple level: 1) Complaint is filed. 2) I warn you and mention here that these are serious complaints and make a parenthetical remark about how the underlying content problem, in which you appear biased, is the real issue. 3) You respond by quoting decontextualized remarks from my userspace back at me, and question my "suitability to sit in judgement [sic] on this matter," despite the fact that the only issue here is your incivility. You have demonstrated that you are clearly unwilling to participate in the WQA in good faith, so I don't see the point in explaining this in any more depth. Stop making demands about diffs too. When you were given a 3RR warning, for example, there is no requirement that you be provided diffs (not to mention four of them - the 3RR warning comes before revert 4). --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What part of "bogus 3RR warnings" didn't you understand? When faced with bogus 3RR warnings I will ignore your instructions to me and continue to demand the diffs that don't exist. And civility does not require that I pretend that your opinions, still less your instructions, have any validity. I'll reconsider if and only if (a) you identify what I said to you is a "personal attack", (b) you identify a non-NPOV edit such as you assert I've made and defend your characterization of it as such, and (c) describe my "transparent agenda/bias" in specific terms. Barring that, it's not my "good faith" that's in question. Andyvphil (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is. That's what a WQA complaint against you entails. I'm not going to defend my tangential/parenthetical comments about the larger content dispute because (despite you flying off the handle, and yes you did, about it) that is not what the WQA is about. You've made some rude comments, attacking other editors. Stop making them. Those aren't my "instructions" - it's policy. Follow it or don't. I'm not interested in being dragged into your content disputes. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, what WQA is actually supposed to be is intervention by neutral paries to provide "perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum." Read the damn box. When you start out by announcing that my "talk page indicates that [I've] had issues mislabeling [my] reverts as "rvv," making personal attacks, not assuming good faith, edit-warring, etc.... incivility seems to be a piece in a bigger picture (the bias/agenda that are quite transparent in [my] contributions regarding Obama)" and then compound the offensiveness of your attacks by refusing to substantiate them I don't think I need pretend that that you are someone whose intervention I ought to welcome or whose judgement(what was that "(sic)" about? That is thea way the word is spelled.) I need respect. Andyvphil (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So you want neutral third-party advice and mediation if their opinions suit you? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying. And "sic" means you misspelled judgment. It's a part of how one quotes another. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong about that too. Both spellings are acceptable.[25][26]. And, no, I'm not much interested in "mediation" by purportedly neutral third partys when their "parenthetical comments" indicate a preexisting hostility and they proceed to do things like demanding that I not respond appropriately to bogus 3RR warnings spamming my talk page, etc. Judgment or judgement, you haven't demonstrated either. Andyvphil (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been contributing to the articles in question, mainly to be sure that they are not used to attack Senator Obama unfairly. I have found that Andyvphil is basically fair-minded and constructive, although he does lose his temper sometimes WNDL42 does seem to be sincere, however he sometimes goes overboard about trying to make the articles express his own opinions. Redddogg (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

another contributor here- i think that Andyvphil is not using personal attacks in any problematic sense, but they need to work on making their edit summaries more clear and using talk to resolve countering proposals, rather than instantly reverting which is a behavior I see too often from this user. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

ENOUGH. Andyvphil, the only topic that is being discussed on this page right now is your conduct toward other editors. Not your content disputes, not your bias, not the Moonies, not what another editor has on his or her personal User Page, not whether or not a particular editor tries your patience. Your behavior. That's the basis for this WQA. Nothing else. Even without looking at the diffs (which I did), the way you flew off the handle and snapped at Cheeser1 above would make me think that this particular complaint has some merit.

You're editing an article on a controversial subject, we know. I'm sure discussions there can get heated and editors with conflicting opinions can get frustrated and ornery after a while, all the way around. Fair enough. Conflicts from Insight have been dragged in here before, in fact. All the same, commenting on the user and not the content, and lashing out, is not a way to win allies here. If what is happening at the article is pissing you off, back off and take a break. If there are BLP violations going on, there's a noticeboard you can consult for help. If there's an issue you can't resolve, take it to someone for a third opinion. It's that simple. You have options. Turning into an angry mastodon won't help you and it won't help the article, and it might drive away those who would have been willing to help you before. Best, DanielEng (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Further instances of Andyvphil's incivility can be found at this AfD discussion, as well as these diffs from Talk:Insight (magazine): here, here, here, etc., not to mention the (deleted) talk page of that deleted article. User misrepresents and disregards arguments made by other editors, employs abusive and unhelpful language to describe the comments of others, and disrupts by moving goalposts, semantic games, and failure to assume good faith. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 06:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

He's already been admonished--all the examples really won't do anything else at this point. We can't do blocks and bans, and if you feel there's a more serious issue with the user, it will need to be addressed through the proper channels. The advice I gave above goes for everyone working on this article, FWIW--disengage if necessary and take a break before the warring gets out of hand. Insight seems to have a lot of ongoing issues among the same group of editors, and WQA really is not the place to find counsel for ongoing disputes (see "What WQA CANNOT do" at the top of the page). You might as a group want to try to find a neutral third party editor to step in on that article to mediate the discussions and edits, as is done on some other controversial pages around Wiki. Best, DanielEng (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lessee, Cheeser1 mischaracterizes the contents of my talk page and volunteers that I'm editing with a transparent agenda/bias and you characterize my stiff but civil inquiry as to what he specifically means as "flying off the handle"? And the only question is my behavior and not that of the other editors involved? Well, those are your opinions, and given that as a sample I think I've had ENOUGH of them. Btw, WP:3O evidently doesn't apply (someone did ask and was turned down) and a BLP noticeboard posting got no input from anyone not already involved. The next step is actually a RFC, but I haven't had time to put it together. It's already on my todo list, though. Andyvphil (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I never used the words "flying off the handle." --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't say you did. "You" in the relevant sentence is DanielEng. Andyvphil (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil (talk · contribs) for easier access. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Breach of incivility:

• Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008: [27] [28]

Outside of that, I can't find that much (dating back to 17 February). Wndl42 (talk · contribs) has been far more incivil than Andyvphil. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe it's not only my behavior that deserves attenton here, DE's assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. Andyvphil (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As you'll notice, above I said that the advice I gave applies to everyone working on that particular article. This complaint however was specifically posted about you, so yes, that means we're talking about your behavior, not anyone else's. The article disputes don't excuse you from having to be civil. Even if you thought your reply was "stiff but civil" that is not how it came across. Telling someone "If it's so transparent it shouldn't tax you much to describe it..." is going after the user and straying from the issue. Perhaps other editors are also interpreting what you're writing as being uncivil and lashing out, even if that's not what you were trying for. And I don't see the phrase "flying off the handle" in my reply anywhere either, for the record. Best, DanielEng (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"you flew off the handle"--Daniel Eng, initial post, the one beginning "ENOUGH". And the purpose of WQA is not "to to discuss the behavior of the person complained about, severed from the context in which it occurred". Among other things, that Wndl42 (talk · contribs) (the complainant) "has been far more incivil than Andyvphil", according to User:Seicer. And if you are going to transform this into a kangaroo court, I am damn well not going to be silenced about the evident biases of one kangaroo just because another yells ENOUGH. Andyvphil (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. You seem to think that because there are comments about your behavior, we're siding with the complainant. Not so. As I've said numerous times, many of the editors on that article need to completely chill out and stop bickering. If you look a little further up the page, you might notice that Wndl42 had another complaint here that didn't go so well. I can't speak for anyone else, but I doubt that any of the WQA editors care in the least about the content or political nature of the dispute, your personal biases, or if the article implodes from all the edit warring. We're looking at the complaint as it's filed, and the observations have been that you're behaving in an adversarial fashion.

