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:Saul Tillich

Stuck

 – Single-purpose account seems to be engaged in tendentious editing, with substantial violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Does not seem to be interested in participating in the WQA process, despite writing volumes in his own defense (and elsewhere). I recommend an RfC if the content issues cannot be resolved. If the editor does not respect consensus, I recommend WP:3RR and WP:ANI, or even an WP:RFC/U if all else fails. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• 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 [1]
• Personal attack on Anastrophe - assumption of bad faith motive for removal of badly sourced material [2]
• Modification of another editor's Talk page comment to change the meaning [3]
• 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" [4]
• False accusation of wikilwayering when warned of overt breach of WP:NOR [5]
• 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" [6]

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 [7]. 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 [8]. 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 [9] shows perfectly clearly that you changed text within Anastrophe's original comment, and not within a quote of it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Unsourced Original [sic] Research"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the exchange associated with the second quoted remark:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [10]. 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)

• SA, I advise against demanding an apology for someone calling you "rude". You just aren't that thin-skinned, are you? What's good for the goose need not be right for the gander. What would I prove by posting on everyone's talk pages "In light of <link to multipage diff> please refactor"? We all have different strengths and weaknesses, and I don't think you want to present dainty sensitivity as a weakness. Pete St.John (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyeverybody/Anynobody, where I come from, a negative comment becomes a PERSONAL ATTACK when the words "you", "your", "Yours" are introduced to direct the comment at a specific individual target, as SA did, and as I did not do. I'd assume that editors commenting here would be familiar with the basics of WP:NPA. Perhaps you'd care to review (a) Ad hominem, (b) Avoid personal remarks...specifically "if you have opinions about other contributors as people, they don't belong there — or frankly, anywhere on Wikipedia.". Note that SA expressed an "opinion" that I (personally and specifically) should leave the topic. Do you care to review these basics and then restate your unhelpful characterization above? WNDL42 (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Harrasment

Resolved

 – No further incidents, complaint has been withdrawn. --03:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

I have contacted the user and asked again for diffs. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:22, 7 March 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)

The lack of response seems to confirm your point. I'll wipe the poo off my shoe. Boodlesthecat (talk) 18:05, 4 March 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)

I think there may be a decent example of what is being discussed here on my talk page. BillyTFried (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling fellow editors axe-grinders and stalkers who lack credibility and who lie down with dogs and get up with fleas qualifies as incivil and NPA as well. BillyTFried (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I also doubt its appropriate for his user page to openly call people crackpots, trolls, spammers, quacks, and greedheads BillyTFried (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now asked Calton for the third time to stop his abusive behavior and personal attacks and he has refused stating that the names he has called me are true and are a Reality Check from him. I don't believe this sort of behavior should be tolerated on Wikipedia. BillyTFried (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Calton has put yet another a harassing message on my talk page here, which I deleted. He followed with a repeat, and additional vituperative bile here. Can someone explain how undoing changes I make to my own talk page (specifically removing Calton's ranting) is not harrassment? Boodlesthecat (talk) 15:30, 7 March 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' [11]. 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 [12]. I also notice that you and Cebactokpatop are seeking mediation, which is a very good move. [13] I honestly think that at this point, mediation's the best route to try to solve this. I'd also repeat my previous suggestion, which is to find a mediator or another set of eyes to look at the article specifically through WP:RELIGION. Any religious topic has the potential to be contentious and has special considerations and it seems as though WP:RELIGION might have some experience there. Good luck. DanielEng (talk) 05:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Abusive behavior by JuJube

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just remember WP:BITE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Juju based on your recent edits [14] and here (and most of your edit summaries) it is recommended you read up on WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL. The issue on the Zangief article should be discussed on the talk page to try to reach consensus. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Runningfridgesrule

I am trying to have a serious discussion on some academic sources I brought forward

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_genocide#Some_more_quotes_on_the_Assyrian_Genocide

And I don't think I should have to face this kind of disruptive editing. I am not sure what WP policy is wrt racism but I would be surprised if this weren't in violation of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_genocide#Bias_problems

The only reason why you recognise the events as genocide is because you're Greek. Simple. Why wouldn't you? After all, the most patriotic Greek is also the most anti-Turkish one. I've met many Greeks in my life and they're all hostile towards me. What have I done to them? Nothing, yet Greeks still discriminate against me because I'm Turkish, and let me tell you that I've never EVER done the same to a Greek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_genocide#Bias_problems

