Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

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

Active alerts

User:Surturz

Stuck

 – Both parties were counselled to change their approach to the dispute. For binding outcomes on incivility, disputes need to be escalated to WP:ANI.

There's a problem with User:Surturz, who over the past eight hours has launched into personal attacks on me, using a torrent of expletives.

• Diff 1
  • "you are an idiot"
  • "world's first hyphentard" (edit-summary)
• Diff 2
  • "I certainly do not need to be civil ..."
  • "... it makes you look pathetic. Keep your fricken hyphens."
• Diff 3
  • "The wrong sort of love. The sick sort.... I don't think that is normal.... In fact, I think it is damn peculiar."
  • "Bitch was six pixels shorter." (apparently a reference to me)
• Diff 4
  • "Quite frankly, fuck that. I have better things to do (like add actual content to the article) than pissfart around gaining consensus to remove hyphens." (to User:Ohconfucius). "stupid" (edit-summary).
• Diff 5
  • "ridiculous hyphen fetish" (edit-summary)

Could this explosion of attacks stop, please? Tony (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring over punctuation is silly, but contrary to this [1], that doesn't give Suturz the right to ignore WP:CIV. Some of this is tongue in cheek ("bitch was six pixels shorter" was clearly referring to a shorter dash length, not Tony1 personally), but most of the rest is pretty inappropriate. The first couple of diffs are particularly over the top. It's clear that Tony1 takes style seriously and frankly so should anyone who is serious about building a quality encyclopedia. You can write the most beautiful sentence ever, filled with the best facts supported by the most ironclad sources, and it will still look like a fifth grader wrote it if its grammar, spelling and punctuation are improper. This is obviously an issue close to Tony1's heart and given the fact that he helped rewrite the manual of style, Suturz might do well to listen to what Tony1 has to say in terms of whether something should be an en dash or an em dash. — e. ripley\^talk 16:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Ripley. There has been no edit-war to my knowledge. Tony (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Tony, it seems you may have forgotten this quality message posted to your talk page. Not uncivil, granted, but more like the workings of a spotty teenager. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a history between these users prior to today? The initial discussion from Tony could have been much less confrontational, and calling the edits incompetent isn't necessarily civil either. I'm guessing a bit of AGF from either or both parties and this wouldn't have appeared on any noticeboard. --Onorem♠Dil 18:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Tony1 has violated WP:V in hyphenating terms that have no hyphens in them in the source material. He insulted and threatened to get me blocked when I renamed the articles to the correct names. He has not provided any WP:RS to support his claims. And I am quite honestly somewhat revolted at the email he accidentally posted to his talkpage: "Dear Fowler's Modern English Usage, I never thought it would happen to me. I had noticed the young adjective next door ever since they moved in, and had admired her fulsome descenders for some time. Little did I know that one day I would be inserting my 12-pixel em-dash between her round consonants and...". --Surturz (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the original discussion. The hyphens appear regularly in the major broadsheets (although sometimes they're confused whether it's one or two hyphens), and on the Internet. But this isn't the issue here: it's your habit of lashing out at someone you disagree with ("idiot", "sick", etc.). Tony (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the issue -- the real issue -- is that the terms, respectively, are Two Party Preferred vote, and Two Candidate Preferred vote in the references given, and you have not provided any evidence to indicate that the terms should be hyphenated. Instead, you have resorted to ad hominem attacks and querulous invocations of WP:MOS.

