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

Accusations of Naziism

Resolved

 – Subject blocked as sockpuppet of banned user; filing party warned.

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.

---

User:Romandrumanagh, in the midst of a content dispute on the article Drumanagh, has called me a Nazi. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do you mean It seems to me (but I hope to be mistaken) that the pharaphrase is the typical "nationalistic reduction" used by all the nationalisms in Europe (nazism, fascism, communism et al) in order to make "disappear" contrary opinions to their dogmas, ideals and points of view. This is not the same as calling you a Nazi.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see a great deal of difference between being called a Nazi and being told I'm behaving like a Nazi. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't see that either. You are being told that you made an edit of a type that is also used by many others to "make disappear" contrary opinions. Don't assign attacks by trying to read between lines, as that's contrary to WP:AGF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Hairsplitting of the most pusillanimous kind. So comparing a fellow editor to a Nazi is perfectly fine, but objecting to it contravenes the assumption of good faith? Christ. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • It was a stupid comparison to make since it serves no purpose other than to aggravate, but you taking it to heart doesn't accomplish anything more than that either. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
          • It seems a rather disingenuous comparison to make - why was nationalism mentioned at all if not to antagonise? Pretty unhelpful. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I have told the editor not to use that kind of rhetoric devices in discussions as they serve no purpose.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
            • There seems little doubt that it was because, as can be seen, the title of the talk page section where that edit occurred is "Celtic nationalism?" and nationalism was actually the subject of the ongoing discussion. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Thank you. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
        • When Bwilkins says that you're reading into the comment something that isn't actually there, to a disinterested party, xe isn't either splitting hairs or being pusillanimous. Moreover, when xe tells you that you are not being compared to a Nazi, you have no justification for completely distorting that statement into the claim that "comparing a fellow editor to a Nazi is perfectly fine". You came here for third party advice. Listen when it is given. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm glad some others have weighed in with other opinions, because if I thought this kind of patronising sophistry was the standard response to abuse of this sort on Wikipedia, I really would despair. I didn't come here for impartial advice on whether being compared to a Nazi (which is there, I'm not reading anything into it) is a breach of Wikiquette, I came here for help in dealing with something that self-evidently is. I'm not sure what irritates me more, abusive editors or those who indulge them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Romandrumanagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be a POV pusher, who skirts just below the line of actionable personal attack. In these edits: [1] [2] (same text; he chose to post it multiple times) he uses race/nationality as a subtle jab. The user seems too familiar with policy for a brand new account. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have NOT called Nicknack009 a nazi or communist. I have only written "It seems to me (but I hope to be mistaken) that the pharaphrase is the typical "nationalistic reduction" used by all the nationalisms in Europe", and I want to repeat that "I hope to be mistaken". I am sorry if he misunderstood me. Allow me to appreciate the comment of Elen of the Roads, Bwilkins and others. It is not easy to deal with nationalistic groups, even in the italian wikipedia (where I mainly post). Sincerely.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As you see, despite a warning, he persists. I don't believe this level of personal abuse is acceptable. Sadly, there does not seem to be a mchanism to warn and block editors for personal abuse, as there is for vandalism - the WP:NPA page only suggests mediation, and I am not prepared to discuss anything with this editor until he stops with the personal abuse. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I DECIDE TO RETIRE FROM WIKIPEDIA: I retire from Wikipedia as a form of protest, because is too much controlled by groups of fanatic nationalists like Nicknack009, who calls "INFERIOR" (sound racist, isn't it?) my posts from the first moment in the talk page of Drumanagh. He has made me change the high esteem I used to have of Celtic Irish people.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

...and I have had enough of Nicknack009's attacks on neutral editors in this forum, and his additional, unsubstantiated accusations on Romandrumanagh above - so horrific that an editor was driven away. I have warned Nicknack009 for those personal attacks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this straight. Romandrumanagh explicitly compares me to a Nazi, but that's not horrific. Me pointing it out as the abuse it is is horrific. While he continues to call me a nationalist and a racist, not a peep. But I point out the complacency and indulgence of his behaviour by you and others, and I get slapped with a personal attack warning? I have made no personal attacks, only criticised what Romandrumagh, you and others have written - that's "content", according to the terms of your own warning on my talk page. Your priorities are peculiar, to say the least. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I've just noticed, you have also called me a nationalist. How is that not a personal attack? I am not a nationalist, and there is no nationalistic content to my edits to the article, which have been entirely concerned with the quality of the article. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Horrific"? An exaggeration perhaps? Romandrumanagh's last post is a clear indication of the problem here - Wikipedia is "controlled by nationalistic nationalists"? Suggesting that people are using "racist" terms? And why has one editor's behaviour changed his view of an entire ethnic group? If he's a neutral editor, I'm a Dutchman. I hope Nicknack009 doesn't take the warning too seriously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

By "neutral editor" he was referring to people like himself, but you're quite right. For the record. A single-purpose editor comes in, inserts claims which are not backed up by any reliable sources (and arguably of marginal relevance to the article in question). When an editor reverts his actions, he accuses him of nationalism akin to Nazism, which is really an ad hominem argument of the worst and most unconvincing kind, tries to shift the burden of evidence, and walks off like a diva (I didn't say he is a diva, just like one). Case resolved (unless he really is a diva and comes back). We don't really need this situation, do we? Cavila (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am an italian friend of user Romandrumanagh (sorry for my english). He requested me to thank user:BWilkins for him. He even requested to substitute the word 'nationalistic nationalists' with 'fanatic nationalists' (it was a mistake, writing in a hurry). I personally believe he should calm down, get back to en.wiki and ask for an arbitration about Drumanagh. But I understand -reading the comments of user Cavila and user Bretonbanquet (both clearly "celtic")- that it will be 'very very very' difficult to achieve it in an impartial and calm way. Finally, even I find the book of Hughes (British Chronicle) a Google book worth to be included in the bibliography of the voice Drumanagh in the italian wikipedia (and should be even in the en.wiki...), because wikipedia must accept all the points of view and I don't believe Google accepts low level books. What strikes me more is the intervention of the admin Kathryn NicDhàna, who seems to be totally on the celtic side, cancelling the posts of my friend asap.Yours. Roberto M.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.37 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to the insinuation that I am incapable of being objective in this matter due to my Celticness. Some of us are bigger than that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicknack, it has been explicitly pointed out that you were never called a Nazi - you're reading between lines to accuse someone of something that may or may not exist, and the person whom your complaining about has even addressed it. On top of this, "nationalistic" != "racist", and to suggest so requires a little shake of the head to clear the cobwebs. Nicknack, you have spent more time attacking the neutral editors in this forum, than to read those neutral comments in the light that they have been provided to you. If you're not willing to read, then you are not willing to be helped. This forum generally requires BOTH parties to bend a little - and you're not; so much so that you have driven an editor from en.Wikipedia - that is contrary to policy. There's a little article about WP:POINT ... and something about climbing something dressed like Spiderman that you should read. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC) ^{Not sure how well your memory's working, but those are the words used by Romandrumanagh. Glad to assist, Cavila (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)}

You, and a couple have others, have indeed told me that Romandrumanagh's personal abuse, including specific uses of the words Nazi, nationalist and racist, is entirely in my imagination. Thing is though, you're wrong. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus among neutral editors in this forum is that although the comments were not a personal attack, that kind of rhetoric was unwise. He was warned not to use that type of commentary again, and seeing as he has retired from the English Wikipedia, there's no need for further discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You haven't noticed his "friend" coming back to continue the same "unwise" rhetoric then? Or are you you going to argue that calling people "fanatic nationalists" isn't actually calling anybody a fanatic nationalist? That's quite apart from your own unwarranted accusations against me. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, this discussion is setting a useful precedent for the definition of "personal attack" at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I'd suggest we add the following disclaimer:

Note that indirect abuses are not personal attacks. Examples:

• "You are a Nazi" is a personal attack. "You are like a Nazi" isn't, it's a simile. Neither is "You sound/behave/edit like a Nazi."
• Don't be a Travis Bickle. "I'm leaving this discussion. It is ruined by fanatic nationalists" is not a personal attack, because you can never be sure it's you who's being targeted, even if there are no other targets around.

Cavila (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably better to bring this up at the NPA talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Followup: Turns out Romandrumanagh is one of the sockpuppets of banned user Brunodam. Confirmed by checkuser and multiple sockpuppet investigations. Rosandrumanagh account indef-blocked. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Otterathome

Good day,

I am posting this here because I believe it to be the best place to do so. If I am incorrect, I humbly request to be directed to the correct page.

In the general area of pages related to the lonelygirl15 web series, we currently have some trouble with User:Otterathome, who seems to have made it his personal goal in life to remove as much as he can get of LG15 from Wikipedia; he started nominating a large number of pages related to the series, mostly of the actors involved, but also of spin-offs. That, in itself, is -of course- not a problem. The problem is the way he behaved afterwards:

1. First of all, he shows no actual interest in improving the pages. His entire argumentation in all related discussions boils down to "this is not notable, it must be removed". He doesn't even dismiss merging or improvement - he simply refuses to acknowledge the option. He simply doesn't talk about any other options than deletion, even if directly asked about merging, etc. He simply ignores such lines and reliably replies with something that boils down to "not notable, must be deleted".
2. When he notices he's about to "lose", he gets dirty. This is nicely visible in the AfD for LG15: The Last. In the discussion, there were basically two people arguing against keeping the page, User:Atama and him. Since he was not acknowledging any attempts to discuss, I directly proposed a merging effort to Atama, which both s/he and a new user deemed acceptable.
   Instead of finally joining the discussion and giving his opinion on my merging proposal, Otterathome went on to first try to invalidate the amount of supporters the page had by falsely implying there had been a call to brainless vote on the AfD, then tried to cast doubt on Byronwrite's support of the merging effort, and then tried to discredit milowent by inventing a conflict of interest. All directly after it was clear that the only other person supporting a removal of the page was content with a merge rather than deletion, and without ever giving a statement about improvement, merging, or any option other than deletion himself. But it gets better.
3. He doesn't accept "losing". Both LG15: The Last and the page on Jackson Davis (an actor in the franchise) were kept after the AfD. In the case of Jackson Davis (where his behavior in the discussion was similar), he went on to appeal the AfD decision. After that failed again, he turned his attention to LG15: The Last again, now, finally, as a last measure, actually acknowledging merging as an option.
   But don't think he even mentioned my previous proposal, already supported by other people, nuh uhh. He didn't even mention it. When asked, directly, "What about renegade's idea in the deletion discussion about a LG15 portal style page?", his response was "Feel free to make a portal. I'll give you until next month to find more sources so it passes our guidelines, otherwise it will have to be merged or deleted, I don't mind which".