Think about it. Think hard and reflect. I get gagged by Greek people at school all the time whenever I try to defend myself about the whole Cyprus issue. The moment I start trying to defend myself, they just tell me to shut up because they're not interested in the other side of the story. Well I am, and the last thing I will put up with is people trying to shut me up and violate my freedom of speech. I WILL NOT ALLOW, and I repeat, WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO VIOLATE MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH by reporting me for stuff I haven't done, K?! I haven't done anything wrong to you whatsoever, so stop making fabricated accusations..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_genocide#Some_more_quotes_on_the_Assyrian_Genocide

Dude, all you're doing is wasting your time and increasing the length of the situation even further. None of what you've copy-pasted has actually answered my question, so all this crap is still null and void.

The user is probably too young to know better so don't be too harsh. Just advise them on WP:EQ. Thank you. Xenovatis (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left a polite and thorough note on the user's talk page. I also removed a highly inappropriate polemical/racist comment from his userpage. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Take care.Xenovatis (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Keratoconus article and talk page friction

Some help is requested with an IP editor who seems to be having difficulty communicating on Talk:Keratoconus. Their first edit to the article was an editorial comment. After multiple unsourced edits, their IP was blocked for vandalism. Blocking got their attention and they came to Talk:Keratoconus to discuss their edits. Discussion on that page seems to have broken down entirely and outside help would be much appreciated. IP editor involvement is in this thread beginning about 1 March (multiple IP are used and they don't sign their posts). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel unable to continue. — BillC ^talk 00:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave notice. And noted the various SPA's. seicer | talk | contribs 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User: Relata Refero

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.

---

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Content dispute, referred to WP:3O/WP:RfC. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

The "Denial of the Holodomor" article is now embroiled in controversy. There are three tags on the page, and it appears that the talk page has become polarized. Unfortunately, one editor makes comments like this [[15]], and titles edit diffs "what is this crap?" [[16]], and is ready to keep editing against consensus. Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:CIVIL does it suggest we have to be civil towards articles. Pointing out that a particular article is particularly poor is hardly a violation of "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Extensive forum-shopping, on the other hand, is frowned upon. I'd suggest the above editor return to discussion on the talkpage of the article, where I have content-related questions outstanding for over two weeks. Relata refero (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, it is exactly this type of wikilawyering that is particularly difficult to deal with for me. Just because something isn't expressly forbidden doesn't mean its OK. "comment on content" does not mean make comments like "what is this crap".

The article in question was written and developed over months, by more than 10 editors. Many of the issues raised now were raised, discussed, and agreed upon before.

That other contributing editors have ignored the questions by Relata Refero for over two weeks is telling.

Obviously, there is room for improvement in this article, as there is with almost every article, but there should be a standard of etiquette in discussion that can be expected by everybody. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just get back to discussion. You've complained at ANI, taken previous uninvolved editors to WP:AE, accused me of censorship, made several accusations of bad faith, accused me of not trying to improve the encyclopaedia, called me a vandal, and so on. That I have endured this patiently without even once commenting on the contributor rather than content - merely stating what is obvious, that the article is terrible in its current state - is, I think, truly laudatory. Relata refero (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you stop dragging out this dispute - both of you. If there are content issues, which is all this seems to be, I suggest you try to establish a consensus towards some version of the article that meets Wikipedia's core policies and is agreed upon by everyone. If you can't do that on your own, solicit a third opinion or submit a request for comment. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. How precisely am I dragging it out? Seriously, you need to spend more than a second reading things if you're going to comment on something. Relata refero (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, for somebody who's been brought to the alertboard that deals with incivility, you should probably just hold your tongue when you feel like berating the people who are trying to help you settle your dispute. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I would. If they looked like settling it, instead of stating that "both of us" need to stop dragging a dispute out. False evenhandedness is the scourge of our society. Frankly, I don't think WQA is in the least helpful if that's a common attitude, and I suggest you hold your tongue in similar situations in future if you don't want to put in the legwork to make an accurate statement. Relata refero (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from ranting about the WQA or anything you might consider to be the "scourge of our society." I can't imaging how an assessment of "there is no incivility here" should be your cue to start being uncivil, but you need to stop. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 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.