WP:MOS does not trump WP:V. Not by a long shot. WP:MOS is guideline, WP:V is a policy. If you want to fiddle around with dashes, go ahead, but don't get in the way of editors that are actually adding real content to the encyclopedia. If you can't find something useful to do here, at least have the courtesy to find something harmless to do instead. We all know that you dress up in your hyphen-suit before starting to edit WP, and that's your business. We do not need to know whether it is furry or latex. Keep it to yourself. --Surturz (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that there is something particularly annoying about breaking an article by making incorrect stylistic changes without knowing anything about the content. I myself was provoked by a similar matter into posting a very angry comment to Tony last year, and it's the only time in the last two years my anger has gotten the better of me. Style matters, but in most cases people who are working on style issues should defer to people who are knowledgeable about content. Looie496 (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Looie, I am knowledgeable about the topic of two-party-preferred voting. Tony (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Again, this is not about the substantive issue, but about Surturz's abuse. I am quite willing to discuss the matter with him and others, but in a polite environment. Could I remind people that this is not WT:MOS; it is Wikiquette alerts. Tony (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an answer on my earlier question about whether or not there's history here. Was the other user rude? Yes. Were you rude? Yes. Was a civil discussion attempted before this stupid argument started? Not from what I can see without trawling through contributions. --Onorem♠Dil 07:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's some history: link. Judge for yourself. --Surturz (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Tony, you should not have even mentioned the word incompetence. You also should not have move-warred on the basis of MoS; MoS is to be applied with common sense. If the references provided belong to those of the AEC (the official body), and no other references have been cited, and you have no consensus for your preferred version (by way of a request to move the page), then there was no basis for you to be engaging in a move war in late August. I see Timeshift's move at 22:56, 25 August 2010 as a compromise, a temporary one at least. It was not acceptable for you to revert that to your personally preferred version, and I urge you to self revert while editors consider the merits of having it as two-party-preferred, two-party preferred, or two party preferred.
• Surturz, you should not go around calling people stupid or idiots on Wikipedia pages, even if they appear that way to you. In the same way that verifiability is a core policy, so is civility; it's not a mere guideline. When interacting with others, including those you disagree with, please do so in a more respectful and civil manner; your current style is not acceptable. I urge you to try a more collaborative approach; request for move discussion may be worthwhile, or alternatively, an article RfC.
• Communication is not merely limited to the words that we type to or about one another, and that's why this case has difficult communications on more than one level. At the end of the day, irrespective of which person's alleged breach of policy is more serious, you both need to (and I hope you will) be more considerate of one another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This dispute has been marked as stuck rather than resolved as the filing party was not happy with the outcome - that both parties should change their approach to the dispute. See also his comments about the process (example). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• FINAL STATEMENT: I am happy to be judged at a higher level. There are limits to WP:CIVIL. In my estimation, edit-warring over hyphenation is not helpful to the goals of Wikipedia, and I see no reason to be WP:CIVIL to such disruptive behaviour. Ridiculous behaviour deserves to be ridiculed. The rules of wikipedia are there to ensure that article content improves over time, not to cosset some hyphen addict's ego. WP:CIVIL is a means to an end, it is not the end in itself. I have made useful contributions to Two party preferred vote, while User:Tony1 has not. On that basis, he should be apologising to me. --Surturz (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, being civil in the face of disruptive behavior is of utmost importance, as it helps take the heat off of an otherwise "hot" problem. I think you're missing the point entirely. I'm now convinced that the main page should consist of two words, "Don't Panic". Viriditas (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeated failures to assume good faith and abusive blanking of sections of talk page

User Lizzard has repeatedly launched what I consider to be bad faith attacks on an anon editor at both https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Talk:Charlie_Anders and at a discussion created by her at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Moreover, Lizzard eventually admitted to knowing and working with the subject of the article, a previously non-disclosed COI at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Since WQA is voluntary, you will need to notify Geeklizzard (talk · contribs) of this section in order for it to have any effect. See the header of this page for more information. Looie496 (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Looie, I have now done so. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Noting that Geeklizzard appears to have contributed since being notified but has not (yet) responded here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Confusion on the reason of removing contents in an article

Stuck

 – opinion rejected, discussion cut off by alert founder, for a non-negotiable principle