Again, whatever the other person is doing, it doesn't give YOU the right to level personal attacks or be uncivil. Even if you're dealing with an IP vandal troll, if you start personally attacking them and being rude, you'll get blocked too, because the rules apply to everyone, regardless of context. Step back and look at how you've acted just in this WQA...you've been openly hostile to everyone who has responded. And why? None of us really know you from Adam, do we? What reason would we possibly have for any sort of grudge or skewered viewpoint?

It's really your choice. You don't have to listen to any of the WQA editors, or anything anyone else says to you. It's of no consequence to me. You'll just have to decide what kind of experience you want on Wiki: getting angry, making personal attacks, arguing and possibly getting blocked, or trying to calm down, being more civil to other editors, and having a more productive time here. Every single minute you've spent fighting other editors here could have been spent elsewhere, editing. Perhaps that's something to consider. Best, DanielEng (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"I can't speak for anyone else, but I doubt that any of the WQA editors care in the least about the content or political nature of the dispute, your personal biases, or if the article implodes from all the edit warring. I willing to believe that of you. I think you merely decided to jump in on the side of a fellow WQA editor when he complained of a "personal attack" without thinking enough about whether one had actually taken place. But Cheeser1's unjustifed attacks make it quite clear that he has a dog in this fight. And you need to reconsider any line of argument that leads you to think that you can look at my conduct in isolation from that of the other editors involved. Get real. In the real world of Wikipedia the civility police aren't so active and effective that standing up for yourself isn't usually the best policy. Notice that the implication of your comment is that you can waste all your time in fora like this, otherwise. Andyvphil (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The point of the WQA is to examine the editing of the editors in question. The fact that I responded in a way that was critical of your "dog" in this "fight" does not mean I have some horrible agenda against you as you seem to think (a "dog" of my own). Responding to a WQA complaint is not a personal attack (bizarre, coming from someone who's perfectly willing to parrot the instructions at the top of the page to me, but doesn't notice the big one at the bottom there explaining that contributing to a discussion about people involved in WQA disputes does not itself constitute a personal attack). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

When your "contributi[on] to a discussion about people involved in WQA disputes" began by declaring that my "incivility seems to be a piece in a bigger picture (the bias/agenda that are quite transparent in [my] contributions regarding Obama)" you announced your adherence to one side of a content dispute. It's too late for you to pretend neutrality. And I'm not the one who squealed "personal attack!" without being able to back it up. I haven't used that phrase at all, except when referring to your misuse of it. Andyvphil (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to reinforce my assessment of this situation. This discussion has degraded and is no longer serving to address the problem at hand - your incivility. I'm closing this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:23, 21 February 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:Verita & User:Subhan1

This is my first time using the alert system, so let me know if I am doing something wrong. User:Verita & User:Subhan1(same person) has been editing the page on Prof Hamid Dabashi, with excessive peacock terms and constantly removing any cited information that he sees as unfavorable. This person lashes out at anyone who disagrees with him, accusing them of being "zionists" and "losers". In fact, I suspect he might even be Prof Dabashi himself, since his entire editing history is about 99% on that page alone. I, and others, have warned him about his uncivil behavior and to stop removing the material. If you look at his comments on the history and talk pages they speak for themselves.BuboTitan (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For various and sundry reasons, the OWN implications make me queasy. I am going to post this to An/I Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:BuboTitan

It is laughable that BuboTitan who has been obsessing on Hamid Dabashi's page for months gives himself the psychic authority to declare who people are and aren’t and what information are deemed universal truths and thus worthy of putting up on wikipedia. I User:Verita have not lashed at anyone who has been decent enough to contribute truthfully to the page. But yes, obsessive and consistent vandals (obsessed to portray him as a racist) have heard what I think of them. I have used the Talk page, provided sources and explained my actions. I hope for his own sake [User:BuboTitan|BuboTitan]] will stop his accusations and slanderous projects on wikipedia and get out of sites where he has nothing to contribute! His projects are sinister, abusive and unsubstantiated by any mainstream and decent source.

User:Huaiwei

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:68.101.160.213

This user has had civility issue for a while. You can see at [29], [30], and [31], he has had hate against users, especially. Compwhizii. He seems to be discriminating against 13 year olds, getting mad at people for reverting his vandalism, and it doesn't stop. He does not seem to know Wikipedia policies, and is questioning them in the wrong places. He has claimed also to be a dynamic IP address, as seen here. I don't know if this user should be blocked, or just given a severe warning. Soxred93 | talk bot 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Reverting unconstructive edits may not always be the best course of action, but when an IP user who contributes alot of said edits starts lashing out, "go away" isn't such an unreasonable response (although no response is usually better). Also, if you're going to quote "go away" you might want to provide a source - decontextualizing a part of what CWii said makes it sound alot worse than it was. As for "traction" - the hostility that this IP user expresses is completely independent of his contributions - even if his contributions were the best ever, such behavior isn't acceptable. Let's also point out that CWii has made a number of obviously valid reverts like this. In fact, that's CWii's only revert in the recent history of that article. I will also note that several others are reverting the IP's edits, which amount to removing content that links to another article because it's proposed to be merged somewhere else (a merge that the IP himself proposed!) That is not a reason to remove content from an article (certainly not reason to edit war)! (See [32] [33] [34].) I see little good in warning either editor (the IP because I don't think it'll help, and CWii because s/he's done nothing wrong), but if someone else wants to stick out their neck and drop the IP an npa level 2 or something, that might not hurt. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dahn and User:AdrianTM

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.

---

Resolved

 – This complaint duplicates an issue above, and the concerns in this section appear to be only content-related. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like the users User:Dahn and User:AdrianTM, or any other editors of the article Chişinău to stop persistent removal of {{Disputed title|alternate title=Chisinau}} on Chişinău.

• The title is disputed based on interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on use of non-English language article titles.
• The issue was discussed in the article talk page, but there was a failure to cite verifiable and non-exceptional sources by User:Eurocopter tigre (or anyone else), and the discussion was discontinued by user:Eurocopter tigre
• However, to solve the issue definitively, a more global approach to Wikipedia policies and guidelines on WP:NC was deemed required.
• The issue was being discussed in appropriate WP:NC talk pages, however the two users were not participants
• The issue is a subject of imminent presentation at Village Pump policy review/amendment
• It is an informal convention of good faith in Wikipedia that dispute templates are not removed until the dispute is resolved as per Template:Disputedtag which is itself disputed!
• I would appreciate if the template was replaced on the article until all issues related to it are resolved

Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the thread a few sections up. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Before you put that {{Resolved}} on the request, you will note that this complaint does not relate to the previous complain, and is not content related! Because of this, I am not exactly sure what it is that you refer me to in the previous section.

Please note that the previous section objects to me

• 1. adding "disputed title" tags on dozens of articles
• 2. arguing that any article whose name contains diacritics indisputably violates WP:UE

To summarise for you

• I agreed with desisting in the case of the first part of the complaint Resolved
• I advised that this issue is outside of the scope of a single article, and is being resolved elsewhere (WP:NC). WQA in progress

I refer you to the section in this page which defines what Wikiquette alerts can and can not do, one of which is Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility

• Do you think that removing a {{Disputed title}} template without the dispute having been resolved (or indeed participated in) is a civil form of behaviour? If so, I will be sure to included it in the template use guidelines.
• Do yo think that 3RR policy applies for longer then 24 hours? If so I will advise the relevant policy administrators to amend their content.

Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 07:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been given a neutral perspective. In addition, since you yourself stated that you put the tags on the articles solely to 'trawl' and didn't protest when they were taken off other pages, your argument that they were critically related to a discussion in progress is null and void. And you can't dispute non-adherence to a policy that currently doesn't exist. Not to mention that none of these issues are WQA matters. You seem to have missed this part of the guidelines: What WQA CANNOT do: Intervene in content disputes, extreme personal attacks, vandalism or 3RR incidents. Please stop Wikilawyering and trying to get WQA to intervene in your content dispute. We don't replace tags. If you don't like the response you've been given here, you're free to look elsewhere. This discussion is closed. Best, DanielEng (talk) 07:46, 20 February 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.

Incivility and Personal Attacks by User:Cebactokpatop

Resolved

 – User blocked and warned about edit warring; parties now seeking mediation.

DanielEng (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cebactokpatop displaying prolonged and continuous incivility and making repeated personal attacks. Primarily on User_talk:Cebactokpatop and Talk:John_Zizioulas, but also on on User_talk:Seminarist.

Seminarist (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cebactokpatop is an Wikipedia:SPA who is openly editing the John Zizioulas page to promote a religious fringe-view, which he calls 'traditional Orthodoxy', and which he sees himself as representing on wikipedia. [35] [36] [37]

He says that because of his religious position, he will not discuss issues of disagreement over wikipedia content in detail, point by point.[38] Instead, he resorts repeately to unjustified reverts, unexplained removal of material, false accusations, incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith:

• He repeatedly deleted my constructive additions to the John Zizioulas page without justification, [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] until an administrator protected the page.[49]

• He repeatedly deleted text of mine from his talk page, [50] [51] [52] [53] until an administrator stopped him.[54]

• He repeatedly reverted my attempts to remove his pov cation of IMAGE;MZIZIJLAS.JPG [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. An adiministrator then tried to stop him,[60] but he then reverted the administrator,[61] and so was blocked for 31 hours

• He falsely accuses me of lying.[62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] An adiministrator had to stop him repeatedly adding allegations of lying to my talk page. [69] [70] [71] [72]

• He falsely accuses me of vandalism for removing POV material.[73] [74] [75] He maliciously added a level-2 POV tag to my user-page (in retaliation for my removal of NPOV material from the John Zizioulas page).[76]

• When I remove POV material, I am accused of attempting to hide or 'push down' the views of others. [77] [78] [79]

• When I raise doubts about the validity of a source am accused of 'blindness' or 'dreaming': [80] [81] [82]

• I have been subjected to the following personal attack: 'If you are by any chance real seminarist of some Orthodox Seminary, I can only be sorry for those faithful Orthodox people who would, in some future, be exposed to the clergy like yourself.' [83] (Despite requests, [84] [85] he has refused to withdraw this attack.)[86]

• He tells me he knows 'who I am and where I come from'[87]

• I am accused of being 'very low'[88] [89] [90]

• He repeatedly misrepresents my views in discussion. [91] [92]

• He falsely accuses me of dishonesty. [93] [94] [95] [96]

• He falsely alleges that I removed text from Talk:John Zizioulas [97] [98] (Later this becomes the false accusation that I modified text from Talk:John Zizioulas.) [99]

It seems impossible to engage in constructive edits with Cebactokpatop. Could I have some advice please?

Seminarist (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, Cebactokpatop (talk · contribs) and Seminarist (talk · contribs). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. I see numerous bad faith assumptions on both sides, and clear cases of incivility. I suggest that both editors edit other articles or patrol Recent Changes, clear your head regarding the dispute, and come back and have amicable discussions. Nothing is achieved when discussions are heated and it revolves around tit-for-tat arguments. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by your reply. I didn't start editing Wikipedia to get the sort of abuse I've received from Cebactokpatop. It is hardly a tit-for-tat discussion - over 90% of Cebactokpatop's edits relating to me have been blatantly incivil, and the incivility was as strong as it has been from his initial edits. Your comments don't address the fact that Cebactokpatop's only reason for being on Wikipedia is to add hostile and inappropriate material to the John Zizioulas article, and that he is explicitly editing from a religious POV.Seminarist (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But there's nothing WQA can do about a longterm conflict like this, I'm afraid. You both have very strong opinions about the article. If you feel Cebactokpatop has a legitimate conflict of interest/POV issue that should preclude him from editing this article, you can ask at the noticeboard at WP:COIN for some guidance. I also note that this article is not yet affiliated with WP:RELIGION, which is the Wikiproject for religion. You might want to check there to see if they have any specific tips on dealing with conflicts on articles about living clergy, or if there's any way to get a neutral editor versed in this subject to act as a mediator. DanielEng (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - this gives me some idea of what to do next, if the problems persist - which, on balance of probability seems likely. Seminarist (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Pgsylv on Quebec page

Resolved

 – for now at least. Per ANI, Pgsylv has been banned from the Quebec article and its talk page. Any further edits to the Quebec article or its talk page by Pgsylv will lead to a 24 hour block, with each subsequent block doubling in length. nat.utoronto 23:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User: Treelo

Resolved

 – Bad faith nom. from a suspected sock. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User: Treelo is very rude to all wikipedians. And it was clearly stated in the rules that politness is manditory. Honestly I want him blocked. A lot of users had tried to talk to him, but it didn't work. Also he uses harsh language. User:Treelo —Preceding unsigned comment added by The C. Leader (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide specific diffs that illustrate the uncivil behavior. Also note that WQA cannot block people, so please let us know what other type of intervention you'd like here. Do you want us to try to talk to him, advise you where to go, etc.? DanielEng (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Treelo (talk · contribs) and The C. Leader (talk · contribs) for further reference. I'm heading out so if no one tackles this before I do.... best of luck :O) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• groan* why do I have to be online tonight? This is a sock, isn't it?? Contacting Treelo to see if he knows who this could be.DanielEng (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

:O) I'm back and online. But going to bed. If I have time at work, which I surely will, and someone hasn't tackled it by then... well, I'll probably leave it up to you! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

But I've met my drama quota for the week already! You know, this Alert is giving me a lot of impetus to hop off Wiki, stop procrastinating and get back to work myself. :) I contacted Treelo to give him a heads up...it seems we do have a sock puppet on our hands with this report. DanielEng (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The C. Leader is a sock puppet of Crips r us. [101] Made some little group that vandalizes articles. Close this now, Treelo's a good editor. DietLimeCola (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. C. Leader only has a handful of edits since his account was created Friday, and 50 minutes into it... he posts down at WQA? Let me know if there is an open SSP case. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, got notice of this due to Dan's alert on my talkpage and yes, there is an open SSP case for this vandal. [102] --treelo _talk 14:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

C. Leader is now leaving me messages on my Talk Page trying to convince me he's not a sock...oy. I think I'm hopping off Wiki again for a while, no more drama for me this week! Anyway, Treelo, good luck with this case. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Saul Tillich

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

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

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

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

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

• 2800-word polemical essay defending breach of WP:NOR [103]
• Personal attack on Anastrophe - assumption of bad faith motive for removal of badly sourced material [104]
• Modification of another editor's Talk page comment to change the meaning [105]
• Lengthy OR essay including personal attack "I realize that the other contributors to Talk have closed minds when it comes to the possibility that Tillich’s God is nonsupernatural" [106]
• False accusation of wikilwayering when warned of overt breach of WP:NOR [107]
• Personal attacks: "You are back to your old trick of basing your claims on nothing but imagination and preconceived opinions" ... "Anyone (meaning you) who does not understand the concept of atheism and thinks it is just an empty label should not be discussing theology" [108]

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

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

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

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

As noted before, habit of blanking article without explanation is another problem [109]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

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

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

I'll reply to this point because your response is so outrageously untrue in all respects. I provided the diff [110]. You changed Anastrophe's "and not contain original research (per policy)" to "and try using referencing as is found in the vast majority of articles on wikipedia.(per policy)".