I believe it is very clear that Otterathome has a personal vendetta against LG15 content on Wikipedia, rather than any interest in improving any of its pages. Let me assure you that I am not questioning the nomination of the articles per se. That is, of course, his good right, and I admit some of the pages were not exactly in good shape when he nominated them (they improved considerably during the AfD, another fact which he refused to even acknowledge).
What I take issue with are not the nominations themselves. What I take issue with are the facts that he

• is unwilling to discuss any other solution but deletion (despite WP:AFD clearly listing half a dozen other possible outcomes), and
• just doesn't let go.

Nominating something over notability concerns is one thing. Insisting on deletion over all other options, continuing to fight for deletion even after a decision was made, and immediately trying to get rid of a page through non-deletion measures after deletion was rejected, is an entirely different thing.

Once more, since I know this will be his first argument when he sees this: I am not making any statements about the notability of the pages in question, or his right to nominate pages for deletion. I purely take issue with his unwillingness to consider other options, his relentlessness despite official decisions having been made, and, ultimately, also with the new tone he's putting on now that he wants to merge the page away - "I'll give you until next month to find more sources so it passes our guidelines, otherwise it will have to be merged or deleted" sounds almost like he considers himself an admin of sorts, and entirely ignores the fact that it has just been decided that that exact page will be kept.

As such, I am here today to request assistance with this situation from the community at large. Independent from all notability concerns, Otterathome's behavior is more than questionable and directly interfering with our efforts to provide an encyclopedic overview of the LG15 franchise.

Thank you for your time.

~ Renegade - 80.171.27.157 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Renegade. You have chosen the correct place to raise your Alert. Other members of the WP:WQA community will comment in the near future.

I have had a quick look at the articles you have mentioned, and looked closely at your criticisms of Otterathome. You support the Lonelygirl15 series and are attempting to retain them and improve them. Otterathome is perusing them with a critical eye and being the Devil’s advocate. He is displaying a different disposition to you but I see nothing to indicate his behaviour is outside the bounds that are acceptable within Wikipedia.

Whenever an article is nominated for deletion there will be Users who argue in favour of keeping the article, Users who argue in favour of deletion, and others who argue in favour of a compromise such as improve, merge, or re-direct. It is in Wikipedia’s interests that Users argue thoughtfully and vigorously for whichever outcome they believe in the most strongly. We shouldn’t take it personally when a User argues vigorously in favour of deletion of an article that we have helped create – that is what is expected of Users who take on the thankless task of nominating articles for deletion.

If any User acts outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour, that behaviour can be challenged. Acceptable and unacceptable behaviours are defined in such articles as WP:Civility, WP:3RR and WP:AGF. If you believe Otterathome has behaved in breach of one of Wikipedia's rules, feel free to provide details here. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My advice to Otterathome is, if you find it impossible to deal with the kid stuff calmly and patiently, just stay away from it. Nobody reads it except kids anyway, and it keeps them away from more important articles until they mature a bit. Kids have a very skewed view of notability, but getting into holy wars about it is just a waste of time. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

While I was not trying to turn this into a hunt for violated policies, but more a discussion of his behavior in general, I do believe he broke the rules you linked in the following ways:

• Consensus: He clearly ignored consensus by flagging a page for merging a mere week after it was decided to be kept, and threatening to have it deleted anyway. In fact, apart from finally having to acknowledge merging as an option now, his posts on the talk page now sound exactly like his posts in the deletion discussions. It looks like he simply doesn't accept it's over.
• Co-operation: As I laid out above, he simply didn't even acknowledge any option other than deletion, ignoring any attempt to discuss merging with him, and, instead of commenting on the proposed merging structure, he ignored the factual bit of that discussion and instead tried to discredit a supporter of it. That can hardly be described as "reasonably cooperative".
• Civility: As already alluded to above, imo, he engaged in acts of incivility in a variety of ways:
  • Trying to put in doubt the validity of people's opinions, by conveniently placing blind vote allegations and "no or few contribution" warnings right as the discussion started to take a direction he didn't approve of.
  • Deliberately misrepresenting, if not outright lying about User:Milowent's supposed connections to the production company, in a cheap attempt to disqualify him from the discussion.
  • As well as engaging in a generally hostile and dismissive attitude towards anyone arguing against deletion, culminating in his previously quoted line "[...] I'll give you until next month to find more sources so it passes our guidelines, otherwise it will have to be merged or deleted, I don't mind which.", which, independent from its general tone, also clearly violates WP:CIVIL's provisions to treat all editors as equals - who is he to set us ultimatums, especially after it was just decided that the page would be kept?

In addition, his constant attempts to try to invalidate new users' opinions by placing the vote warnings, tagging Byronwrites as having no other contributions, etc. are surely not a sign of assuming good faith. (As well as, I believe, a violation of WP:NEWBIES.)

As I said before, I do explicitly not question his right to nominate these articles or to argue for their deletion. But for one, there is a vast difference between arguing for deletion, and trying to discredit every user arguing for the opposite, and for two, a decision has been made. It's over. The AfD ended, the decision was to keep, and yet, he's still on the talk page telling people the page needs to go away.

That is not part of the deletion process anymore, and, as such, cannot be explained as expected of users who do the nominations.

Thank you for opinion :)

~ Renegade - 80.171.53.79 (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I wanted to note that Otterathome has now nominated Jackson Davis for deletion again, just 16 days after the prior AfD closed. Here's the new deletion discussion where I noted this in more detail. --Milowent (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

User:ThuranX

Resolved

 – Warned; try ANI in future.

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

User has engaged in rather pointed personal attacks on the Glenn Beck talk page like this one and continually makes hostile comments on editors rather than content. I can provide other diffs if necessary. It appears (though I only say this as an observer) that similar issues have occurred on the Carly Fiorina talkpage as well. Soxwon (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Soxwon. The example you have given on the Glenn Beck talk page doesn't provide evidence of seriously inappropriate behaviour. Are you suggesting ThuranX is acting in breach of WP:Civility and/or WP:NPA? If so, please provide some focus on what you see as unacceptable behaviour and some extra diffs. You can add them here on this page.

Other members of the WP:WQA community will also comment in the near future, especially if you provide some extra detail. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really useful to say something like this to such an experienced editor as ThuranX, but I will anyway: it's generally best to aim for a calm, unexcited style of writing, and avoid derogatory words like "fanboy". Soxwon, have you notified ThuranX of this section? Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have but he would most likely ignore it as he has stated at the page,: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I bring this up b/c he has done it non-stop on Glenn Beck and it seems to be a running thing with him: [8]. Soxwon (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Soxwon. I agree that ThuranX’s style of editing has become unacceptably personal and angry. His edit summary here contains profane language which is unacceptable on Wikipedia except in the most extraordinary situations.

At the foundation of ThuranX’s edits there is a most legitimate point of view. Unfortunately ThuranX has become angry and frustrated and is resorting to personal attacks. (I see no evidence that his personal and angry style is having much effect, and now his edits are on display at WP:WQA.) There is a way for ThuranX to express himself persuasively and still remain within Wikipedia’s Code of Conduct. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This has got to stop. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX often tries to do what is right for the project, but the level of professionalism or civility he displays on-site is a long term problem reflected in his block log. Anything we do here is likely to be greeted with comments of this nature. Therefore, the next step in dispute resolution would be user conduct RfC. However, further issues with this type of behavior with this user should otherwise be brought up directly at an admin noticeboard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Dbrisinda

I was hoping to get another opinion on a conduct issue.

Recently on Homeopathy and the associated talk page, User:Dbrisinda and I (as well as others on the page) got into a disagreement on small issues like the placement of citations and inclusion of descriptors such as the word "few".

This user apparently got frustrated and left the following on the article talk page, "translating" my words into something I did not say, and certainly did not mean. [9]

After seeing this, I left a note [10] asking him to not do this again. (see the rest of thread at his user page).

Instead of removing or striking out his comments, he justified it by implying I was not being truthful or reasonable. I asked him not to make such implications as I considered them an attack on my character, and he repeated them, saying that I needed to prove to him that I would be more "truthful" and "reasonable" before he would stop making such statements, presumably by agreeing with him on the content dispute on homeopathy. At this point I decided to disengage with him on his talk page as it was obvious he saw no problem with his conduct.

An uninvolved user then deleted User:Dbrisinda's original "translation" from the homeopathy talk page and posted on his talk page not to do so again. He again tried to justify this behavior by trying to prove a point to "readers" how unreasonable I was being.

Is this acceptable behavior? I do not plan on letting this incivility drive me from commenting on or editing the Homeopathy article, and as such, any advice on how to proceed is appreciated. Yobol (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a requirement for everyone who participates on Wikipedia to assume good faith. When Dbrisinda made this edit he or she was not assuming good faith. It is possible for Users to express these ideas and suggest alternative wording without resorting to the sort of condescending language used by Dbrisinda in the above edit. One of the benefits of participating in Wikipedia is that we learn strategies for communicating with others in a civil fashion, even when we disagree with their points of view. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• No, it was not acceptable behavior by User:Dbrisinda. It was a personal attack. Another editor has removed it from Talk:Homeopathy and warned/advised Dbrisinda, which were appropriate actions.
• The tone of Dbrisinda's subsequent comments seems more appropriate, if not ideal. Editing controversial pages can be intensely frustrating. If the issue has not been repeated since the original comment, I would chalk this up to frustration bubbling over and let it go. If commentary of this sort becomes a recurring feature, then the matter could be re-addressed.