In 15:57, 24 April 2007, I added a section about the development/evolution on the "Real-time strategy" wikipage, named "Development of strategy and tactics". This section has been modified since then for some grammer issues or potential misunderstanding on somebody's intention. However, in 07:10, 20 May 2007, wiki-user Pie4all88 removed this section, and based on his description, this was due to "it didn't make sense and fixed up a little grammar". Since I have not looked around on this wiki content(Real-time strategy) for a long time, I saw this occasionally a couple of hours ago and I was confused by the reason for making such a removal decision by Pie4all88. Since he was a registered wiki-user, he should understand that not all the wiki-users were native English speakers, and, not all English contents in Wikipedia were grammer-perfect. Meantime, I wondered which part of this section was so-called "didn't make sense". Per my personal supposition, it might be a mixed up but not fixed up between sense and grammer. So I request a clear explanation about this description by someone. Due to the fact that I am ESL, I don't want this become an excuse of something. The following is a history revision of the related wikipage:

Revision history of Real-time strategy

Modifications about this section:

15:57, 24 April 2007 202.86.183.204(My IP at that moment)
00:35, 10 May 2007 24.252.96.162
16:47, 10 May 2007 87.126.251.158
07:10, 20 May 2007 Pie4all88

Please use simple English in any response to this alert. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.94.175.81 (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the removal was proper, but perhaps for an additional or different reason. All assertions in Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources and must not be original research. It is the obligation of the editor who adds the material to provide those sources. Your addition was entirely unsourced when you added it and was still unsourced when Pie4all88 deleted it about a month later. Since you are just now bringing this to the attention of the community more than three years after the events in question, one must presume that your addition would have remained, at least insofar as your efforts were concerned, unsourced and subject to being removed for that entire period of time. Finally, I must agree with Pie4all88 that the use of English in the section was so poor that an average WP user — the audience for which we write WP — probably could not have understood what was meant. Contrary to your presumption, proper use of English here at English Wikipedia is an important element, see the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and bloody battles are fought over matters as seemingly minor as proper hyphenation (see, for example, the User:Surturz alert just a few items back on this page). While the better practice is to provide missing sources rather than to delete unsourced material, deletion is acceptable; removing well-sourced content for poor grammar rather than merely correcting the grammar is, I suspect (I haven't researched the question, so I can't be sure), unacceptable but you can't correct it if you can't understand it and removal of unintelligible material is certainly acceptable. You are free to re–add the material, but you should, first, make sure that you have reliable sources for it and that it is not just your personal research or observations and, second, make sure that the English is at least good enough to make sense. To do that, you might want to take advantage of help at the Editor Assistance noticeboard before posting the text to the article. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to give it a source when I am talking about a concept, especially when this concept is about a phenomenon. I took an example from a famous game when I added this section, and all the world knew that "THAT IS IT!". If you force me to give some sources for this concept, should I say "ask your nation army and all the participants"? About the poor grammer, have you ever seen the original text yourself or just "I haven't researched the question, so I can't be sure"? The Chinese version of this section is leaving the same as original and unmodified when I check it today. That is all I have to say. I know a bloody battle may be raised by a small element, but most probably it is because discriminations or unreasonable charges. Sincerely, 180.94.130.110 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Talking one point at a time:

• The existence of reliable sources is one of the primary devices by which WP screens out that which is WP–notable, and therefore includable in WP, from that which is not notable and thus not includable. The concept is simple: if something is important enough to be in WP then it is important enough to have been written about in reliable sources. That applies to concepts and phenomena as much as it does to people, things, and organizations. For a good example of the concept see WP:SCRABBLE. If you cannot find reliable sources for the concept or phenomenom that you want to write about, then it probably isn't WP–notable and shouldn't be included here.
• By posting a request on this Wikiquette Alerts noticeboard, you were complaining specifically about the actions of another editor. Editors here are volunteers, just like you and me, and are free to do as little or, within the constraints of WP policy and guidelines, as much as they like. The actions of Pie4all88 did not violate policy in my opinion and he was free to only do what he did without revising any other part of the article in question. It is not uncommon for editors to only edit snippits or chunks of articles without undertaking to revise the entire article. (Indeed, people who do such tasks are approvingly called WikiGnomes here.)
• The existence or nonexistence of the text in the Chinese-language WP is irrelevant for the reasons stated here, but also because of the same volunteer issue mentioned above. There are many things in WP which need to be deleted or repaired, but since WP is volunteer–driven they won't be deleted or repaired until a volunteer, first, notices the problem and, second, chooses to address it. It's entirely possible that no editor on the Chinese–language WP has noticed the corresponding text or, if they have, they have not chosen to address it. It is also possible, of course, that the Chinese text may be more intelligible than what was written here in English.
• You are correct, the English–language Wikipedia does discriminate: it discriminates against the use of improper English, whether written by a native speaker of English or an ESL-speaker. That is because it is the English–language Wikipedia. It does not discriminate against ESL editors. The difficulty of fluency in different languages is part of the reason that, as of today's count, there are Wikipedias in 273 languages. If, however, a Wikipedian chooses to edit on the EL-WP or one of the other–language WP's, they are not unreasonably expected to be able to write intelligibly in those languages. As I have suggested above, for those whose language skills are less than fluent, there is plenty of language help to be had here and their contributions are welcome so long as they meet WP policy and guidelines.
• If you disagree or wish to pursue the matter further you are free to, per my prior suggestion, simply reintroduce the text to the article (though I would again recommend making use of Editor Assistance) and see if it remains or obtains consensus without edit warring. Alternatively you may pursue your complaint against Pie4all88 further through other means of dispute resolution.

Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Again, I emphasize that I cannot give a RELIABLE SOURCE to a concept. Can you just tell me what is the source of "Theory of relativity"? I see there is a section in TOR - "Maximum speed is finite: No physical object or message or field line can travel faster than light". Can you tell me what can support this point? If you can't source this too, can I remove it because "it doesn't make sense"? If you can source it, tell me is there a Time Machine or something like that existed in this world? Besides, can I remove the UFO page because NO RELIABLE SOURCE exists there?
• All right, starting from this issue, I understand that "I must be a very professional English speaker before I write something in English-Wikipedia" and I will tell this to all, since editors will just eliminate what you say but not help improving it if they think that "it doesn't make sense" or "a little fixed up of grammer". I also want to know who will agree this except racists. Furthermore, can you do me a favor by telling me in detail what the related problems in that removed section are?
• I WON'T COMPLAINT LIKE A KID, however, I also won't let unreasonable charges leaving there. I didn't see anything that might be harmful in what I added to the page though I considered that it might lead to someone considering more self-educations were needed. There is no perfect one in this world but it's not an excuse for trying to game the system or the world by stopping someone from speaking. I've met many even-more-experienced gamming ones, so this sentence "it didn't make sense and fixed up a little grammar" was just like what coming from a kid's mouth and I considered that it should not be coming from a well-educated mature adult.
• What I know about Wikipedia is, it's a database for sharing knowledge. Even some organizations consider that it's a garbage bin, I still support it because base on the wiki-spirit, anyone can choose to share what they know. However, what I can see today is, it's a site for show-off. I can do nothing about that but, I can keep myself away from the mess by stop sharing anything with it, even though, it's significant or not.
• The above discussion is ended. I would rather put my exertions to some other meaningful and interesting things but not debate on some common senses.

Good luck, 180.94.166.163 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9 in regard to Bob_Day

In addition to helping out at WQA from time to time, I also help out at the External Links Noticeboard. The following was reported at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Bob_Day_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29:

Bob Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bob Day is an Australian politician. His Wikipedia article is currently negatively biased. He has a webpage which, in addition to general information about him, attempts to respond to the content of our article. The advocate of that content, Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes the link, despite being told directly that the site belongs to Bob Day, see Talk:Bob_Day#Bob Day dot Com for our discussion. Fred Talk 18:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the name and nature of the site, I think there is a strong presumption that Bob Day controls the site. This certainly qualifies as an official website and it should be included as an external link under WP:ELYES, point 1. Put it back in and if Timeshift9 removes it, let me know and I will put it back in (so you don't get into an edit war situation). An official website is the only EL everybody agrees must be included. Vyeh (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

reverted immediately despite citing WP:ELYES in the comment and on the talk page. Fred Talk 01:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continued on article talk page. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the edit summary of this diff by User:Timeshift9: "rv Fred - and which of the three at Wikipedia:ELYES#What_should_be_linked are you laughingly attempt to claim applies here? i'll say it YET AGAIN. talkpage WP:CONSENSUS is key, stop ignoring."