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

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

WP:SOUP - quit waffling. The diff [111] shows perfectly clearly that you changed text within Anastrophe's original comment, and not within a quote of it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Unsourced Original [sic] Research"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the exchange associated with the second quoted remark:

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

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

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

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

Complaint againest ScienceApologist

Resolved

 – Editor retracted comment and offered apology. DanielEng (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am considering a formal complaint about ScienceApologist because of his comment at [112]. I am co-director of the AA-EVP [113] and an active researcher in the field of EVP/ITC. He knows I monitor the EVP article, and so I am assuming that he intended his comments to me and my fellow researchers as a personal insult. Alone, this event could be considered an editor having a bad day, but he has used the same tone many times and his active expression of this attitude in his edits has become an obstruction. I now believe the only remedy is to bar him from editing in the paranormal subjects. The offending quote is here:

"This topic is pretty ridiculous, almost to the point of patent nonsense. Almost everyone who believes in this stuff is basically a moron or an absolute wacko, so it's a little difficult to write an intro that they would find fair. Nevertheless, we are instructed by Wikipedia to write an article with wording that follows NPOV. That's our goal. The perceived slights by those who believe in EVP is not our concern. Since there is no "theory" to speak of, nor is their really anything more to this than the pop-culture significance of it, we are basically charged with writing an article about something that is simply so preposterous that it's "not even wrong". We'll continue to pursue a neutral wording given that we must maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)" Tom Butler (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are an "active researcher" on the topic of whether ghosts live in my tape recorder? I guess we'd better do what you say! Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Randy Blackamoor, if you have no constructive comments, then please do not interfere with this effort to find a peaceful resolution to a serious breach of social etiquette. Tom Butler (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Serious? We are on a website where people play a game in which they pretend to be encyclopedia editors, that is devoted mostly to making lists of where silverware has been referenced in Family Guy and arguing over which picture of feces to use, talking to a guy who believes in ghosts, until I get banned for pointing out that water doesn't have the ability to remember which molecules it has come into contact with. I can't think of anything less academic or less serious than this. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments seem to be a mere inflamitory attempt to make things worse. If you can't say something which is constructive and which helps to create harmony and consensus, and to build an encyclopedia, please refrain from commenting. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist should play nice. Just because people believe in tape-recorder ghosts doesn't mean that you should be mean to them on WP. Tom, the article in question needs real, scholarly sources, not references to web sites and popular books. ScienceApologist would be justified in chopping out whole sections of it because they're not properly sourced. But if he does that, he should do it without insulting anyone. Leadwind (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Leadwind. It is indeed very hard to work around here when -whether or not you believe in the material- if you aren't openly derogatory toward it you get told you are a fringe POV pusher. Then, you get insulted, and it is insulting whether or not you believe, because you know that the person thinks you do, and absolutely nothing happens to them, because they haven't named a name. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My advice to you would be to not be so thin-skinned. I know ScienceApologist can be a bit difficult to deal with sometimes; I have tangled with him before. However, the most important thing here is to not worry about civility, but to produce reasonable articles. So try to work with SA to produce a reasonable NPOV article. And that means including the mainstream position in a substantial way, not trying to promote this as some sort of real phenomenon that is well documented. It is highly controversial, and it should be described as such.--Filll (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I could call those who believe as the author's on Ramond Arritt's page kooks, pseudoscientists, nutjobs, kookasauruses, crazies etc. -all things they call people like Tom Buler. I'm sure you wouldn't think that poisons the atmosphere. Just ignore it and write an article. That's fine for you, but most people call that poisonous atmosphere. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that SA was commenting on those who believe in EVP/ITC, and not on a specific editor in general. While SA can be hard to deal with at times, it is best to work along with him to produce an article that is not only unbiased, but factual and reasonable to both sides of the dispute -- those who discredit and those who hold full belief in EVP/ITC. I agree with Leadwind's statement above; the article is full of unverifiable third-party sources that consist mostly of web-sites or books that you can find in the bargin bin of any bookstore. It lacks first-rate sources, and SA's analysis is pretty much dead-on (sans the comment regarding morons). seicer | talk | contribs 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please research the history before commenting like this- I know you're a good admin, but this isn't informed. To be specific, those are the only sources that exist. Thus, they are ok per WP:FRINGE. There are editors there who want to pad out the article with OR, by using sources which don't mention the subject- I won't name names. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WQA is for discussing civility, not content. SA's "Almost everyone who believes in this stuff is basically a moron or an absolute wacko..." has no place on Wikipedia under any circumstances whatsoever. Can't believe there's a "debate" over this. WNDL42 (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither can I. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it might sound uncivil, but it all depends on the context. If someone is trying to introduce a source by people who lack in intelligence or sanity on a equal basis as sources like The New York Times then the comment goes to address a concern about the reliability of the proposed sources. Granted he/she could've phrased it better to make clear they were discussing a source and not another editor, but isn't necessarily an egregious violation. Anynobody 05:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no such sources, or we would have used them long ago. And these comments -at least from othere editors, I won't say anything about the current one- are usually directed obliquely at persons, not sources. Consistently. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I think it is pretty clear that SA is attacking me personally. In the same thread:

AAEVP is not quite good enough to source this. They make up all kinds of things at their website. What would be best is if we found someone who didn't believe in EVP reporting on the classification scheme (per WP:FRINGE#Independent sources). Barring that, if we could find one of the people mentioned in our article (like Raudive, for example) who used the classification scheme, at least that would be more authoritative than some website that Tom Butler made up one day. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course none of that is either true or provable, but it is convenient for SA to say. If I am not mistaking, that is a sign of a sociopath ... but then I would not want to assume your implied approval of insulting people I disagree with.

Okay, so as I understand your valued advice, it is okay to be insulting and make personal attacks if it concerns a subject that you happen to agree with the offender. You have decided that EVP is only believed in by morons and that SA was just calling it as it is; therefore you all would have said pretty much the same thing. That sort of gives SA and his ilk a license to say what they want, as I assume you also do. (I know Randy Blackamoor does.) I also assume that you have studied the evidence about EVP and are making an informed choice.