Two other observations: first, the discussion at Talk:Homeopathy on the use of the word "few" seems to have devolved into a back-and-forth. I would submit that neither of you are likely to convince the other by repeating your arguments, and that it's time to solicit some outside input to help move things forward. Secondly, as I think I advised Dbrisinda elsewhere (and perhaps this applies with Yobol as well), it would be healthy to get away from the endless disputes at Talk:Homeopathy occasionally and branch out. Spending all your time arguing a small range of points on a single controversial issue isn't healthy for one's perspective, and in extreme cases it can give rise to the impression that one has little interest in the encyclopedia except as a venue to promote a narrow and specific agenda. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as the editor who removed those comments, none of Dbrisinda's subsequent edits look particularly problematic. Frustrated, sure, but they are actively debating sources and generally using the talkpage for its intended purpose. It might be time for another RfC at Homeopathy, but unless this sort of thing becomes a habit, I would advise just letting it become water under the bridge. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the clarification and the excellent suggestions. Yobol (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[undent] In this edit Dbrisinda moves my comment to which (s)he was replying out of its original context (in which its meaning and intent would, I think, have been immediately apparent), and then implies that my edit is pointless or senseless (see edit summary and the words "Come again?" in the edit) and that I was arguing the opposite of what I had been arguing (I had been arguing that the wording of the article, "they are few in number", meant exactly what it said, and Dbrisinda had been arguing that it meant "few compared to the non-positive studies"). Is this acceptable (I may be being a bit too thin-skinned here, but I found it quite annoying)? Brunton (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Faustian continues with inappropriate comment

Resolved

 – Subject blocked; any further discussion on this belongs at ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

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

---

User:Faustian states "I"m kind of surprised noone went after you for threatening to practice psychology without a license when you threatened to risk harm to your patients" [11]

He was warned for previous comments here [12][13] however states that he thinks he should have a right to make these comments [14]

The comments being refered to being here under the legal section [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Doc James. I have looked at the diffs you have nominated above. I haven't seen anything that I consider a breach of Wikipedia's Code of Conduct. Feel free to provide greater definition of the perceived problem, or extra detail, and it will be considered. Other members of the WP:WQA community will also add comments in the near future. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How about this one were he refers to me as a dishonest sociopath? [16] This one was from a while ago "someone will probably go after wikipedia, the guy who posted the stuff, James Heilman, Heilman's employer, etc" [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Docjames forgot to mention that he deliberately tried to provoke: [18]. "I was being fascious, just yanking your chain Fasutian. Nobody in my profession uses this test not because we couldn't but because we have no need for it."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Faustian (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Really, I don't think this is the place to report someone who has had so many warnings about this sort of thing. This page does not take action. If this continues I think a user conduct RFC, or a simple post to ANI will be a more productive solution. This has gone beyond attempting to convince the person to follow our civility policies, that approach has been rejected by Faustian. It may serve well to collect links to the numerous warnings this user has received from various users, as well as the reports that have already been made. Chillum 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Faustian referred to sociopathic behaviour, and dishonest. However, he depersonalized his comment by removing these words a couple of hours later. Your latest diffs show that Faustian sometimes uses aggressive language and focuses on other Users rather than on technical content. When he uses aggressive language towards other Users I believe he is in breach of WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks and WP:Assume good faith. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me about coming here, docjames. Incidents where I have slipped are a tiny percentage of my edits. Let's review this case. Docjames tries to provoke a response and admits to doing so: [19] "I was being fascious, just yanking your chain Fasutian. Nobody in my profession uses this test not because we couldn't but because we have no need for it."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC) When he gets a response he comes on here, and issues a wikiquette alert without telling me, after I had depersonalized my comment in response to his provocation. He seems to be as clearly as worthy of a wikiquette warning as I am.Faustian (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually came here before the above comment. But it looks like you are blocked now. Will be heading on to other content. The consensus is clear. Wikipedia beleives in providing information regardless of theoretical risks of harm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:11, 26 August 2009 (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.

Improper terminology at Butterfly stroke

Resolved

 – Both parties advised; filing party warned.

User:Izno is continually reverting front crawl to freestyle in the list of strokes and their speeds. The correct terminology is front crawl, especially when comparing it to other strokes. This is attested to by the actual article on front crawl (to which freestyle stroke redirects anyway). He is editing in bad faith, as reasons for this terminology have been posted on the talk page for the article, and he has not responded but continues to revert.

I'm not sure what to do here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.15.234 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

4 points here:

1. You should have notified Izno of this WQA - you didn't.
2. Calling Izno an "idiot" is plainly unacceptable - I've warned you.
3. Calling anything or anyone "moronic" is obviously not going to go down well either, no matter what context you use it in.
4. Hopefully Izno will respond at the talk page regarding the content dispute, and explain why he didn't prior to or at the very least, straight after reverting.

That's it for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about WQA (just found it by searching around about edit disputes), and didn't realize I was supposed to notify anyone. I doubt it would have made any difference since he has been unresponsive on the talk page. I apologize for sharp words but I was trying to get him to respond on the talk page (not that civility has any bearing on accuracy - facts are facts. this is a minor and silly dispute in the first place and I can't believe anyone would continue reverting accurate terminology into inaccurate terminology like this). I will make sure not to use insulting terms in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.15.234 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, have you checked WP:V and WP:RS? Thank you for your assurance on the issue of civility. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Freestyle swimming is plainly not a redirect. In that article, it is noted that the two terms are synonymous in essence, especially when referring to competitive strokes. Having been a competitive swimmer for the past 9 years and having learned lessons long before, I haven't heard it referred to as the front crawl since I was in the lessons stage. The usage of the term in context with the rest of the paragraph means that it doesn't really matter which, and as freestyle was the term first used, I am unsure why it needs to be changed.
As for your lack of good faith... /shrug. I've had worse.
Ncm: Feel free to move this to the talk page of butterfly stroke if you wish. --Izno (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I explained why (twice!) in the talk page for that article. I thought that was what we were supposed to do in the case of edit disagreements, but I can see that system breaks down quickly. That is why this WQA thing exists now. 99.172.15.234 (talk) 05:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this would probably be less of an issue if your points of view could be verified from reliable sources. The unreferenced tag was placed on that section in July; that part of the article really needs to be referenced - it may so happen that the entire section is removed due to the lack of citations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Likebox

Work in progress; comments welcome

User User:Likebox has been presented with clear arguments as to why a segment of Quantum mysticism is WP:Synth. This argument was convincing to a WP:3O. Still LikeBox holds his position and displays considerable ownership over the text. His argument are not clear and additional interpretations/perspectives would be useful. A note was left at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard three days ago but has yet to be addressed.--OMCV (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No clear 3rd opinion yet.Likebox (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As the editor providing the 3rd opinion, I respectfully disagree. I stated at 20:15 yesterday that the passage in question "does, in my view, constitute synthesis". My apologies if that wasn't clear enough. Anaxial (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

After briefly reviewing Talk:History wars it appears that Likebox is currently have significant policy related issues on that page.--OMCV (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It also appears Likebox may have had a very similar conflict at Talk:Chinese room#Searle's assumption (and following sections) over material (Synth) very similar to what he has added at Quantum mysticism.--OMCV (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The text in question is definitely original synthesis, though that is irrelevant to this board. The ownership issues, on the other hand, are. Likebox has written a great deal of Quantum mysticism, but ownership of the article is with the community. If they would back off from the text that is not explicitly supported by a reliable source (preferably more than one) both in content and notability, I think a better article would result. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OMCV, you are removing text claiming that it is OR, yet it is sourced. If there is an ownership issue here it seems to be on both sides. IMO --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael please read Talk:Quantum_mysticism#In_re_third_opinion and offer your opinions there, your insights would be valuable. Thanks.--OMCV (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't quite get that the third opinion was rendered. I changed the text to remove the statement objected to, although I feel strongly that it was OK before.Likebox (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) To 2/0: this is not a synth, because none of the ideas there are original in any way. It might seem that way if you do not read the sources provided, because the ideas are weird. They appear first in Everett's thesis, in a hard-to-understand quantum form, then they appear in Dennett and Hofstadter's book. Hofstadter also has an article on many-worlds. I am not so perfectly well read on everything that I could find all the sources which do this, but I feel that there should be a few more, considering how widely discussed this idea was in the 1970s and 1980s.Likebox (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Synth is special form of OR in which none of the ideas are original "in any way", wp:synth says ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Its by combining these tried and true ideas that Synth is produced. Please read wp:synth as I've asked before. To insure there is no OR I would like "each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim".--OMCV (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I know what SYNTH is. When I say none of the ideas are new, I mean that all synthetic statements of the form "A and B therefore C" are also not original. I did not make too many of these assertions in the text, mindful of the need to avoid synth.Likebox (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on the History Wars article as an uninvolved admin. While the present dispute over its contents certainly hasn't been conducted in line with Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, both sides of the discussion are at fault for this in my view - there's been no serious efforts to develop consensus text, seek outside views or approach experienced mediators. As such, while Likebox could improve their conduct in this discussion and show greater respect for other editors (I found their appeals to other editors to participate in the article as a 'jerk' to frustrate the editors they disagree with to be particularly concerning) no lines which warrant sanctions have been crossed. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, as I said I only briefly looked at History Wars. I read this and found the specious and personal argument style rather familiar. Nick-D I was wondering if you wouldn't be able to help mediate or even just discuss material at Quantum mysticism? I for one would welcome a third opinion for what may be a long processes.--OMCV (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In terms of ownership this is the sort of reaction I've been dealing with at Quantum mysticism. I don't believe "leave this page alone--- you don't know QM" is an appropriate edit summary.--OMCV (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What this diff is leaving out is that there were several successive partially conflicting diffs to the sections in question, and I just reverted all of them. That one, of course, is not a problem all by itself. The reason I reverted the changes is because they showed that whoever wrote them had a gross misunderstanding of elementary aspects of quantum mechanics, and I thought "oh no, somebody saw mysticism in the title, and thinks that this is a bunch of nonsense".