Complaint about a tool user

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – No real breach of civility, although perhaps the template was not warranted. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Complaint: It started with this, User talk:Coffee4me#March 2008, a bot generated message on my talk page from User:Compwhizii stating I was "aggressively cross-posting" at a WikiProject, in order to influence Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#AfD_nom_Coffee_High_School. Per WP:CANVAS#Friendly notices, I wasn't. My responses to Compwhizii are here User talk:Compwhizii/Archive 2#March 2008. You can see I included a wikilink to WP:CANVAS#Friendly notices for his review, and that I requested a response from him.
• Analysis1: His original message to me, and his unresponsiveness to my requests feel like WP:EQ and WP:CIV negligence.
• Analysis2: Per his user page, he's young, and new to the tools, probable explanations for his actions.
• Conclusion: Tools are great, but they make mistakes, and when that's brought to a tool user's attention, failure to respond comes across as ignoring Wikipedia's 4th pillar.
• Recommendation1: Let me know if my actions were appropriate, and if my complaint is justified.
• Recommendation2: If yes to both, I'd like a reply from Compwhizii and I think he owes me an apology.

Thank you; I appreciate your time.Coffee4me (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Age is not a factor in how one uses "tools" - you yourself seem to be unfamiliar with how templates work, and he seems to be able to use them just fine. CWii may have been hasty in using a template, but it was hardly a serious breach of civility, especially since he followed up quite civilly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Edward Nyhouse

Resolved

 – User blocked 24h, indef block reasonable if behavior continues. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Has added this to my user page, in retaliation for putting warning tags on his talk page due to vandalism of articles todo with anti-racism. I don't think this individual has any intent for valid contribution to wikipedia. --Mista-X (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 24 hours for vandalism, though the lack of other useful contribs suggests that an indefinite block should be next step if this user continues to vandalize. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Derogatory Remarks Made By Shotgunromnce

Resolved

 – user warned, account inactive

This person wrote unflattering info on Sunny Kim's Wikipedia site. For example, he wrote "Yo Mama" for his real name.-DANO- (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user for vandalism. If the behaviour persists, I'll block him. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Note also that the account has been inactive for a couple of weeks; I suspect further disruption is unlikely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

User:David Gerard

The recent comments of David Gerard (talk · contribs) in AFD discussions have been drenched in incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Just a few examples, all made in the last hour:

• From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatnigs: "jawdroppingly ignorant nomination demonstrating a severe lack of judgement on the part of the nominator. Suggest writing articles before going anywhere near AFD, and possible removal of any other nominations for wasting AFD time with silliness like this." (nom was User:Coredesat)
• From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KIDPOWER: "as discussion shows, woefully inadequate nomination that brings the nominator's (sincere, but clearly not up to the task) judgement into strong question and suggests any other present and future nominations should be closely examined for possible removal as wastes of AFD time" (nom was me)
• From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loughborough Students' Union (2nd nomination): "sincere but pretty blatantly ill-judged nomination that suggests the nominator's other nominations should be removed as wastes of AFD time" (nom was User:Knock-Off Nigel)
• From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel awards and nominations: "Nominator needs to learn to edit articles rather than reach straight for AFD. Other nominations from this nominator need to be examined and possibly removed as wastes of AFD time" (nom was User:Collectonian)
• From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valina: "nomination from personal ignorance" (nom was User:Undead warrior)
• From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleaning validation: "nominator's other nominations should be examined and likely removed" (nom was User:Oo7565
• From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Styleslut: "ignorant nomination" (nom was User:Seicer)
• From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMA Device Management: "wasting AFD time like this is antisocial" (nom was User:Viewplain1990)
• From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon Rock (music): "clearly ignorant nominator" (nom was User:DannyDaWriter)

David Gerard appears to have the habit of commenting on the nominator instead of the article. This is not the first time this has happened. See for instance User talk:David Gerard#Your comments on AfDs (David Gerard later apologized for this at User talk:David Gerard#Apology to Cirt. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to add this AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Boyd (wrestler). There he states "Nominator may have nominated in all sincerity, but appears not to have read their own cited sources properly" about me, the nominator. While nicer than his other comments, I still believe that this isn't a greatly appropriate AFD connent, especially when not backed up with what he feels I read improperly. As a respected part of the community, I think that he should be well aware of the need to talk about the articles and their merits and not the nominators. Metros (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate no-one likes having their judgement questioned. However, when you are talking about removing a topic from the encyclopedia in its entirety, it's a relevant question and one that you must be able to deal with having brought up. Note that bad judgement does not imply insincerity or bad faith - and that your conflation of the two itself is prima facie evidence of defective judgement.