Thank you for your time and sincere advice/guidance. Tom Butler (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Listen. I certainly don't think that calling someone a moron is the right thing to do, but the rest of SA's comments are neither insulting nor out of line. S/he seems to have a wish for the article to be neutral and factual, and that's what we strive for here. In the comment you quoted above, there's nothing amiss. Since you're heavily involved with this subject outside of Wiki and quoted in the article already there is a probable conflict of interest and demanding a neutral and reliable third party source, rather than a website promoting the subject, is reasonable. That's not just about you, that's how it is on every article. You're dealing with a topic that is not exactly widely accepted and there's thus going to be greater scrutiny on the sources and a demand for reliable ones and a neutral POV. There's been a lot of back and forth and arguments on that article and it seems as though it's frustrating everyone. DanielEng (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any argument about the substance. If Tom has a COI, which is not true since his edits are NPOV, then I second him in complaining that you will do nothing about editors -and the current one is only the very nose of the whale- who insult without mentioning names. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, he came here and said "I'm a researcher in this field..." and the quotes he gave us seem to suggest that he had a problem with the request for NPOV sources. If that's not the case, my mistake. And again, I don't condone calling anyone or their beliefs names, because it obviously doesn't contribute to productive editing or discussion. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure what we can do for you here. We could ask SA to play nice, but we can't force anyone to apologize, the comment wasn't directed specifically to TB (if he had said "TB, you are a moron and a wacko!" it would be far more cut and dry as a PA) and there does seem to be frustration growing on both sides. If you have any suggestions as to what WQA should do here, please let me know.DanielEng (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand these things, and thank you (The sources are not a real problem, because they are about the best one can find in the field without doing OR). Here is what I think ought to have happened. First, it should have been totally apparent to everyone that the statement was not appropriate- and there should have been some outrage that any editor would act that way. I am nervous because in the past I've been blamed totally unfairly for the other editors actions, so let me again repeat that he is only one of many. Second, there should be some outrage that others have downplayed the seriousness of this. Here is a quote from Jimbo: [114] That is what I'm saying here: poisoning the environment is not in any way shape or form tolerable, from anyone, and it should meet with outrage. I ask you to think a little about what the response would be if Tom Butler had made such statements. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your discussion here. We're completely on the same page that the 'moron' comment was out of line. But what is 'outrage' going to solve here? If a bunch of WQA editors get mad and give SA a sound thrashing, how is that going to help contribute to a better environment in the article? How is that going to help alleviate the negative opinion that is already there? If a bunch of you working on the article step in and say "hey, SA, that comment was out of line" it will probably have the same effect, and have less harm, because SA won't feel as though a bunch of outsiders is being sicced on him. Fillil had some good advice above about not being thin-skinned. Unfortunately discussions on Wiki can get heated, and if you want any sort of longterm life here, it's advisable to choose one's battles carefully and not get outraged about the small stuff. If you look above, we have a case of someone who is being harassed by multiple sockpuppets--that is something that calls for outrage. Of course incivility of any kind is hard to work with, but disengaging, ignoring and continuing to work--and taking Wiki remedies for disruptive editing if necessary--is preferable to running to complain about every comment. It's like being back at school--sometimes walking past the bullies without responding is a lot more effective than running to the teacher.

One of the things that needs to be understood about WQA is that we're not here to ban, block or get people in trouble. This isn't a formal complaint that is a negative mark on someone's resume. We're here to try to work through incivility and perhaps get everyone to the table before it turns into a situation that requires action. And on WQA, just as on any other forum, you're going to see a lot of editors with different perspectives. Tom's original request here was that SA be banned from editing paranormal articles. We can't do anything about that, of course. And adding NPA tags to his Talk Page or talking to him isn't likely to accomplish much. Again, then, I'd like to ask you what you think WQA can do for this case. What clear action do you want us to take here? Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, through ArbComs and years people have done what you say, and it has had no effect. Outrage of the community is in fact what is generally lacking: the thought is that they are a bunch of fringies, and deserve all they get. I haven't gotten outraged for years. That is changing, because the community thinks of these things as having no history. They do. It has been going on for years. We've been walking past the bullies for years. These editors still do the same things, in spite of everything the ArbCom and admins have tried to do. It's about time for some outrage. You ask what clear action you should take: this complaint was obviously brought to the wrong place. But in general, outrage that this is the environment and a determination to do whatever it takes to eliminate such behavior would be the appropriate thing. You should have referred Tom to a better venue, like AN/I or something, if you believe as you say that talking won't help. And thanks for the response (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, a complaint like this wouldn't have gotten much traction in AN/I, I'm afraid. If it had been brought there, it would have likely received the same response as you received here: "well, it's not nice, but move on." Unfortunately, I don't agree with you that being outraged over small issues and doing "whatever it takes" to correct them is the right way to go: creating an atmosphere in which everyone is 'running to the teacher' over every small slight, instead of disengaging, and getting bans for small civility transgressions is not conducive to a harmonious editing atmosphere either. And I don't believe that Jimbo' quote was suggesting such a thing. At any rate, SA has refactored his comment and seems to understand that it was not a good idea, so I think we can all consider this matter to be closed. Happy editing to all! :) Best, DanielEng (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of diversionary tactics going on here. SA, a simple and civil statement here to the effect that you regret that your statement was taken personally would probably suffice. The entirely civil discourse here about the issues with the sources, had it been conducted on the talk page instead of the incendiary and personally directed comments including "ridiculous" and "nonsense" and "moron" and "wacko" that you posted there, would have resulted in a much more effective use of everybody's time and would have prevented this WQA.

Also, a comment for those editors here attempting to justify SA's remark by contextualizing it...you are not helping. WNDL42 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee, it would be nice if someone would mention the filing to SA himself. I just posted a notice to get his side of the events. seicer | talk | contribs 02:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

One) My "moron" comment was not talking about any editor on Wikipedia, and will refactor since it seemed to cause offense. My point was intended to be about the "balance" that the editor I was responding to was trying to draw between people who believe that ghosts interact with poorly-made electronic circuitry and people who actually understand something about reality. I think the point is valid and still stands. Let me put it this way: If there are hypothetical people who have beliefs that run counter to basic reality are trying to have a hand in writing articles for an online encyclopedia, there will obviously be issues with people who are a bit more, shall we say, mainstream. This is my personal opinion, but I was more concerned with the fly-by-night commentators who swoop in and say, "This article isn't fair" when they don't really understand that WP:NPOV is not WP:FAIR. Two) Thank you, Seicer, for keeping me in the loop. This should have been done earlier. Three) I understand that I'm abraisive. Wikipedia culture is steadily changing toward mealy-mouthship, and I try to keep myself as in-line as possible. I apologize for any slips in this attempt at conformity, but dealing with the amount of craziness that I deal with in Wikipedia means that I may be sometimes too quick to appeal to spade. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:AE#Complaint against ScienceApologist, this is more of a civility issue that has since been corrected by SA retracting the comment and apologising. What more do you want? seicer | talk | contribs 02:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this is closed, but you asked...

I apologize for thinking that this forum was the best place to begin without making my complaint a major issue. I was only following the suggestion at [115] to:

Step 6: Turn to others for help

For incivility

Turn to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for problems with uncivil editors.

Obviously, the instructions were wrong.

In answer to Seicer's "What more do you want?" I want the insults to stop and I would like SA to offer proof of his claim that I fabricated material for the AA-EVP website. [116] which he posted here [117]. A very large percentage of the world's population believes in things paranormal. If a "scientific" person like SA is not willing to find out why through proper investigation, at least he can resist calling millions of people morons.

His comment here is only a rewording not a retraction that would suggest that he is ready to speak in terms of the subject and not personality. Look how fast Randy Blackamoor was to attack my personality when I opened this complaint here. How can you approve of a culture that condones that? SA calls the opposite, "mealy-mouthship." I think that hiding behind a screen name and breaking social mores with impunity is a pretty poor example for the readers here who review the talk pages.