There is a part of the article about wavefunctions (now it is phrased with a link to schrodinger's cat, so that this type of confusion won't happen again), and how they spread out to describe an ever expanding collection of possible-worlds. This is an undisputed part of quantum mechanics, acknowledged by all, and independent of interpretation (the interpretations only comes in when you measure the system described by the wavefunction). This property was discussed by Von Neumann in his book on the foundations of quantum mechanics, but also by Einstein in his correspondence with Schrodinger, and by Schrodinger in the famous "Schrodinger cat" paper.

This text was replaced with "In quantum mechanics the uncertainty principle means that we can never know the initial conditions" or something to that effect. This is absolutely wrong, and completely inappropriate for an article explaning why quantum mechanics is sometimes thought of as mystical. It suggests that quantum mechanics is classical mechanics + uncertainty in the initial conditions, which is just not true. Classical statistical mechanics is classical mechanics + uncertainty. But nobody goes around saying that Boltzmann was a mystic!

Quantum mechanics adds a fundamental new thing: the wavefunction. During a "measurement" something fundamentally different happens which does not happen when nobody is measuring. This new thing is "collapse of the wavefunction" (in Von Neumann's now standard language). The information revealed by the measurement is data which is associated with the act of observation, not with the thing that is being observed. This is construed as mystical by some people.

I am sorry for getting so nit-picky detailed about all this, but if you don't know the literature on quantum measurement problem, all this stuff looks like hooey. I don't blame OMCV for being suspicious that the whole thing is OR and SYNTH. But it really isn't. Once I saw the type of changes he was making, I just wanted to make sure he read the literature and understood the issues before making further edits.Likebox (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By my count three editors have identified the contended text as OR, User:OMCV, User:Anaxial, and User:2over0. Still my efforts to remove the text is reverted without significant explanation [20], [21], [22], and [23]. This is just the most recent edit warring, it takes two to edit ware so I admit my part but IMHO I'm representing a consensus of three versus one.--OMCV (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Specious arguments: [24].--OMCV (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Introman reported by User:The Four Deuces

Work in progress; comments welcome

User:Introman has posted abusive messages on the talk pages of two editors.

Posted to User talk:The Four Deuces:

Your following me

You seem to like to follow me around searching for what articles I'm editing and then disputing them no matter what they are and for whatever reason you think of. I'm considering setting up a another username to prevent this from happening. Then you can judge edits on their own merits instead of upon who is making them. I think this may be best for you because it appears to me that you've lost any trace of objectivity that you may have once had. I'm confident there are edits I've made that you wouldn't have bothered with if you didn't know it was me making them. I'd be glad to set up another username if you think it would be helpful to clear your head a bit. What do you think? Introman (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see you don't want to weigh in on this. I'll go ahead and keep this username for the articles I'm working on now. But for new ones, at least those that deal with political topics, I'll probably move on to another username. This way you won't feel you have to track me down and challenge my edits just for the sake that I made them. Hope that helps makes your life easier! Introman (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[25]

Posted to User talk:Rick Norwood:

How can you sleep at night?

You delete clearly referenced information [14] and in your edit you say: "restore referenced version, see talk." Wikipedia doesn't work very well when people are dishonest. Introman (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[26]

The Four Deuces (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You did, in fact, remove referenced information and your edit summaray was, in fact, therefore dishonest. No comment on the other issue seeing as I can't be arsed going through the diffs, but coming here complaining about one statement that was in fact completely and totally accurate does not bode well for the accuracy or validity of your other complaint. → ROUX ₪ 03:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the edit to which you refer was made by User:Rick Norwood not by me. My complaint is about the etiquette of Introman's comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

While I cannot speak for Rick Norwood, the "referenced information" that was removed is referenced to an article about the social market in the Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy which states:

Furthermore, the combination of Freiburg-style Ordnungspolitik and sociological neo-liberalism following Roepke and Ruestow can be regarded as a continuation and reformulation ot the classical liberal tradition in the lineage of ADAM SMITH, Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville.[27]

This does not appear to be a good source. The article is not about Smith or classical liberalism. Edmund Burke btw is usually seen as a conservative, not a classical liberal. The passage has been taken out of context. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Come off it dude. It says right there that Adam Smith was in the classical liberal tradition, along with Burke and Tocqueville. And besides, there were two other sources there besides that one saying Adam Smith was a classical liberal, because I know you and your buddy won't accept ANY source I give for ANYTHING. This is what the other two sources say: "The early Classical Liberal theorists assumed that workers disliked the monotony and submissiveness of factory work. Adam Smith worried that industrial jobs would cause workers to become "as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become." Barry Stewart. Political Economy: A Comparative Approach. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998. p. 183 and "They also averred a laissez-faire attitude toward internal tarriffs and the merits of economic liberty which greatly influenced Adam Smith and other classical liberal writers toward the development of a rational discipline of political philosophy." [28] Tell the truth for once. Adminstrators, notice the continued deception and dishonesty even HERE. It's ridiculous. This is what I go through with Four Deuces. The source will say something in plain English and he'll just sit there and deny it says what it says when it's staring him right in the face just like he's trying to do to you here. But then they'll turn around and just make stuff up that's in a source and revert if I try to correct it. It's TOTALLY dishonest. (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a message at Introman's User talk page to advise him of this Alert. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is crazy. Both Rick Norwood and Four Deuces are the most horrendous Wikipedia editors I've ever come across, in terms of ethics and integrity (and also in terms of editing). They appear to work as POV team. I'm sorry to say, that I can't hold on to the "assume good faith" practice anymore with these two. Rick Norwood just makes up things and then cites a source claiming the source back up what he put in the article. Then if I try to fix it, Four Deuces will come in to prevent that by reverting it back. And both of them give deceptive edit summaries. Dishonesty just seems to pervade everything they do. Four Deuces seems to watch which articles I go to revert any edit I make no matter how minor because apparently he has something personal against me. But, on top of this, I suspect that they're the same person trying to get around three revert rules. One time I said something to one and the other one replied instead, but by the contents of the message it seemed as if he forgot to switch back to the other username. I'll see if I can find it. And what do you know, one comes here to defend the other just as one always come to prevent me from changing the other's edits, IN EVERY CASE. That they're the same people is just a suspicion right now though, I want to make clear. Anyway, to the best of my ability I try to represent sources as accurately as possible, and if you look at my edit summaries, they're VERY detailed, more than anyone else I've seen so that people know exactly what I'm doing. I have nothing to hide. So it's frustrating to have to deal with others who aren't willing to show anything close to the same respect. Without honest people and integrity, the world doesn't work very well, and Wikipedia is no exception. Introman (talk) 05:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Introman added an in-line citation here. User Rick Norwood then removed it here. Introman then responded at Rick Norwood’s User talk page, asking How can you sleep at night? See here.

Rick Norwood responded by creating a new section whose title explicitly names Introman here. These Guidelines explicitly forbid using section titles to name another User, or to attack a User.

I concede that some of Introman’s language (eg How can you sleep at night?) is not ideal, and is directed at Users rather than technical content. However, his language at its worst is nowhere near as bad as the language that is usually reported here at WP:WQA. I see that he has not been treated well. Some amount of frustration is understandable, particularly when Introman sees himself named and shamed in a section title, contrary to Wikipedia’s guidelines and WP:Civility.

I agree with Introman that Rick Norwood and the Four Deuces are doing quite a good job of reverting Introman’s careful edits. I think more effort should be invested in good faith communication on Talk pages rather than reverting edits that have been carefully made. On Wikipedia there are no deadlines so there is no reason to delete in-line citations as soon as they appear, especially now that the interaction between these three Users has been drawn to the attention of the WP:WQA community. Dolphin51 (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• At this point it almost appears that Four Deuces may be forum shopping in an attempt to run Introman off the articles that are being closely defended. A recent report for edit warring ended in a short block of Introman, however, if Four Deuces and Rick Norwood are acting in concert that might very well have changed the outcome of the report. While some of Introman's comments have been incivil, it also appears that they are mostly correct since at least one edit summary that's been pointed out was clearly misleading - continued use of misleading summaries may be grounds for a block as disruption. I would strongly suggest that all parties disengage from reverting and use dispute resolution. Shell ^babelfish 06:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying to not revert so much is what I've been trying to do. As an alternative I've been putting up dispute tags in order to prevent edit wars, so we can discuss without so much reverting, letting what I believe to be faulty edits stand. But then guess what? Four Deuces threatens to do an "RfC" because I put up a dispute tag! You can see this at the bottom of the capitalism article talk page [:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Capitalism[29] Introman (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, Four Deuces said "User:Introman has shown a consistent pattern of disruptive editing on this article over three months and continues this pattern after a 24 hour block for edit-warring. The best way to resolve this is through a WP:RfC/U and I will set one up if anyone else agrees that it is warranted." This was in response to an admin (User:Slrubenstein) calling Introman a "disruptive editor" in that NPOV tag thread. Rd232 ^talk 07:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For who? It's warranted for Four Deuces and Rick Norwood for sure. I don't know what the deal is with Slrubenstein. He has the nerve to post something basically calling me stupid [30] and then says I'M disruptive. It's really hard to put new information into Wikipedia because of all the POV pushers. If someone doesn't like you putting in information that conflicts with their POV, then you're "disruptive." Introman (talk)

To be precise, he basically said you hadn't read enough on the topic. [31] I note in that exchange you accused him of bad faith, saying he merely rejected the source because he didn't like what it says. Rd232 ^talk 08:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were just quoting Four Deuces. Introman (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell, I am not acting in concert with Rick Norwood. In the article where you blocked him for edit-warring, Capitalism, User:Lapsed Pacifist, User:MoralMoney, User: BernardL, User:Slrubenstein and myself all reversed Introman's edits and Introman then reverted. No other editor supported his edits, either through making reversions or through discussion on the talk page. Rick Norwood was not involved in that dispute.[32] Introman's response to your block was: Wonderful job you're doing there Sir! I think you may be mistaken but you're the expert. Introman (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[33]

In the articles where I have been in dispute with Introman he has made changes without discussion and provided sources that are not reliable, do not support the edit, or would not normally be chosen. For example, his support for an edit for Adam Smith (1723-1790) in the article Classical liberalism came from an article about the Social market in Germany after the Second World War (1945- ).[34][35] It appears that he looks for sources to support his edits rather than reading about the subject and adding information from sources that he has read. Also he fails to obtain consensus for his edits.