When a nominator's judgement is clearly problematic and a waste of valuable AFD time ... what wording would you suggest? - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not that. And consider yourself warned. You are clearly assuming bad faith when you state that a user's AfD was out of ignorance (mine) or when the nominator was being "anti social." Comments like that are not constructive, and as an editor from 2004, you should know how to craft replies that don't step on other people's toes. seicer | talk | contribs 15:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Keep, the subject is notable because ...". Aecis^Brievenbus 00:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And I get this laughable automated message. seicer | talk | contribs 15:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you, a regular, get templated not to template a regular? Aecis^Brievenbus 15:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And it's pointing towards an opinionated essay, not policy. Perhaps David should read the latter of what he crafted, "Reading the discussion in question is also helpful and makes the quality of one's judgement evident." :P seicer | talk | contribs 15:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

David, if your time is so particularly "valuable", then perhaps it would be better spent creating new FA content and leaving the contention-prone AFD process to others who might be individually more mediocre than thou but succeed in being more sedate and focused on the content of such AFD proposals rather than on the authors of such proposals. Since your are so intensely talented and destined for ever-greater attributions of glorious productivity, you should redirect yourself to a higher plane of thought. There is more than adequate labour and sound judgment available in toto in the AFD pool already and wasting your fine qualities on contentious matters merely obscures the depth and clarity of your greatness. Go forth and collaborate and single-handedly get us to WP:100K by the end of this year. Perhaps you could start by expanding on the pantheon of Scientology which the project currently has woeful coverage of outside of your sole surviving FA. If not for the Project, then do it for your sole surviving, precious, innocent daughter so as to make her proud you.--76.220.203.121 (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another example of incivility: calling Bradv15 (talk · contribs) a "fool". Aecis^Brievenbus 15:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

These actions are still continuing. David's arguing that he's not assuming bad faith, but just calling people's judgments poor. Metros (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I received "mass ignorant nomination" and "silly" on three of my AfD noms as well, on subjects which I am certain David has neither expertise nor interest. My opinion is that there's a larger issue here (either with AfD process or WP in general) that is being worked out through AfD flames. MSJapan (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See the mailing list archives for March, particularly the threads "[WikiEN-l] How to do something about AFD" and "[WikiEN-l] The Economist on "notability"" and "[WikiEN-l] What is happening to the community". -- Quiddity (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the aggressive attitudes of various editors who seem to subscribe to extreme m:immediatism and m:exclusionism and m:deletionism at AfD, I can't say I blame him for being blunt. (A loaded and old and insanely-complex topic, obviously ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling poor judgment poor judgment is not an assumption of bad faith. Criticizing another Wikipedia participant's actions or judgment is quite acceptable. David is a blunt speaker and does not necessarily sugar-coat his opinions; however, I find his level of civility here on par with many other contributors to AFD.

Moreover, poor judgment on the part of AFD nominators can materially damage Wikipedia, both in deleting valid content and in offending contributors new and old. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That still leaves the accusations of ignorance made towards Coredesat, Undead warrior, Seicer and DannyDaWriter. And what about David telling Coredesat to "[write] articles before going anywhere near AFD"? Coredesat has been with us for over two years, has written a lot of articles, and has been an admin for a year and a half now. Treating him like a noob who's just made his first edit is absolutely uncalled for. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Morven, I hope that "on par with many other contributors" doesn't mean that just because a fraction of AfD contributors are unacceptably uncivil, it is acceptable to be that uncivil? Because that's not a sensible approach.

Oh, and "poor judgment on the part of AfD nominators" is indeed irritating. How about - theoretically - poor judgment in assessing whether a nom is made using poor judgment? Relata refero (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Whichever way we use to call this, AfDs brought up as these were, are as irritating. Maybe a kinder way should be found to clue these people in, but the concerns brought in thse AfDs are valid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all. Styleslut was originally CSDed for having a lack of notability established, and the only sources or links were personal blogs or non-notable clue-ins. I reinstated it when I was given a message on my talk page that had listed some other sources, and decided to put it to AfD upon the learning of some new information. I still can't find it to be all that notable, hence why I nominated it for deletion. WP has way too many articles that will never be completed, or are entirely unsourced, or are referenced with just personal blogs and web-sites, or are just unencyclopedic. If some had their way, we would be rid of AfD and CSD, which of course would pose so many issues.