If you have to ask what more I want, you are part of the problem. Tom Butler (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a legitimate question. What exactly do you want to happen here? By rehashing this issue again and again, and demanding that editors get angry about it, what do you want to accomplish here? SA retracted his comment, apologized and was blocked for twelve hours, which would seem to satisfy the "insults" part of your request. As for the second, that he should offer proof, that's a content issue and has no place here. Not to mention that as the person providing the source, as per WP:PROVEIT, the onus is on you to prove that it is credible; it's not on other editors to prove that it isn't. You're welcome to bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard if you'd like to see if it is verifiable and can be accepted as a legitimate source or not. With all due respect, it seems as though you want SA to continue to be chastised over and over again. He's apologized, he's been admonished, and at this point, it's time to drop it and move on with your editing. DanielEng (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an old comment that was since resolved at WP:AE. I sent you an e-mail too :P seicer | talk | contribs 01:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinions of other's choices

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

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

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

user: IrishGuy on List of zombie films

I fear that IrishGuy, an editor and administrator who contributes to List of zombie films has created an atmosphere in which it is difficult or impossible for others to contribute. He seems to show contempt for other users, and rarely feels the need to explain himself. People feel marginalised by the fact that he reverts almost any addition to the list, invents criteria for inclusion into the list, doesn’t feel the need to discuss his actions, and completely disregards consensus. I think the conversations here and here give a good idea of how IrishGuy’s unwillingness to communicate has effectively ended any contribution to the article. I understand that nobody’s perfect, and I myself have been slightly out of line at times in the article’s talk page (especially towards the beginning, I am still a relative Wikipedia novice). However, I think things have gone as far as they can at Talk: List of zombie films and I would appreciate any guidance. SaintCyprian ^Talk 04:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I went back and reviewed the links provided by SaintCyprian. I can't find anything above your run of the mill content dispute. Am I missing something? Based on what I am reading, this really is not a Wikiquette issue. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Lonely beacon, I honestly do not see this as a dispute over content, as a content dispute can be overcome by openness in communication and some effort in reasoning. IrishGuy doesn't seem to want to communicate or reason, and if you go further down in the conversation you will find some evidence of the strain that other users are experiencing in trying to level with him. Ultimately what we have is a very experienced and involved administrator dominating an article and defying the consensus that is being built by a number of editors. If you have any suggestions as to where I should discuss this problem (if not here), I would welcome them, but I and the other editors involved are convinced that there is a problem. SaintCyprian ^Talk 17:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I think there may need to be another, perhaps more experienced editor who needs to get involved. I did read down quite a way both of the links you provided. I ddi see that there is considerable disagreement over what should be included on the list, or even if the list should exist in the first place. IrishGuy was expressing himself strongly, but at no point did he seem to direct comments toward an editor, which is what would constitute incivility. If you are unsatisfied with the finding here, I would suggest that a next step might be to Wikipedia:Request for Comment, or bring this directly to another administrator by posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Make sure that you state that you started here, and that your problem is with a specific administrator. You may also choose to wait this out a bit and see if any other editors post here. I can give only my opinion, and it isn't necessarily always the majority or hte right one. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the advice. I think it might be prudent to give it a bit more time before going on to any other "stages", hopefully things will improve in the near future. SaintCyprian ^Talk 19:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Although I'm not sure that I'd say Irishguy has been directly uncivil as such, I did think telling SaintCyprian that he has provided nothing but personal opinion and that 'he just likes arguing', (which would seem to imply that SaintCyprians motivation was not to have a genuine discourse in the interests of improving the page, but to be deliberately divisive for the sake of it), was a bit out of line. I have also been mildly frustrated by his continued assertions that no other editors have backed up their position with reference to any guideline, when I have repeatedly, and directly, answered him on that point with specific and relevant portions from the guideline quoted. Unfortunately he has not engaged any of those specific responses, and I feel that just back and forth repetition has led to a stalling in any conversation that can be had on that point.Number36 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I am not saying that [User:SaintCyprian|SaintCyprian]] is out of line. There can be a lot of gray in these areas, and its not always cut and dry. I think the whole purpose of a board like this is for many editors to take a look and offer advice. Sometimes, I have given advice, and others have agreed. Sometimes others disagree with my advice. I never claim to have the one single answer, and that my opinion is the only one. I think all any of us can do is assess the situation and make a call. The two quotes mentioned by Number36 are aggressive, and I can imagine that an editor with a counter stance can be frustrating. The fact is: I can't claim to know enough about the technicalities of the subject you are editing. From my stand point of ignorance on the topic, I cannot make a judgement as to who is right or wrong. All I can offer is a direction as to get more experienced (and perhaps more knowledgable editors involved to better resolve what lies at the heart of the dispute. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

SaintCyprian is also S0343463. As the talk page can attest...yes, he likes arguing. First he decided that Ghosts of Mars was a zombie film because... well he wanted it to be one. He blatantly admitted his entire argument was why couldn't the people being possessed by ghosts be called zombies? He also thinks his own opinion is consensus. I was called pedantic and my arument was far-fetched...which he later altered. Another editor added a non-notable direct-to-DVD film with the argument that this article should be a nice reference for a NetFlix queue. Of course, immediately S0343463 to make it a large discussion. IrishGuy ^talk 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think arguments can be shortened significantly when all parties involved are open and willing to communicate. I think the discussion at Talk: List of zombie films shows that this just isn't the case. However, I appreciate LonelyBeacon's advice that this isn't the appropriate forum for this discussion, so I suggest that we bring this discussion back to the talk page.SaintCyprian ^Talk 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

user:North Shoreman

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Not a WQA issue; editor referred to RFC/HISTDanielEng (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is with regret I am putting a Wikiquette alert on a user. I think a better system would be where a Wikiquette alert is placed upon an article and the article is monitored for breaches of etiquette.

• User comments have included personal attacks and incivility: [118]

[119] and elsewhere.

• User dismisses other editor's objections as "frivolous": [120],

[121]

• User has labelled tags placed on articles by other editors as "inappropriate and frivolous".

• User violates Wikipedia policy concerning tagging of articles and has removed article tags on articles when a consensus has clearly not been reached, such as: [122], [123]

• User dismisses alternative reliable sources.

• While I have tried to ignore all comments I consider a personal attack or include incivility, user has attacked me for not responding to his attacks. I have on the user's talk page requested the editor not engage in personal attacks without success.

• When I proposed neutral 3rd party mediation user not only rejected the offer but did it with incivility.

• Other issues and other instances could be enumerated if it matters.

I will not be making further edits to any of the related articles until a neutral 3rd party takes the articles under watch to ensure proper Wikiquette and Wikipedia policies are followed. BradMajors (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, we can't intervene in content disputes or step in to watch articles. Please tell us what else you'd like WQA to do to help. Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DanielEng. There really is no wikiquette violation here. This appears to be a strong content dispute, but this is really not the place to solve content disputes. I would suggest trying Wikipedia:Request for Comment. Given the importance of the article to American history, I would think there are many editors with expertise in American history who would be willing to chime in. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So it is OK then to call other's positions "inappropriate and frivolous"? It is OK to remove tags when a consensus has not been reached? It is OK to label the placement of tags on articles inappropriate and frviolous?BradMajors (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