The Four Deuces (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Dolphin51, if you look at the edit history of Classical liberalism and the talk page you will see that both Rick Norwood and I have attempted to discuss Introman's edits with him, but he has merely reverted to his preferred version and only later posted to the talk page, often contradicting what he had previously said. An examination of his comments clearly shows that he has no understanding of the subjects of the articles he edits and in fact does not even read the articles. His self-description on his talk page is informative: Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Introman, and I only do intros. Working on bodies of articles is beneath me.[36]

He provides no real reasons for his edits, continually changes his reasons for them, misrepresents what he has previously said and continually asks for sources for anything said to him. He is also in conflict with other editors at the Libertarianism article although I think only one of the editors there edits at Capitalism.

I would be appreciative if you looked at the discussion pages, which I believe confirms what I have said.

The Four Deuces (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying about me, saying I "in fact [do] not even read the articles." I do read the articles. Article are supposed to summarize the contents. Of course I read the articles if I'm doing intros. Be careful of what you say is a "fact." And so what if I happen to get into a CONTENT conflict with another editor? That's part of Wikipedia, when you have a bunch of people putting in information. What matters is how it's handled. Running like a little girl to administrators to try to get the other person banned or something by making things up is not the way to do it, and neither is false edit summaries, nor is rejecting every source someone presents to you no matter how explicit. Introman (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: I see you are making some new claims. For example:
Rick Norwood and I have attempted to discuss Introman's edits with him
Introman has merely reverted to his preferred version
often contradicting what he had previously said
An examination of his comments clearly shows that he has no understanding of the subjects of the articles he edits
in fact does not even read the articles
He is also in conflict with other editors at the Libertarianism article
All claims should be supported by diffs. The way WP:WQA works is that the person bringing the claims supplies the evidence, and the WQA community then examines the evidence. It is not the WQA community who searches for the evidence.

Introman: I notice that at least one of your posts here involves aggressively defensive language:
Stop lying about me
Your comments are addressed to User:The Four Deuces For example: Running like a little girl to administrators
Allegations regarding your behaviour have been put before the WP:WQA community. Ideally, your posts here should be addressed to the WP:WQA community. The WP:WQA community is able to recommend in your favor, or against you. It is not in your interests to make posts here that display your propensity for self-defence and assertiveness. The WP:WQA community has done nothing to offend you. It is in your interests to display your skills at co-operation, willingness to work with others and willingness to assume good faith. Displaying those things would help the WQA community to recommend in your favor. Dolphin51 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood has done it again. He's again put a dishonest edit summary, deleting sourced content saying he's doing the opposite: [37] This is how Rick Norwood and Four Deuces operate. If I revert this back to the truly sourced version, Four Deuces will show up and revert it back to how Norwood wants it (unless he's laying low now that he's been exposed). The lack of ethics is really frustrating. As you can see as I showed above, quoting the sources, those references do explicitly support that Adam Smith was classical liberal. He's also deleting John Locke, along with those references: "John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1689) in may ways remains the clearest statement of the classical liberal's devotion to each individual's liberty." [38] "In this book I will use the term classical liberalism to refer to those pre-ninenteenth cnetury thinkers, such as John Locke..." [39]. So in addition to the false edit summaries, these two just DENY DENY DENY what is right in their face, because they don't like what the sources say. Introman (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the incidents Introman just described relate to a dispute between Rick Norwood and him and that I was not involved and not mentioned in any of Introman's references. Introman wrote, "If I revert this back to the truly sourced version, Four Deuces will show up and revert it back to how Norwood wants it (unless he's laying low now that he's been exposed)." But of course I have had no involvement in this current dispute. I would like to point out that I set up this alert because of my concern about Introman posting abusive messages. I believe that Introman has used this process to continue this abuse. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dolphin51, here is the evidence of my claims. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood and I have attempted to discuss Introman's edits with him, below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rick Norwood set up a section on the Talk:Classical liberalism to discuss Introman's edits 22:24, 19 August 2009[40] I set up a section 16:42, 22 August 2009.[41]

Introman has merely reverted to his preferred version, below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here are his reverts to Classical liberalism:[42] Diff Edit summary 22:24, 19 August 2009 Where's your source that it has two different meanings? YOU'RE saying it has two different meanings. The classical liberals ascribed to laissez-faire economics. I see no different meanings. 22:37, 19 August 2009 citation for the claim that classical liberalism has two different meanings? 00:55, 20 August 2009 Editor didn't have a source that there are two different meanings. Editor also claimed in talk that classical liberals werent for limited government, which shows no understanding of the topic. 00:56, 20 August 2009 Editor didn't have a source that there are two different meanings. Editor also claimed in talk that classical liberals werent for limited government, which shows no understanding of the topic. 00:59, 20 August 2009 pointing out the more basic thing which is that classical liberalism is the liberalism that existed before modern liberalism. 15:55, 20 August 2009 POV-intro. Rick Norwood trying to give the impression that the classical liberals weren't laissez-faire liberals. 20:57, 21 August 2009 no source was provided for giving impression that the classical liberals werent laissez-faire liberals 21:12, 21 August 2009 put in variation of suggested sentence by editor Voluntary Slave from talk page 21:51, 21 August 2009 Noted that it is the philosophy of the early liberals 22:11, 21 August 2009 Removed claim that classical liberalism refers to the philosophy of John Locke. Classical liberals include a lot more than John Locke. 22:16, 21 August 2009 No source for the claim that these synonyms only apply to people today who subscribe to classical liberalsm 22:43, 21 August 2009 source for Hayek being referred to as a classical liberal 21:35, 22 August 2009 POV-intro. Sources not saying that these synonyms only applies to "modern classical liberals." The sources in this ariticle are not talking about "modern classical liberalism" 17:42, 23 August 2009 "laissez-faire liberalism" doesnt fail verification. It's on page 21 too. Maybe easier to see there. 01:33, 25 August 2009 what is "modern" classical liberalism? The sources in this article are about no such thing. This article is about classical liberalism, period. 01:37, 25 August 2009 Your claim that it is only "libertarians" that use the term "laissez-faire liberalism" is not supported by the source. 01:38, 25 August 2009 no source for this statement 02:03, 25 August 2009 Changes were discussed clearly in both talk page and edit summaries 20:53, 25 August 2009 I don't see anything to back up your claim that the source is "libertarian" or that it's only "libertarians" that use the term "laissez-faire liberalism." 15:40, 26 August 2009 This article is not about a "phrase." It's about the PHILOSOPHY of classical or traditional liberalism. And you havent presented evidence that only libertarians talk about classical liberalism. 15:52, 26 August 2009 This source it talking about U.S. political policy. This article not just about the U.S., so it shouldnt head off the article. 15:58, 26 August 2009 again, the article is not about "the phrase" classical liberalism, but classical liberalism itself 15:59, 26 August 2009 why "traditional liberalism" synonym deleted? 16:01, 26 August 2009 It is POV of you to claim that these beliefs are not the beliefs of the classical liberals, especially given that the source that you provide says that they are! 16:41, 26 August 2009 Added some names of some notable classical liberals 16:46, 26 August 2009 source doesn't say "modern" classical liberals. 17:37, 26 August 2009 can't believe someone is disputing that the father of classical economics is not a classical liberal, but here's a few sources. 19:24, 26 August 2009 sources for Locke being a classical liberal

often contradicting what he had previously said, below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Below are examples from Talk:Classical liberalism. Rick Norwood and I contended that the term classical liberalism was used in two senses: (1) to refer to liberalism before the 20th century and (2) to refer to laissez-faire liberalism. Introman contended that there was only one definition, but then gave several definitions. 22:46, 19 August 2009 Classical liberalism is the philosophy of limited government and laissez-faire economics as first presented by the early liberals. It's as simple as that. 23:17, 19 August 2009 Early liberals didn't believe limited government? WHAT?! LOL!... Yes it refers to the philosophy of the early liberals. And their was a philosophy was a philosophy of limited government. What do you think they were rebelling against? Intrusive government. 00:05, 20 August 2009 "Limited government" certainly does mean non-intrusive government. It means the government whose power is limited from intervening in the private sphere. It's held back. It's retrained by a Constitution. And it doesn't mean it's not strong, but that it's strong in protecting liberty but weak in interfering with it. 00:23, 20 August 2009 I'm not using "limited government" as a synonym for classical liberalism. I just said classical liberals supported limited government, which means one restrained from interfering with liberty, both personal and economic. A "minarchy" and a "restrained" government would be the same thing, i.e. a government that doesn't restrict liberty. 15:51, 20 August 2009 Everyone else says classical liberalism refers to the philosophy of the original liberals. 22:20, 21 August 2009 Classical liberalism refers to the philosophy of the early liberals. Those today who subscribe to that philosophy are known as classical liberals as well, naturally. It's as simple as that. 19:43, 23 August 2009 But what constitutes classical liberalism is the GENERAL philosophy. 17:10, 26 August 2009 "Classical liberalism is used in standard academic sources to mean liberalism before the 20th Century." 18:23, 26 August 2009 In your second quote there is a definition that says classical liberalism is political liberalism and economic liberalism (free market philosophy) together. That's the definition used in this article. 18:42, 26 August 2009 The classical liberals, the OLD liberals, supported, as your source says "constitutionalism plus the free market." 19:14, 26 August 2009 Classical liberals don't support regulated markets.