You know how many are up for speedy delete per day? Over a hundred on good days. Out of those, 90% are speedy delete quality. Many are patent nonsense, wholly non-notable, or are copyright violations. You know how many are up for AfD? Not nearly as much. I don't see how we are entirely deleting WIkipedia by deletionist standards, which I feel that David is falling under. Let the process work itself out. If the AfD was in bad faith, then it's in bad faith. But there was no pattern, no rationale except to be pointy, which is why he has had numerous questions raised about his editing practice left on his talk page in the last day. seicer | talk | contribs 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone comes across an article that doesn't make clear why it belongs on Wikipedia, and is not able to find any information that would warrant an article about the subject, he or she is well within his rights to nominate the article for deletion. Maybe another user can make the case for the article to be kept, that is part of what AFD is for. That can all be expected. But when established editors nominate articles for deletion with valid concerns, David Gerard is well out of bounds telling such users off in such a standoffish way. As Ozgod said on his talk page, "the whole purpose of an AFD is to gauge community consensus as to whether or not a particular article is appropriate/notable/relevant/etc. or not for Wikipedia; not an area to air your opinions about other editors." Wanting to stem the rising tide of AFD nominations is one thing, incivility and assuming bad faith is another. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's within anybody's right to nominate anything for deletion, whether or not they're capable of intelligent judgement. The impression that I have of AFD is that it's for anything but intelligent discussion. Somebody has the POV that an article should be deleted and proceeds to enforce it, and fails to realize that his primary product is drama. Or they get into some self-righteous campaign that whole classes of useful information should be deleted because they like to extrapolate their narrow view of notability to the point where it becomes imposed on the entire community. They expand their wholly frivolous notion of notability to the point that expect others to engage in the game of adding spurious assertions of notability. Sure it's within their right, but how often do they try to fix the apparent deficiencies in the article? How often to they start a talk-page discussion? How often do they try to negotiate a solution with the article's authors? It seems that they want to aim for the jugular first. Often the people who did do something constructive with the article are no longer around to complain, or they may be faced with a large swath of articles to defend at the same time. The nominators must certainly know that their deletions will be more efficient if the contributors have minimal chance to defend themselves. As for the pompous belief that this process is somehow improving Wikipedia, that's bullshit. Rather these antics are just turning the whole project into a laughing stock.

I think David is right with his comments. If a handful of thin-skinned people find them too harsh, too bad. Maybe they should stop whining and start using our time more constructively. Eclecticology (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So AFD should only be used for open and shut cases, where it's clear that the article should be deleted and will be deleted? Isn't that what we have CSD and prod for? Or do you see AFD as simply going through the motions, process for the sake of process? And if you feel that AFD is such a mockery as you make it out to be, why not MFD the lot and get it over with? Aecis^Brievenbus 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To expand on my previous comment, let's use Coredesat's nomination of The Beatnigs as an example. Coredesat (talk · contribs) had initially speedied the article for WP:CSD#A7. When Pete.Hurd (talk · contribs) contacted Coredesat about this on his talk page (User talk:Coredesat#The Beatnigs) and made a case for the notability of the subject, Coredesat made the excellent decision to undelete the article. He then sent it to AFD, because "I'm not 100% convinced of this band's notability, so I have brought this here for discussion. The only reference is a very short All Music article." In other words, 'there is a sufficient claim to notability to avoid A7, but I'm not sure it's enough to keep the article.' That's where AFD comes into play. As WP:CSD#A7 itself says, "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." The deletion discussion discussed the notability of the subject and the merits of the article, all things that AFD was set out to do. And then David Gerard comes along, calling the nomination "jawdroppingly ignorant", demonstrating "a severe lack of judgement on the part of the nominator." And as if that is not enough, David decides to tell an editor for two years and an admin for a year and a half to "[write] articles before going anywhere near AFD." Coredesat did nothing to deserve being talked down to as if he was a toddler. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I find your strange notion that nominators have no obligation to know anything about the subject area of the nomination slightly boggling, especially considering the noted (in third-party reliable sources, no less) hostility of AFD to even comments from casual Wikipedia editors. An appallingly bad nomination is an appallingly bad nomination, whether with bureaucracy as a reason or not - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now you've lost me: where have I said, or even implied, something like that? Secondly, this is the third or fourth time that you've referred to coverage of AFD in the media. Which coverage are you talking about? The article in The Economist? And if so, how does that warrant the incivility and the assumptions of bad faith you've displayed? Aecis^Brievenbus 11:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Two things: I have to agree with David that people should think several times about nominating for deletion things wildly outside their area of experience. That is what prods are for. If prods are removed, then taking it to AfD can be done in a suitable objective manner, as a removed prod should wind up at AfD. I personally get really, really irritated at people who, for example, nominate Indian high court judges, Islamic religious scholars or large mosques in Africa for deletion saying "doesn't sound notable to me, practically no ghits. WP:BIAS should be required reading, as well as a minimal understanding that spelling is variable in translations.