As a neutral editor who had not been involved in the article, I stated the following at Talk:Bob_Day#Bob_Day_dot_Com:"I saw the issue about BobDay.com.au at EL noticeboard. This is clearly an official site. Why should there be a statement saying Bob Day controls the site when his name is on it? Even the most anti-EL editor agrees that the official site of a subject of a BLP should be included so readers can see what the subject has to say. Vyeh (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)"

Here are the responses following my comment:

*****

So GeorgeBush.com would be owned by George Bush and JoeBloggs.com would be owned by Joe Bloggs? What a pile of nonsense. ANY political candidate in Australia, past or present, who has a website, has an area somewhere stating who owns the site. Timeshift (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:ELYES#What_should_be_linked and Wikipedia:ELYES#Official_links. Fred Talk 01:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And which of the three points in that section you link are you laughingly trying to apply here? Throwing rules at me and taking me to pages to report me is going to get you absolutely nowhere until you actually shut up, sit down, and thrash out some talk page consensus. Sorry to be increasingly rude but you are not listening to me or others. Try it for once. Timeshift (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Guess you were right. The world IS upside down, see "Clicking Candidate.com, Landing at Opponent.com", Naw Fred Talk 06:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies as an official site. It makes no claim to even being authorized by Bob Day, much less controlled by him. It has references to support its biographical information. If it is his site, why would the references be needed? It does have a lot of useful information, such as publications actually written by Bob Day. The references and publications could be used to improve the Wikipedia article without adding an EL. It may be tempting to link to the entire list of publications, but it isn't the mission of Wikipedia to index everything he was ever written. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

*****

Ignoring the External Link issues, I would appreciate it if another WQA editor would take a look and weigh in. I will notify User:Timeshift9. Vyeh (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Until the website states that it is run/has been authorised by Bob Day, no. If the only trace on the entire website you can find of Bob Day ownership is in a comments section, this is not sufficient, there is reasonable doubt. EL stays out. Timeshift (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss EL policy, except to note that it was brought to the EL noticeboard, which is part of the dispute resolution process at WP. I would hope that another editor familiar with EL comments, but an editor who responds to WP:OTRS says that Bob Day has confirmed authorization. Reasonable doubt is the standard in a criminal proceeding, which not the standard of WikiPedia. Requiring that a website with his name on it explicitly says it is authorized by him seems to be getting close to WP:WikiLawyering. Vyeh (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Since when do we allow sites that implicitly attack Wikipedia and have no claim of ownership on them? I'd appreciate input from people other than yourself Vyeh. Ta. Timeshift (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Fred Talk has said twice at Talk:Bob_Day#Bob_Day_dot_Com that Bob Day has claimed ownership via WP:OTRS. Vyeh (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift9 removed the external link. I've reinstated the link and would really appreciate it if another WQA editor would look at the situation. The crux of the situation is that an editor who is involved with WP:OTRS saw complaints from the subject of a BLP complaining about the WP article. After weeks of assuming the subject was whining, the editor made a few changes which were reverted by the subject of this WQA. Since the editor has been editing since 2002, has been an arbitrator and was not involved with the article prior to seeing the OTRS, I find the editor very credible in his complaints. Vyeh (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with spreading this over such a variety of pages, although it is, in some measure, a Wikiquette matter. This language,

And which of the three points in that section you link are you laughingly trying to apply here? Throwing rules at me and taking me to pages to report me is going to get you absolutely nowhere until you actually shut up, sit down, and thrash out some talk page consensus. Sorry to be increasingly rude but you are not listening to me or others. Try it for once.