An examination of his comments clearly shows that he has no understanding of the subjects of the articles he edits and in fact does not even read the articles, below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following appears to show both: Introman inserted the following text into the lead of Conservatism in the United States: The capitalist conservatism that dominated the Reagan administration which favored a more or less laissez-faire free market economy arose from classical liberalism. We discussed it at Talk:Conservatism in the United States: The quote makes it seem that classical liberalism did not play a role in American conservatism until Ronald Reagan. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC) If you have a source for classical liberalism inspiring conservatism at an earlier time then provide it. That's not a good reason for censoring mentioning that classical liberalism was the main economic influence on Reagan's conservatism. Introman (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC) It says in the article "Freidrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, and Milton Friedman advocated a return to classical liberal or libertarian policies and together provided a vigorous criticism of the welfare state and Keynsian economics.... In 1965 conservatives campaigned for Buckley as a third party candidate for Mayor of New York and in 1966 for Ronald Reagan, who was elected governor of California. Reagan sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 and 1976, before finally being elected president in 1980.[43]

He is also in conflict with other editors at the Libertarianism article, below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This can be determined through a summary of his recent edits and discussion at Talk:Libertarianism. Diff Edit summary 06:17, 19 August 2009 best known version is right libertarianism 15:58, 19 August 2009 it's not about the terminology 18:10, 19 August 2009 clarifying what left libertarianism is 16:50, 20 August 2009 Stanford Encyclopedia says right libertarianism is the most popular one too 16:54, 21 August 2009 I don't see the source saying it's been implemented around the world. Doesn't make sense. What society on Earth is the libertarian ideal? 20:05, 23 August 2009 don't forget civil liberties 02:48, 25 August 2009 making clear the libertarians are not only in the Libertarian Party 22:45, 26 August 2009 i know this is not true. There are libertarians who support foreign military intervention. It's not sourced anyway, so plenty reason to remove it. Here is a mention of the dispute on the talk page. He began arguing with User:Carolmooredc in May and the dispute continues 3 months later: User:Introman - whose user page says My name is Introman, and I only do intros. Working on bodies of articles is beneath me. - chooses to distort an introduction that outlines the current version of the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC) First, you don't just make some comment that barely addresses my concerns and stick back in your comment. This is edit warring WP:3rr. Second, you do NOT address my first concern, that if you want to talk about "best known version of libertarianism" you should also mention the other references that talk about private ownership and free market libertarianism being better known, per the discussion of that issue. (And deleting rest of discussion as irrelevant.) Third, if you addressed that it would be clear that "Means of production" not the phrase all those sources would use. It is a heavily charged socialist/communist term, as you yourself admit above. To engage in truly cooperative editing you should revert yourself and address my concerns above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[44]

oooh fancy! Introman (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) Here is another example of what I see as edit-warring by Introman, which happened today, and with which I had no involvement. The lead of Modern liberalism in the United States contains the statement:

"America was founded as a liberal nation, and the preamble to the Constitution of the United States includes the clause stating that the purpose of establishing the Constitution was to "promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", which most liberals believe requires an active role for the government."

Without discussion, Introman then added the following to the end of the sentence:

20:30, 28 August 2009:"...unlike the classical liberals who also wanted to advanced human welfare but believed that this was best achieved by minimizing government intervention."[Paul, Jeffrey & Miller, Fred Dycus. Problems of Market Liberalism. Cambridge University Press, 1998. pp. 1-2][45]

20:52, 28 August 2009 Upon being reverted, Introman changed this to "unlike the classical liberals who also wanted to advanced human welfare but believed that this was best achieved by minimizing government intervention"[46]

20:58, 28 August 2009 Rick Norwood set up discussion of the dispute on the talk page.[47]

21:15, 28 August 2009 Introman replied on the talk page.

21:23, 28 August 2009 Without waiting for a reply, Introman reverted Rick Norwood's edit again to add "unlike the classical liberals, such as Adam Smith, who also wanted to advanced human welfare but believed that this was best achieved by minimizing government intervention and leaving individuals free to pursue only their own self interest. The ideology of American modern liberals is not to be confused with what is called "liberalism" in continental Europe, where it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies. It also differs from classical liberalism which holds to the Jeffersonian idea that "that government is best which governs least"". (He adds additional references for this edit.)

Although the first edit by Introman was referenced to Problems of market liberalism, it actually refers to an article in the book by Gerald F. Gaus which presents a point of view. More importantly the article says nothing about the founding of America as a liberal nation.[48]

The Four Deuces (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it really suspicious how Four Deuces is SO protective of Rick Norwood's edits. Never has he challenged or complained about anything Rick Norwood has done, no matter how attrocious. So quick to try to do whatever he thinks might work to keep me from changing Rick Norwood's edits. Hmm... Introman (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not very helpful for Introman to say he has suspicions without saying what they are. I have had disputes with Rick Norwood, but not in the last two weeks, which is when Introman began to change the leads in several articles. I have not defended Rick Norwood's edits but rather opposed Introman's edits. My reasons for doing so have been extensively discussed in each article's talk page where this has occured. I would also point out that I have disagreed with Introman's edits in articles that Rick Norwood did not edit and that Introman has found disageement with his edits in at least one article that neither Rick Norwood nor I edited. (I have given examples of these above.) The Four Deuces (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I already stated what my suspicious are in regard to this. I suspect that Four Deuces and Rick Norwood are the same person, trying to get around the 3 revert rule. And as I said earlier, it's not yet an accusation. It's just a suspicion based on some things I've witnessed. I'd like to see your thoughts on this, Four Deuces. Do you think Rick Norwood may be you? You seen anything suspicious? If not, maybe we can lay this theory to rest. Introman (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Introman, on this page complaints have been made about some of your edits and, by implication, complaints about your willingness to participate in a reasonable and scholarly manner. I have examined all the evidence provided here, and in addition I have done some of my own research. I have noticed that where Introman goes, conflict goes too.

I agree that you are not the only User displaying a lack of fraternal spirit. Others have displayed antipathy towards you. However, I have seen evidence that these others display a commendably fraternal spirit towards Users other than you. I have not yet seen such a display from you, but I will give you full opportunity to show that it exists.

I can say at this stage that I am likely to conclude that your preferred style of communication on Wikipedia is a competitive, combative style. I am also likely to conclude that it is your style of communication on Wikipedia that ensures conflict is your constant companion.

If I finally reach these conclusions I can do nothing more than encourage you to recognise that on Wikipedia you are among friends; that your knowledge and competence are not under threat to the extent that you need to defend them vigorously on a daily basis. I will recommend that you strive to develop a new persona, a new style of communication that will be appropriate to dealing with friends in what is, after all, a hobby for all of us.

Before I reach these conclusions I am keen for you to have the opportunity to comment, and to argue against these possible conclusions, if that is your preference. If you disagree with me, could you provide me with one or two recent diffs that show you communicating with another User in a friendly, non-combative and scholarly manner? That would help me. Thanks for your patience in this matter. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

When someone is just so dishonest and disruptive, and lacking in all integrity, it's only natural express irritation with them. It would happen in real life with anyone. People get upset and express that. It's human. But apparently here there's a different personality standard here than in real life. Everyone must present themselves as if they're on opium apparently, so I'll tone it down in the future. But yes of course there are times when I'm not so course with other people who I may have a content conflict with. Not everyone is as unreasonable as Four Deuces and Rick Norwood. Can you tell me how to give a link to a portion of a talk page, so I can show you examples? Introman (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out Four Deuces himself given bogus edit summaries. It's not just "Rick Norwood." Many times, in more than one article, he says he's reverting to "Restore agreed version." But this so obviously untrue. If it was agreed, then why are people making changes that he's reverting? Obviously, what he wants is not agreed to. And, note, these reversions with "Restore agreed version" are not only for my edits, but for the edits of others users as well. Here are some examples from the Social liberalism article: [49] [50] [51] [52] This dishonesty is very irritating. But as I said, I will will try to be more ...gentle? in my responses. But as you can see, anyone would be highly upset at this type of behavior. Introman (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I explained this to User:Introman: "If you want to edit this article then you should discuss major changes, bearing in mind that other editors have agreed to the phrasing in the lead....00:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)"[53] Before I re-wrote the lead I posted my suggested changes on the talk page.[54] I waited for commentary, made the appropriate changes and revised the lead 9 days after recommending my change. User:UberCryxic and User:Mcduarte2000 were the only two editors who replied and they said respectively "I like it" and "I now agree with you". UberCryxic agreed with me when I reverted the lead on 28 May back to this agreed version.[55]. McDuarte2000 has recently commented on the lead.[56]

Following Introman's comments Mcduarte2000 made a minor change to the lead.[57] All the reversions I made where I stated "Revert to version by Duarte" or "Restore agreed version of lead - please discuss changes on talk page" or "Restore agreed version of lead" were restorations to Mcduarte's version. It was almost identical to the version UberCryxic, Mcduarte and I agreed to and there has been no subsequent agreement for any other version.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Two or more Users agreeing on text to be used in an article is commendable. However, such agreement does not confer ownership on those two or more Users. If the agreed text is subsequently amended to delete a statement, the deletion can be reverted or challenged, especially where the deleted statement was supported by in-line citations and references. If the agreed text is subsequently amended to add a new statement, the new statement should be assessed on its merits. The statement can be deleted if it does not enhance the article, and especially if it is not supported by an in-line citation or if it contradicts or is incompatible with the agreed text.

Most importantly, if the agreed text is amended to add a new statement, the statement must not be deleted for no reason other than it differs from agreed text. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There is no intention that Wikipedia articles will be frozen when a group of Users agree that the article is as good as it can be made. Inevitably, many articles will reach a high level of maturity to the point that large numbers of Users agree that the articles are as good as they will ever be, but then new Users will edit those articles in such a way that the original large numbers of Users will not approve.

Consequently, if edits have been reverted solely on the grounds that the article is being returned to a version previously agreed by a small group of Users, I am unable to condone those reversions. When an edit made in good faith is being reverted, the reversion must be accompanied by an explanation, either in the Edit summary, the Talk page or a post on the editor’s User talk page. That explanation must be based on something more substantial than that the article is being returned to an agreed version. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) I did of course explain my changes in detail in the talk pages. Introman first changed the lead in four edits with the notation ""modern liberalism" is the more used term" in his first edit.[58][59] I reverted back with the notation: "Removed OR from lead - must agree to sources given"[60] Introman then made another edit with the notation "removing unsourced"[61] followed by four more edits.[62].