That being said, even if people are being silly, try to avoid saying it. DG may not "sugar-coat" things, but he damn well should try doing it. Though nowhere in attacking people's judgment did he imply that they were acting in bad faith, only that they were not helping the project. As has been pointed out already. Relata refero (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, nobody seems to pay attention if you don't say something forcefully enough.

For example, I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out how to correct the admin that nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of films, without being ignored again. This admin didn't make a comment on the talkpage, and didn't contact me when I removed the prod (and he filed the afd within 5 minutes using twinkle, whilst I was still typing the responses), and didn't even propose that the page be moved somewhere potentially-useful instead (like to projectspace). That's a really fscking bad attitude. But I'm so used to being ignored every time I offer gentle feedback, that I'm constantly tempted to either be loud and blunt to make myself heard, or just give up on influencing anyone. (or so it often feels).

If silly behavior isn't corrected, it both continues AND propagates. Especially when it's an admin setting the bad example. (yes, that goes for both sides, in this discussion. DF and DG) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But the question is: what is silly behaviour that needs correcting, and what isn't? What is poor judgement and what is simply a different judgement? Do you treat fellow editors as fellow editors, or as children? Do you talk to them, or do you talk down to them? Please read what I wrote about Coredesat's AFD as an example. Coredesat showed excellent judgement in the AFD, nothing that would warrant David Gerard's incivility. Aecis^Brievenbus 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And if an editor consistently shows poor judgment, is an AFD discussion the proper venue to talk about that? David, nobody is questioning your right to have an opinion and argue it. Even though I disagree with you on a lot of these AfDs, you have a right to say what you think. However, this is not the issue. You don't have to be abrasive and rude to express yourself clearly. Clearly I am not the only one that thinks this, as the presence of a number of editors in good standing here who are as concerned as I indicates. I am just not sure how constructive questioning people's judgement and belittling them is, compared to making a strong and straightforward "Keep" rationalisation. If the nomination is bollocks, as you are arguing they are, the article will be kept regardless of any undiplomatic statements.

I have a lot of respect for you and the work that you do, but being "blunt" is no excuse for rudeness and bad manners. Please try to be more considerate in the future Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

It appears that David is canvassing for like-minded individuals to overrun the AfD discussions and make sure they're closed the way he wants them to be closed. See [17] and subsequent responses. Corvus cornix_talk

Well, wider participation is always valuable. That message was posted on WikiEN-l, where deletion-minded people are also to be found, not sent to a elected list of inclusionists. I think that's a reasonable approach and not canvassing. DGG (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't a valid objection at all. Now, if he had sent it to a group of inclusionists and only ccd it to the mailing list by mistake..... not that things like that ever happen.... Relata refero (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

or for that matter the reverse. I too think it possible that people have been known to tell each other off-wiki about things they notice on-wiki. :) DGG (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD is routinely drenched in deep-seated idiocy. There are few ways to cut through it. I would suggest, in the end, that opening this process was a far more hostile move than anything David did. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Which process? Starting this discussion? How is that more hostile than calling User:DannyDaWriter ignorant? How is it more hostile than calling User:Viewplain1990's AFD "antisocial"? How is it more hostile than belittling Coredesat? And how does it compare to casting AFD !votes without bothering to read? Aecis^Brievenbus 11:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that taking this to an informal discussion page like this was the least hostile course of action, compared to dragging David in front of an RfC or ArbCom or something. I also question whether incivility is ever the best way to "cut through", despite any "deep-seated idiocy" that may be perceived to exist in a particular process. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC).