We're not taking sides here, we're simply saying this isn't an incivility issue. Calling something inappropriate is most definitely not a personal attack, and the other issues you're mentioning are not breaches of Wikiquette, they're part of a content dispute. Please read the "What WQA CANNOT do" at the top of the page: we can't intervene in content disputes and watch over pages. WP:RFC/HIST is the place to discuss an ongoing content issue. DanielEng (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question called the dispute frivolous, not the editing. As far as consensus, consensus is not a vote of a small number of parties, which is what appears to have happened here. I could be wrong, and don't claim to be an expert by any means, but from where I am standing this is not an etiquette issue. Removal of tags is also not an etiquette issue, and should be pursued through proper channels, and have made a suggestion above as to how this might be pursued. It is not a question as to whether or not this is "OK"; rather it is a question as to whether this issue belongs on this board, which deals with etiquette issues or requires help regarding content issues. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I misunderstood. I have always personally considered labelling other people's opinions as frivolous as uncivil. It will make my life easier on Wikipedia because I am free to express my true opinion of other editors opinions. Meanwhile, outside of Wikipedia I will continue to consider the outright dismissal of others opinions as uncivil. BradMajors (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that anyone dismissed your concerns: on looking at the diffs, it appears that the user very clearly gave explanations for his edits and gave you a chance to state your case for objection (and in one of the diffs you've cited as a personal attack, you told him he did a "good job"!). I'm sorry if you're unhappy with the response you've received here, but you've been given a suggestion on where to take this, and told why it isn't a WQA issue. Also please note that when you file a WQA, it's considered good form to let the other person know about it so they can come and respond for themselves. I've let NS know about this posting, as he doesn't seem to be aware of it yet. DanielEng (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Persistent false accusations/threats

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello all!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you consider amending to County Down?

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

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

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

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

anti-Semitic rants by EliasAlucard

Resolved

 – User warned

Despite numerous requests, EliasAlucard, a proud member of the KKK Stormfront forum, seems unable to control his obsessive posting of anti-Semitic claptrap, particularly on the Kevin Macdonald talk page. See e.g., here and here. I'm more than accustomed to having to wade through various editors opinions all over WP talk pages, but exactly how much Jew-hating bile must one put up with from this bigot?

Despite having brought this to AN/I, EliasAlucard continues with his rants, the most recent [124] where this Stormfront member reassures us "that doesn't mean I want all Jews to be killed or anything. All I'm saying, is that they should be criticised so that they can improve themselves" and that Jews "simply need to knock it off with all this warmongering and start realising that criticism can be valuable. In other words, all Jews, "get your shit together" and we can live in a better world."

Besides the flagrant violation of WP:TALK's barring of using Talk Pages for airing personal opinions, this user has leveled a number of anti-Semitic attacks against me including:

• here: "If you feel offended every single time someone is critical of Jews, such as Kevin MacDonald, you have a serious emotional problem, or, you're probably Jewish."
• here: "To call it "hatred" is ridiculous, and if you keep twisting it into hatred – when it's not hatred – there might come a day when "hater" and "antisemite" becomes a badge of honour, because people like you misuse these words of shame to silence (valid) criticism of Jews every single time."

Tells me to keep my "pro-Jewish" views out of an article:

• here "And likewise, I ask of you, to keep your pro-Jewish views out of the article when you edit and don't try to depict MacDonald as some sort of genocidal supremacist manic, simply because he is critical (and good at it) of Jewish influence. here]: "And likewise, I ask of you, to keep your pro-Jewish views out of the article when you edit and don't try to depict MacDonald as some sort of genocidal supremacist manic, simply because he is critical (and good at it) of Jewish influence."

And more Jew-baiting of me:

• here again: Your Jewish idols aren't any better, and you should follow through with your logic and accuse them of the same thing you seem to think the Nazis are the "bad buys in your neighbourhood". But hey, you being impartial and everything just can't be honest enough to do that, because you get "offended"

And defends his anti-Semitism and membership in the Jew-hating Storfront forum:

• here "Unfortunately, forums like Stormfront are the only forums where you can openly discuss Zionist influence, which means that forums like those are the only places where you can be critical of Jewish power."

And this particularly vile rationalization for his antiSemitic rantings:

"here: If Jews like Alon Ziv wouldn't be promoting miscegenation for gentiles (and they never promote miscegenation for Jews, of course) like it was the next best thing, people like Kevin MacDonald would have no case against them, and people wouldn't have a problem with Jews, and people like me wouldn't be posting on Stormfront complaining about it"

It's nauseating to have to wade through this users slime to compile this. this needs to stop. Now. Boodlesthecat (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - per the closing of the section at WP:ANI, I put the comments in archive 3 of the talk page. The diffs still work but the consensus from WP:ANI seems to be to let this go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, where do you see consensus to "let it go?" there? The only admin responding said "Shut the hell up", for which he was reprimanded. The rest of the discussion is by the anti-Semitic editor himself. Explain "consensus" there? Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that the discussion from the talk page (now archived) consists of you two arguing, and two other editors telling you not to go into personal attacks and to stop. Next I see on your user talk page that two more editors have told you to let it go, both before and after the WP:ANI posting. I will add a similar opinion of my own. If there is any reason to believe someone else feels differently, they can comment at WP:ANI below mine or the article talk page or your user talk page or here, or on my talk page now. I think this spot would be the appropriate place to centralize. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Whyare you and others covering up for flagrant violations of Wikipedia policy and a vicious anti-Semite? I don;t get it. Explain please. Boodlesthecat (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This user certainly seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the Jews. I remember removing [125] a long and pointless debate from the Armenian genocide talk page, which had started with him proffering the allegation that the Jews might have been behind that event (on the basis of some crank claims off the Net). --Folantin (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This may indicate a long-term pattern of abuse. I would suggest those involved keep a watch on the user's edits and to remove any offending or trolling comments. Looking over the pattern of edits, there is a clear indication regarding his bias against Jews, which has been cleverly disguised in many of his posts. seicer | talk | contribs 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I will place a warning in user's talk. If he persists, he will be blocked for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

He's now been banned. However, to complete this record, I'll add that his postings to talk:David Duke are eaqually outrageous:

• Obviously, the entire gassing with Zyclon B thing is very suspect and very likely just nonsense propaganda...This gas chamber thing is likely to be derived from the same nonsense.[126]

This guy does not appear interested in collegial dialogue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this user banned, but rather blocked for 72 hours. Am I reading the log wrong? I think an indef ban is a no-brainer here. IronDuke 23:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, my error. Based on comments here, on AN/I, and on the the user's talk page (including his own defiant remarks), as well as the user's long record of previous blocks, I am going to extend the block duration to indefinite. If any admin feels that's too long we can talk about it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Sumoeagle179

After trying to reign in some problematic comments made about me in various venues, Sumoeagle179 (talk · contribs) made a personal attack against me [127]. I would like an apology. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

2

3

4

5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WNDL42 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bueller 007

At a minimum, this problem involves what can charitably be construed as an abrasive editing style. However characterized, the cumulative issues have annoyed me since August. For me, this has become intolerable; and fortunitously, someone suggested this forum might provide some movement towards a more palatable resolution than is otherwise likely.

Alternately, I'm too sensitive; but there you have it.

Whatever it is that is going on can't continue unaddressed.

• User talk:Bueller 007#Hōkō-ji (Kyoto)
• Talk:Kōryū-ji#Wrongful deletion
• Talk:Japanese era name#Disputed citation
• Talk:Daijō-kan#Simplification

I posted the following on User:Bueller 007's talk page and other places which arguably represent open threads:

Whatever good which might have attended a discussion here is best held in abeyance pending whatever develops from inquiries at WP:WQA. In this context, I take some comfort in learning from HelloAnnyong that, at the higher levels of dispute resolution, both users come under scrutiny. I'm quite confident that my entire editing history can withstand close scrutiny. I can't see how User:Bueller 007 can feel similarly at ease with the prospect of a too-revealing examination.