I then set up a section on the talk page where I stated:

Introman, what do you mean by saying "removing unsourced" in your edit to the lead. The lead was clearly sourced to Contending liberalisms in world politics and your edits distort the meaning expressed in the original text. If you want to edit this article then you should discuss major changes, bearing in mind that other editors have agreed to the phrasing in the lead. Incidentally, you added in (also called modern liberalism and new liberalism) but the lead already states Social liberalism is also called new liberalism(as it was originally termed), modern liberalism, and left-liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In conclusion, when I reverted Introman's edits, I provided an explanation in my edits and on the talk page and my main reason given was that the new edit was not supported by sources, but in fact contradicted the sources cited. I did mention that other editors had agreed to the version he changed, but did not give that as the main reason for my disagreement with his edits.

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tfz (Purple Arrow / Purple), User:HighKing and User:Dunlavin Green

I'm reporting personal attacks against me and lack of etiquette from the above-mentioned users with regard to their comments on this talk page. This is somewhat surprising considering Tfz's stated opinion of "trolling", "respect" and "posturing" (see his talk page).

Diffs:

• "his typical pov-motivated editing" (by User:Tfz)
• "page move was performed by User:Setanta747 who has previous history" (by User:HighKing)
• "According to his homepage he's a British unionist in the northeast of Ireland so that gives us all perspective on the politics behind both changes" (by User:Dunlavin Green)
• "And when you look at the edit history of that editor, Setanta747, you start to understand that the motives were inspired by his anti-Irish/pro-British sentiment and nothing more, and has since left the project" (by User:HighKing)

I have no idea how many more personal attacks against me might have come into being in Wikipedia over the last few months, but I would like to see them, and inability to assume good faith, eradicated.

A note to HighKing: I couldn't possibly be anti-Irish, as I am Irish myself. Just because you may be prejudiced, there is no reason to tar everyone else with your own brush. You clearly know nothing of my "motives". --Setanta 02:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You should notify the editors in question that you have raised this issue here at WQA. However, reviewing the entire talk page, this seems to pretty much be a problem of people not assuming good faith. Userboxes should indeed not be used to guess the political motivations of users, and a historical block log should also not be dragged into a discussion to try and reduce the impact of a users views/actions. Personally I would advise all involved users, including those not involved in this WQA but who are involved on that talk page, to remember to discuss content, not users, and to assume good faith of others. --Taelus (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

move to close if this all there is. Those diffs are all from May/early June, and one of the editors has retired since. This page isn't for punishing past misbehaviour, it's for solving current problems. Otherwise, echo Taelus' remarks. Rd232 ^talk 17:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PS This is a repost from 30 June 2009 - Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive66#User:Tfz (Purple Arrow / Purple), User:HighKing and User:Dunlavin Green. Rd232 ^talk 18:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice. Punishment isn't what I am after - what I am after is for the comments to be retracted and for a reminder to be given to the editors in question - as Taelus suggested - to discuss content and not users. It is all to easy to make another attack in defence of an accusation. Punishment such as 'blocking' is, in my opinion merely, frustrating and counter-productive. It may even make matters worse. Persistent behaviour though, obviously has to have something done about it.

With regard to past misbehaviour versus current problems, I do not expect to remove myself from Wikipedia, only to find that people have been name-calling and sullying my name, when I return. Even if I had been actively editing, there's certainly a chance I might not have discovered these personal attacks - I wasn't involved in the conversation and I certainly wasn't notified of it.

I appreciate that Tfz has now ceased editing. I'm surprised at Highking though, who I should have thought would know better. Dunlavin Green is new - at least to me - and his is a clear case of simply looking at my userpage and jumping to assumptions based merely on what I have stated my political ideology to be. I'm sure I don't need to point out that just because someone has a certain political ideology, that doesn't necessarily mean to suggest that they are incapable of reasoned and balanced delivery of information. I am not interested in returning to Wikipedia if this kind of behaviour is going to continue unabated, and without proper action being taken in regard to it.

This kind of behaviour leads to suspicion. For example, my account was blocked and put under a probationary period after my account had been 'hacked' and I made edits without logging in (because I couldn't log in). Whilst I didn't advertise my presence, I didn't change my editing style or try to hide the fact of who I was. Then (because it was quite obvious who I was) I was accused -wrongly - of sockpuppetry, and the case was accepted. I had intended to try to retrieve my account (in fact this is a new account under the old name - the previous account has been renamed and locked), but I thought that might take some time and energy I wasn't prepared to deliver. What is one supposed to assume with regard to that? Two edits were made to my userpage after the account was stolen, yet I am told that an investigation can't be carried out. Now I'm not accusing the three editors above of having been involved in this.. but nor can I, in all honesty, rule them or several other editors, past or present, out of having been involved.

If you leave this for a day or two, I will probably get around to notifying several of the members involved in the discussion. I welcome any other advice or opinions in the mean time. Thanks. --Setanta 19:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, yeah, one comment when plucked out of context appears to be a personal attack, but I'd advise editors to read the comments in context rather than the way Setanta is picking and chosing specific sentences to see that 99% of the personal comments in that thread were against me (e.g. No, the main reason is that HighKing hates the term British Isles. He has a long history of trying to rid Wikipedia of it.) and if you read my comments throughout that page you'll see that I just do not engage in making personal comments. As to the comments themselves, the only part where I stepped over the line was to talk about his motives. The rest of my comments? I don't see any problem. But oddly enough, there's already a diff where a similar WQA was dismissed because Setanta was making equally personal comments, and I see in Setanta's post above, he directs this comment to me Just because you may be prejudiced, there is no reason to tar everyone else with your own brush. so I guess this WQA is really a taking-the-piss tongue-in-cheek announcement of his return? --HighKing (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor at 98.207.210.210 - various issues. Again.

Previously took this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1 and the editor was blocked, and here Wikiquette and the editor was warned and encouraged to do better. However:

• Here the editor abuses me on my talk page concerning the sockpuppet block.
• Here the editor states that the editor will (continue to? anon edits) edit war, simply stating what must be done, and that the editor does not have time to provide relevant content or sources, so irrelevant or un-sourced content should remain in the article, as there is no WP policy that requires content to be made relevant or sourced in a specific period of time.
• Here the editor proceeds to war.

I don't feel partial protection is called for, much of the content in these articles comes (painfully) from anon editors and the problem isn't that severe. I am unsure that further blocking will do any good, the editor works anonymously, clearly by choice, as the editor had an account but only used it for the edit war that led to the block. Ideas? I struggled with where to take this, and considered the edit war page, ANI... but I am hopeful that guidance from other ordinary editors might help.- sinneed (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It is weekend, so I request that some extra time should be given in this case so that we do not end up blocking an editor without listening to his side of the story. It appears that his previous block might have happened in an error as well.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• 99.51.223.161, are you also editing under 98.207.210.210? This is just a question, not an accusation... if one edits anon, one will have different addresses in different locations, but it is important to know. - sinneed (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Respected editor User: Sinneed has clearly tried to present me in a very bad way/shape. My comments (below) will prove that the reality was exactly opposite. Either respected editor Sinneed doesn’t understand me OR either I am unable to present my views in some way of his liking, so that he could understand me positively. He is trying his best to get me blocked, his initial try was successful (but it was a mistake – I will prove it in the following paragraphs-and I am already in the process to get it corrected), his second attempt failed and this is his third attempt.

He has put 3 allegations against me.

• That I have abused him
• That I have said that I do not have time provide relevant content or sources AND I will edit war
• That I actually did edit war.

I respectfully prove that all there allegations are wrong.

Allegation 1 – Respected editor Sinneed’s wording -

• Here the editor abuses me on my talk page concerning the sockpuppet block.

Answer -

I am a very sensitive person; if I ever realize that I had made a mistake and someone innocent had to suffer then I always try my best to go back and correct it (or get it corrected). I thought that other people/editors might have same kind of thinking, so when check-user proofs started coming up that some editors blocked through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1 were not related to each other then I left a message to respected User: Sinneed to give him the first opportunity to get mine and other innocent editor User:Gurbinder_singh1’s blocking history cleared. But unfortunately Sinneed immediately interpreted my good faith message as an abuse.

History -

Respected Wikipedia administrators/editors, kindly note that User: Sinneed started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1, I was hoping that the truth will come out once check user will investigate his RFC, but unfortunately I was quickly blocked along with an innocent editor User:Gurbinder_singh1 and an abusive editor User:Satanoid without any check user investigation.

Later on, Iprovided evidences against User:Satanoid and his accounts were blocked and a range block was implemented against his IPs per [[63]]. But -

• this same check-user investigation also proved that [[User: Gurbinder_singh1] was totally un-related to any of User: Satanoid's accounts.
• if I was the same guy as User:Satanoid and User:Gurbinder_singh1 as suspected by respected User: Sinneed in his Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1 then why would I present strong proofs against User:Satanoid over here

Now when half of the truth has came out, so in an effort to encourage User:Sinneed to get justice to the remaining two editors who were mistakenly blocked per [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1 his RFC], I left him a message so that I could let him take the initiative since this mistake had happened per his own RFC only.

Allegation 2 – Respected editor Sinneed’s wording –

• Here the editor states that the editor will (continue to? anon edits) edit war, simply stating what must be done, and that the editor does not have time to provide relevant content or sources, so irrelevant or un-sourced content should remain in the article, as there is no WP policy that requires content to be made relevant or sourced in a specific period of time.

Answer -

Respected editor Sinneed has lied. He has distorted the meaning of my text and ‘has presented his own distorted version to get your sympathy and (most-probably) get me blocked. I was simply trying to expand my knowledge of Wikipedia policies so that I and other involved editors could edit accordingly.

Here’s my actual text -

• Since wikipedia editors might not be able to (and can not) work 100% of their (day and night) time on wikipedia so I need some wikipedia policy stating that 'requested information must be added within that many hours ' or text will be deleted.