While an RfC or request for arbitration would have been more hostile, that does not mean that this was appropriate. To stress, David did nothing whatsoever wrong here. Your phrasing is breathtakingly weaselly here. Let's take Canon Rock - an article that was nominated for deletion with a four word nomination that was flat-out untrue. Or Cleaning validation, which the nominator referred to as an "individual," which gives a good sense of exactly how much care and thought was put into the nomination. To be wholly blunt here, nominations like these, the latter of which came from a serial nominator, are a major problem. It is not inappropriate to note the stunning lack of judgment, awareness, or engagement involved in these nominations and to raise the larger problem, which is that nominations like these are common and nominators who exercise no judgment or awareness nominate routinely. Any policy that is being construed as forbidding the observation that a nomination was done with stunningly poor judgment and awareness of the situation and that the nomination itself harms Wikipedia is being misconstrued. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

David did nothing wrong? Then how do you explain his !votes and comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kozioł, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Pawlus and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatnigs? And how do you justify calling Bradv15 (talk · contribs) a "fool"? Maybe there's a problem at AFD. But is it urgent enough to warrant David's incivility, confrontational attitude and flat out contempt of others? Aecis^Brievenbus 13:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The "fool" comment is the first thing you've found that is even remotely problematic. Your continued insistence on ignoring the issue at hand and hiding behind the incivility club is most disheartening. Look at David's comments again. Consider the point he is making - that people are trying to permanently remove topics from the project without engaging in a modicum of basic research. Then explain, exactly, using, say, The Beatnigs as an example, what he should have done differently to point out this problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to refer to my earlier comment on the AFD for The Beatnigs. David should have checked the context of the AFD before making a blanket accusation of poor judgment. If he had checked the context, he would have found that Coredesat actually showed excellent judgment. But even if Coredesat had shown poor judgment, that would never warrant the contempt and belittlement David showed as if Coredesat was a confused noob. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, your earlier comment doesn't get at the point David was making at all. David's point was not merely that the article should be kept - it was that Coredesat should not have nominated it at all. Again - what is the better wording that expresses "Not only is this notable, but the nomination was irresponsible." Because unless you propose wording that actually makes the point David was trying to make, your alternate wording doesn't cut it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything but "Suggest writing articles before going anywhere near AFD." How would you justify belittling an admin like this? How would you justify this contempt? Aecis^Brievenbus 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Eusebeus

The editor Eusebeus has repeatedly insulted me by referring to me as "Pixieface"[18] [19] and "Pixie" [20] [21] [22]. He's called me a "neophyte" and ignorant[23]. He's also talked about being "part of the Imperial Cabal of Evil Deletionists"[24], said other editors were "bitching"[25], said "That is not to say that I am not evil AND ruining wikipedia for everybody."[26], mentioned "useless detritus that proliferates here thanks to determined cruftmongers"[27], refers to the "abominably low standards induced by the bleating querulousness & rampant fractiousness of User:White Cat"[28], uses the word "bullshit"[29], said "As a loyal chort, let me state: what a load of rubbish from an editor, long on highly disagreeable and querulous engagement, short on credibility. This editor exults in the shrill insistence of their own rectitude and, in frequent descents into personal attacks and vicious parley - well documented on their talk page, becomes too tedious to bear. Ah dear Vivian, I now await your smears, but alas your many attacks against fellow editors means you have no probity left. Maybe you should change your username again and start over."[30], and said "Vivian is unusually nasty and vicious"[31], etc. Could someone please inform this user of our civility policy? --Pixelface (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would step in, but I have had issues of this nature (sans most of the incivility) with the editor in question. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Long-standing disputes should not be brought to an "informal" dispute resolution forum. This is not likely to be resolved here. R. Baley (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOUP

I have been accused of WP:SOUP by an editor repeatedly[32][33][34] [35][36] [37][38] [39][40] [41][42] over the last few days. Personally, I take offense at this accusation . Also, I find this ad hominem distraction as disruptive to our ability to keep cool heads and focus on what should be the editing of articles.

Of course this has not occurred in vacuum, see also[43][44]. As you can see, this is in context of a particularly difficult and ongoing edit negotiation.

I am curious to hear a neutral third party opinion, and guidance, about WP:Civility in this instance. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a deal of justification to that description, but User:Yaf looks equally guilty of it. I think the whole discussion at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has collapsed into a porridge of quasi-legal bickering. It would be better if you both took a break and let the article be edited by Tibetans, Icelanders, Martians or anyone else who can take a clean and detached external view of this Big-Ender vs Little-Ender debate. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Lowering the wikistress level sounds like a good idea. One thing is obvious: myself and User:Yaf butting heads does get much accomplished. So, I can try to butt heads less. Hopefully help may from come a mediator[45]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation sounds good. It looks like one of those situations where no-one's wildly *wrong*, but the discussion has just got bogged down in meta-topics (i.e. discussion of how to conduct the discussion) and editors' own interpretations of sources (which really should be avoided per WP:PSTS). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