Perhaps a good place to start is "my aching arse" and "plagaiarism" ... or maybe that's not the way to go. If I had any better ideas, I would have tried them out before resorting to this uncertain option. I don't quite know how to proceed here; and if this needs editing, I'll do whatever is called for.--Tenmei (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide specific diffs' regarding the abrasive editing style? seicer | talk | contribs 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just throw my two cents in here, since I've been sort of roped into things. I believe this to be more of a content dispute than a Wikiquette issue and have stated so before, but I mentioned to Tenmei that for issues with users and not content, this is the place to go. I'm pretty sure that both editors are wrong here; I see that Bueller has been accused of overreaching on Talk:Daijō-kan#Plagiarism, and perhaps hasn't been all that vocal on the talk pages, but I think Tenmei is in equally hot water for being overzealous and hot-tempered (see my talk page). This is not a good situation, and I almost wish both editors would just avoid each other for awhile. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal of request for assistance in this venue
In response to a question which I did not intend as rhetorical, I discovered that all I can likely hope to gain from WP:WQA would be something as hollow, meaningless, and impractical as a reprimand. I myself have no fears of being slapped across knuckles with a ruler, and event he suggestion that I need to be concerned about such an odd prospect is troublesome; but worse still is the implication that there's nothing to be learned by anyone. That's pointless a priori. No, no, no -- I am only prepared to invest time in a complaint process which serves inform my future actions, my future responses to who-knows-what. In this context, what is to be made of the following:

• User:HelloAnnyong: You yourself send me to WP:WQA -- now the unanticipated sequelae begin to accumulate. Have you so little faith in the resolution process that you think it won't work when all is said and done? Think again.--Tenmei (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• I do have faith in the process, but I'm also separating out article content from user conduct. I'll say it again: WQA is not going to bring the content resolution that you want; it only deals with user conduct, and it will only end in one or both of you being reprimanded. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The problems and opportunities of the present are wasted unless experience is used to ameliorate the unanticipated stumbling blocks which are inevitable in a joint-venture like Wikipedia. Now that I actually put the notion into words, it sounds too lofty; but there you have it.

I'll withdraw my complaint here and re-address my this problem with mediation. --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bogdangiusca

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.

---

Resolved

-- Closed after review as per original closure on 2/26--NWQA; no incivility notedDanielEng (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusation of trolling here [128] see last comment bogdan (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC) --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣♥♦ 01:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• the "diff" [129] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105, here's how things went:

• you're proposing changing the policy (removing all diacritics from Wikipedia titles), therefore changing the titles of more than 100,000 articles, just to annoy the Eastern Europeans
• some people write their opposition to your plan
• you ignore them and start a nonsensical and endless discussion with some people who might want that.
• you announcing to the world that you found a consensus, writing with bold "With there being no further objections to the current proposal, it is therefore considered approved."

Isn't that trolling? bogdan (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Bogdan's comment. Mrg, please do not misuse WP's procedures like this. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thirded. There's no reason this ever should have been brought here. DanielEng (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Clarifying "thirded" per the Urban Dictionary - To diminish to one-third of the original value. I.e. to divide by 3)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣♥♦ 03:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

'Thirded' is an extremely common term in parliamentary procedure, where it expresses agreement, just as it does here. I'm sure you must be aware of this, yes? Perhaps you could provide the diff requested now?DanielEng (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to John Stevens' translation of Quevedo's Comical Works, 1707 in his advice on eggs.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note:

• I never asked for a consensus, and this was explicitly stated at the start of the proposal.
• The user Bogdan stated he ignored the discussion, so how can he attest to me being a troll?!
• The issue under discussion has been disruptive to Wikipedia since 2003, and was commented on this by no lesser person the Jimbo himself.
• If the user did not participate in the discussion, how can he know it is "sterile"? I suspect this is another veiled insult.
• The user Bogdan can not speak for "every other Wikipedian" regardless of their country of residence. In any case, the discussion was about what English speaking countries use, and not every country.
• The user Bogdan had every opportunity to announce the discussion of the proposal on every page he thought appropriate, but the appropriate place to make the proposal was on the naming conventions (use English) page, and not on every page that is remotely connected with Eastern Europe!
• Ditto for noticeboard.
• I have no intention to "argue". A discussion is not an argument. An argument is a part of discussion when backed up with logic and facts.
• Number of participants does not necessarily translate into quality of discussion. There are archives of the last five years to back this up!
• Bringing logic and facts to the discussion is the point of participation!

Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, please provide the diff. Your comments above are not a diff, they're discussion of a content dispute which does not belong here. Please give the specific diff where the offending comment was made. If the only complaint is of the ongoing content dispute mentioned by Bogdan and the diff provided, I'm standing by my original assessment, which is that this Alert should not have been made. I see no compelling reason this discussion had to be reported, and could not have been addressed in the ongoing thread on the article's Talk Page. DanielEng (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tell me DanielEng, do you enjoy being called a troll?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Refer to my previous comment. If an editor feels you are being disruptive, he or she has a right to express that opinion, and doing so does not constitute a personal attack. You're attempting to start another debate here, you're specifically trying to engage me for some unknown reason, and I refuse to participate. This is not a WQA issue, and arguing isn't going to make it one. DanielEng (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, YOU jumped into the alert, and no one made you do so! The said editor by his own admission refuses to participate in the discussion, which is his choice. However, calling someone a troll is not civil, particularly since proof to the claim is not brought to the discussion.

My comments above concerned Bogdan's comments only, and it is you who tried to engage me in discussion (User talk:DanielEng|talk 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC); User talk:DanielEng|talk 05:07, 26 February 2008) which I frankly have no intention in engaging in. My only response the first time was to link you to the correct Wikipedia article on what you asserted was "correct".

If you want to be an admin, please feel free to follow the process and policies of Wikipedia and not offer summary decisions based on assumptions. This is besides the point that you are far from impartial from the discussion in question, so can hardly participate in this alert, as is Buckshot06.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I work here, I answer alerts. If you do not wish for comments from the WQA staff, you're more than welcome, and in fact, invited, to take your complaints elsewhere. I notice that no other editor has stepped in to justify your complaint, in spite of the fact that other alerts are being answered. If you're going to work on Wiki, you're going to have to learn that disagreements do not constitute impartiality and incivility. At this point, you're exhausting the patience of the community and being disruptive. Please do not abuse WQA with complaints like this again. DanielEng (talk) 05:12, 27 February 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.

Harrasment

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

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

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

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

User:Dorftrottel

Work in progress; comments welcome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Wolfkeeper

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

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

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

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

Nasty gratuitous vengeful personal attack by Calton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further Incivility and Personal Attacks by User:Cebactokpatop

Following two previous postings on this page here and here, both of which were resolved in my favour, I am having further trouble with user Cebactokpatop, repeatedly (falsely) calling me a liar, and threatening to report me to WP:3RR (which I have not broken) if I do not revert edits 'within 15 minutes' [130]. Seminarist (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I notice that this has already gone to 3RR [131]. I also notice that you and Cebactokpatop are seeking mediation, which is a very good move. [132] I honestly think that at this point, mediation's the best route to try to solve this. I'd also repeat my previous suggestion, which is to find a mediator or another set of eyes to look at the article specifically through WP:RELIGION. Any religious topic has the potential to be contentious and has special considerations and it seems as though WP:RELIGION might have some experience there. Good luck. DanielEng (talk) 05:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)