History -

• Respected User:Sinneed asked for Concerns? Additions? Ideas? on 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC) and he dropped the referenced contentswithin 48 hours on 27 August 2009 (UTC).

I simply felt that considering other respected editors personal (family, school, work…etc) schedules, 48 hours (actually even less than 48 hours) of notice time was too short. That’s it.

• Even another respected editor User: Sikh-history requested User: Sinneed to read the relevant wikipedia articles.

You must have noticed that respected editor User:Sinneed has clearly used his manipulation skills and ‘presented my thoughts in his own distorted way. He completely changed the meaning of my text to show me in poor light.

Allegation # 3 – Respected editor Sinneed’s wording -

*Here the editor proceeds to war.

Answer –

Respected editor Sinneed has lied again. I did not indulge in the edit war.

This minor addition can NOT be called an edit war, as respected editor Sinneed has presented.

History –

After adding my concerns/answers in the article’s talk page, I I added the duly sourced text into the article. Respected editor Sinneed moved the same text. Since I did NOT want to do edit wars, so I did NOT revert/modify it.

I would like to make a humble request to respected editor Sinneed to not to manipulate the facts to get other editors blocked. Instead he/she can help us in improving the articles by reading the references and other sources. It took a lot of time for me to gather all these facts, I could have used this time to improve wikipedia articles further if I was not pushed into it. I will also make a humble request to Wikipedia editors to not to take any action against Sinneed. I respect him. Kindly give him your best advice.--98.207.210.210 (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo

Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs) has twice called me a sockpuppet (here and here). This is uncalled for. There is nothing that warrants this outrageous accusation, this assumption of bad faith. Disagreeing with me is no problem, undoing my edits is no problem, but incivility is extremely bad form. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record: this edit by 83.80.18.68 (talk · contribs) and this edit by 94.212.31.237 (talk · contribs) were both made by me. I have never pretended to be another person, and I have never engaged in "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive" behaviour. A disagreement, a content dispute, is not vandalism. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I contacted the user reminding them to assume good faith, and to avoid personal attacks, including calling others a sockpuppet when this is unproven. I also did a little research into the two IPs that he has accused, and they are both statically assigned and are located in different cities in the Netherlands some distance apart. More details can be found on User talk:Kintetsubuffalo. As for this scenario, I suggest that you ignore his attacks and continue editing, hopefully he will disengage. Happy editing to you both, --Taelus (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: 94.212.31.237 did notify the user of this WQA being filed, however the user reverted the addition of the notification to his talk page without comment. --Taelus (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the accusations of bad faith continue. I am a good faith editor, who happens to disagree with Chris on something. Nothing warrants his continuing condescending attitude. Whether I am logged in or not doesn't matter, IPs deserve AGF as well. I have admitted to editing one article from two computers. That does not make me a sockpuppet. I have never been disruptive and I have never pretended to be another person. I just happen to go somewhere. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism

User:Ruslik0 on Solar System[64] HarryAlffa (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

While I wouldn't go so far as to call the edits wp:vandalism, that does seem to be a very large number of requests for quotation for referenced material that is widely known... volcanoes and valleys on Mars, for example. Simply stating that an edit is vandalism probably won't be widely seen as wp:incivil behaviour: the two of you simply disagree.

As an editor who asks for quotes to back up sources that I cannot readily fact-check and that seem dubious to me, I have gotten much resistance... many editors simply won't provide them, and strongly object to the flags. I fear that in this case it does seem that the clarification requests and quote requests are a bit spam-like.- sinneed (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As to, "quotation for referenced material that is widely known... volcanoes and valleys on Mars, for example", that was not the edit Ruslik reverted, calling (or implying) me a vandal. I congratulate you on a surprisingly deep analysis, usually the shallowest look is performed and the subject of an inquiry is roundly criticised - at least that's my experience when I have been the subject. Perhaps the deeper analysis (the sort that should be routine, again well done) was only performed because Ruslik was a sysop? Authority has it's effects even here.

Congratulations on the depth, but what about broadening the focus? You "condemned" all my requests with one example. But the one actually accusing of vandalism was in fact a request for clarity of a couple of passages; calling three different objects "the largest", even with qualifiers is not very clever here; but I won't list them here - look at the diff I supplied[65]. So it was deep, but missed the target. The only way Ruslik could be judged NOT uncivil was to NOT analyse the edits he reverted. Which is exactly what you have done.

I can see why you might view my quote requests as suspicious, but if you'd tried reasoning with the usual denizens of Solar System, my actions would be your only recourse as well, and I would ask that you take back the "spam-like" comment, these are good faith requests.

The "Mars quotes", are explained in the Talk page - again good depth, but poor width!

This isn't the first time he has cried "reverting vandalism". I was hoping that a warning word from an independent person would help restrain the invective he has been carrying around since I took the Solar System to FAR. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• wp:AGF - This is a place to come to get ordinary, interested editors to comment on your actions and the actions of others, and perhaps offer help. The "deeper"(no) "analysis"(no) was simply because I filed the report immediately 2 spots above this one, and noticed your difficulty, and offered a word.
• At this point, reading your response, I think that spending further effort on this is quite pointless. I wish you all the best in your future pursuits, and bid you good day.- sinneed (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of Disruption

And now another incivility from User:Ruslik0, "this is disruption"[66], with no communication in the relevant sections (created by me for the purpose) in the Talk page. Please someone have a word with him. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I support the view that some of these flag insertions are wp:disruptive editing. I would suggest that Ruslik0 personally try to simply ignore the flags, leaving them in place, and move on. The flags themselves will do no harm, and an interested editor might choose to furnish the quotes or to explain more completely. Or not.- sinneed (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I only now noticed that you said Ruslik0 was an admin. In that case, I defer to Ruslik0's greater knowledge of WP: You should have listened when the admin attempted to educate you.- sinneed (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is what I meant about the problem of "authority", bowing and scraping. I disagree with your "disruptive editing" description. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would point out that characterizing my respect as "bowing and scraping" is quite rude. My opinion was given 1st. I did make one change... from a suggestion to an editor more experienced than I to a statement of what I would have done (always better anyway).

Is there a diff where you ask Ruslik0 not to call good faith edits "vandalism", or you ask Russlik0 what he/she thinks the problem is with your edits and you try to listen? For that matter, has anyone notified Russlik0 that this is under discussion here? That's a common courtesy, if not a requirement. Every editor is responsible for learning and following policy on their own, and as an admin Russlik0 really should not be throwing around terms like "disruption" and "vandalism" casually, particularly when in content editing mode (and thus acting as a regular editor, with no special privilege to decide who is being disruptive and who is not). Nevertheless, many people overuse the term vandalism to label edits that frustrate them, and don't realize that it's supposed to be limited strictly to bad-faith edits intended solely to degrade or deface a page. I've found that whether you're the target of the accusation or bystander it's best to start with a friendly "forgive me if you know this already, but per WP:VANDAL..." message. Then give them time to cool off. For the most part it becomes a civility problem only if an editor, fully aware that the term is an accusation of bad faith or upsets someone, persists to make a WP:POINT. "Disruption" is a broader term. It's still not the best thing to accuse people of that, but it does not necessarily imply bad faith. I agree with sinneed that edit warring to insert fact tags and edit notices in an already reasonably good article could be considered disruptive to the article. If I make repeated messy edits to an article while my Internet connection keeps shutting down, I'm disrupting the article even if I'm trying my hardest not to do so. Someone here can have a word with Ruslik0, or Ruslik0 can visit here. Just be friendly and be ready to listen why Ruslik0 considers your edits to be inappropriate. People react a lot better to calm not and requests than they do to accusations. Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

An oversight on my part, I didn't notify Ruslik. Sorry about that. Ruslik has a history of hysterics and ... well sod it. I can't be arsed. Bye. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hysterics? This is a lie. HarryAlffa as usual insults other editors. As to vandalism see this, where two banners were inserted in the small sections. The purpose was "to degrade or deface a page". Meanwhile, I started this thread on ANI. Ruslik_Zero 19:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to provide a brief excursus into the recent history. HarryAlffa began his disruption of the Solar System article back in the May (or even in August-September last year). He started FAR, which was soon closed as keep. In the course of it he made a lot of uncivil remarks about mental abilities of other editors. You can see them by reading the page or in the history. I want only to provide one diff. After that FAR the relations between HarryAlffa and other editors were poisoned, and I generally stop assuming good faith on behave of this editor. AGF is a great policy, but not a suicide pact. However I expected that HarryAlffa would at least back off, instead he started an RFC, where he tried to get what he had not got in FAR. Insults followed as usual, but RFC produced no results. In the June HarryAlffa was blocked for one week, partly because of problems with Solar System article (but not only). Since then he lied low for some time, but recently resumed his activities. So, when I wrote "disruption", I made this claim taking into account the previous history. Ruslik_Zero 19:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

failure to communicate by TheDJ to Endo999 over making Translation Popups a Wikipedia Gadget

I proposed my javascript code in my monobook.js file to be a gadget in en wiki. TheDJ reviewed this and proposed some changes, which I did. On May 25 he posted this note to me on his talk page:

"It is looking much better now. Now we only need a name for the thing, and I will add it to the Gadgets. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)"

From this time to the current he

1) has not put the code up as a gadget

2) has refused to answer any of my communications with him, which has been several although not too many.

It has been 3 months that I have been stonewalled. I would like a communication from him telling me the reasons why he did not put my code up as a gadget, after he said he would. It is impolite to refuse to communicate with someone if they have not been abusive or broken Wiki policy.

I am personally subject to a hate campaign in Australia where I live and am concerned that this campaign has spread to him.

Endo999 (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So basically, my laziness is for you a reason to assume that I'm part of a hate campaign ? My communication is Hi, and please ask someone else. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This reply by TheDJ is not

1) a reason why he did not put up the gadget, when he said he would. 2) a breach of civility. 'Hi' is not a reason why he did not respond to me for 3 months

Endo999 (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not productive to badger somebody who is ignoring you. Your best bet is either to contact somebody else who can do it, or if there is nobody else, complain to whoever "supervises" TheDJ in whatever function is involved here. Looie496 (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)