After having a few hours to think about this, it occurred to me... What does WP:Civility teach about how to deal with WP:SOUP'ers? As you point out, in this case, there is one editor who is dealing with me being WP:SOUP'ed up. Eleven messages accusing me of WP:SOUP, intermixed with commentary "...right pain in the arse", "..i'd rather slam my hand in the door", etc.. And, it didn't work. And, the flip side of the coin, I am dealing with User:Yaf who "looks equally guilty" of WP:SOUP. My reaction, when faced with intransigence is to try to remain civil: Rephrase the question; wait for answer; answer doesn't come, repeat...over and over, far too many times. And, that didn't work either. What does work? 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

it would have been nice to be alerted to this discussion, as the instructions advise one to do. i did it when i brought a matter here with another user previously. that said, the reality is that there's very little accusation at work, and a lot more description. we have an article being held hostage by one editor, who purposely engaged in an editor war so that he could request the page be protected, in order to prevent edits he took offense to. the reason i say "purposely" is because this precise set of steps has been repeated before on the article in question, and other articles. i stand by my characterization that he is gaming the system - an activity to which i take offense, as it's violating the spirit of the rules, while engaging them in the letter. i consider that an incivility, far more than calling a spade a spade. but, do carry on as if i'm not here. Anastrophe (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusing me of "gaming the system", is an accusation that I am acting with bad faith. I object to this false accusation. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

i'm well aware that you don't like it. your actions are self-evident, however. Anastrophe (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an insidious claim, against my good faith. I follow the 'rules', to the letter, you say. Yet, my bad intent is somehow "self evident". My intent is plain on its face: I am trying to help the project and to follow WP:Policy in the process, both letter and spirit. I admit having been overly wordy on a talk page; in those circumstances it was hard to avoid, yet I am sorry for it. But to insinuate I have bad intent, that is just wrong. And your accusation is certainly "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress." Tell me: Have your personal attacks on my good faith accomplish anything constructive? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

is holding an article hostage constructive? WP is supposed to be a collaborative editing environment, but you've turned the article in question into a no editing environment, by gaming the system to prevent any editors from editing the article in any way. One editor is demanding all other editors bend to his demands before he'll "allow" editing to resume on the article. When you don't like how other editors are editing the article, you engage in edit warring, then run to the page protection noticeboard and request protection due to "edit warring". How much clearer can it be? it's one thing to collaborate and make a case for your point of view on the talk page, it's entirely another to game the system to prevent other editors from editing. as i said before, i find it offensive to prevent editors from doing what we are all here for - editing. Anastrophe (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Lehoiberri

Lehoiberri has writen this sentence for me during a discussion in the article Italian settlement in Argentina:

"Since you tell me to read a Argentinian History book, why don't you watch those travel shows about Argentina. I am also ending my discussion here because I am talking to a JACKASS!!!!"[46]

This is a violent personal attack. I hope some administrator can do something about it. Opinoso (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk Page Censorship by Anastrophe

Anastrophe is now engaging in censorship of discussion on the Paul Tillich article’s Talk page. Granted, he is free to delete (“edit mercilessly”) material he considers false in the article itself. But Talk discussion is something else. Unlike article revisions and edits, Talk comments are not subject to editing by others. Indeed, Anastrophe himself complained vigorously when I (1) “edited” a comment of his that I was quoting by correcting a typo -– capitalizing his lower-cased first letter of a sentence -– and, later, when I (2) inserted a reply at the end of a mid-commentary paragraph of his instead (newsgroup style) of putting my reply at the very end of his commentary. (Others have more recently used approach (2) with me without my complaining.)

Yet on March 11, Anastrophe performed not just an innocuous edit but a complete deletion of a commentary I posted less than two hours earlier (posted 02:22; deleted 04:00). His excuse was that he was archiving, implicitly not “deleting.” But since all deleted material gets archived, that is a semantic distinction without substance. For all practical purposes, it was an act of censorship. Had archiving old material been his real aim, he might have archived all material more than a month old. But instead, in order to prevent others from reading material that challenged his own views (found in the article), he chose to delete fresh material. Here is the “diff” link: [47]

Truth be told, Anastrophe did have one other excuse for censoring me. He called my comments a “screed.” He prefers to engage in name-calling rather than intelligent refutation of arguments he disagrees with. By his rules, he is entitled to delete anything he chooses to call a “screed.” His arrogant behavior is intolerable (please look up the word “arrogate” if you think I too am employing name-calling), and it is completely beyond the pale of propriety.