is inappropriate when I am regularly talking to him. I do cite policy as a part of my talking, and he does not seem to be able to see how it applies to the issues under discussion. To approach this in terms of the external link dispute, a link to the subjects website is generally considered appropriate, and is, in fact, written into policy. He's just removed it again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Day&diff=385106234&oldid=385105705 with the comment "what is it you fail to understand?" Fred Talk 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Banned User Molobo is back as MyMolobo and is inspiring hate by heavily biasing articles again

Molobo, who´s article about Mitteleuropa was made up mostly out of propaganda sources (either war enemies or communist propaganda) and not a single german source has returned to the edit the more neutral version back to hate-mongering. I changed it back to more neutral again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neunhist (talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no use in reporting this here -- see the instructions at the top of the page. The place to report the reappearance of a banned editor is WP:ANI, where admins can see it and take action. Items on this page are often not seen by admins, since it is an early stage in voluntary dispute resolution. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Molobo is not banned, and his block was the result of his account bring compromised. If you feel the content is an issue. please discuss it with the editor on the article's talk page. Netalarm^talk 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cat clean - personal attacks

Several issues with User:Cat clean. Specific issue I am reporting is WP:NPA.

1. The user called me a liar, and also referred to one of my edits as "deceptive."
2. I warned the user here and informed them of our policy WP:CIVIL.
3. In spite of the warning and in defiance of policy they attacked me again in their response here by: calling me a liar, again, and calling my edit "deceptive", again. Lionel (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

While they are using a new account, they show a sophistocated understanding of WP workings (one of their early edits was posting a case at AN/I) Lionel (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Repeated accusations of sockpuppetry (without evidence)[2] are also against the civility policy, just to let you know :> Both editors are undoing each others' edits on multiple articles in what looks to be a slow "revert war". Why are you two reverting each other like this? It's not healthy for either of you, or the project. You need to try and get along on articles you're both interested in editing, and content disputes belong on the talk pages of those articles. Running around reverting each other is not nearly as productive... Doc9871 (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Doc, I defer to your interpretation of Sock. In my own defense, I only mentioned their "experience" so I would not be accused of DONTBITE. FYI I have invited the editor to discuss the issues on Talk pages without much succes until yesterday. Unfortunately there does seem to be a slow revert war. Note that this editor is the initiator: following me around and reverting my edits, not vice-versa. They are watching my Contribs, finding a deficiency, and then reverting. I think a tag such as {{fact}}, {{verification failed}} or {{request quotation}} is a far better alternative to outright reverting. IMO this would eliminate a great deal of the reverting. This editor is also having a 3RR problem on Horatio Algers with another editor.

In any event, I shouldn't have to tolerate being called a name, especially after asking the editor to stop.Lionel (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I plead guilty for stating didn't believe this editor's adding a category and source was accurate. No combination of searches on the book in question supported the content or category of pederasty[3], a contentious and controversial category similar to the pedophile category this user has also been adding. If an article subject is either - and are notable for this there should be no problem finding a reliable source to support adding such a category. This editor also likes to add LGBT categories to convicted child sexual abusers. Again these are categories that should be easy to source and with living people require self-declarations. They have continually added disputed content and categories but when they also provide reliable sources I have no problem with it. I never called them a liar but technically did say in one case I thought it was a lie and will certainly apologize if their edit turns out to be based in fact. The edit that was deceptive is this one [4] in it you can see where the user changes an archive listing of documents of the organization to just one - "Men Loving Boys" which supports their interest in linking another LGBT group to pedophilia. It changed an acceptable external link into a non-acceptable one which is odd because this same user seems quite at ease deleting external links off many articles. Outside of pedophilia, pederasty and LGBT subjects this user may show sound judgment but their eagerness to misrepresent sources and add categories against policy is in fact vandalism. I also admit I've gotten worked up over this and have had to pull away but I'm not sorry for insisting this user uses reliable sources accurately and i see no reason not to continue to do so. When they stop misapplying categories and labeling all sorts of people who have only been accused or alleged of something into controversial categories then no one will have any reason to undue them at all. Cat clean (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This report concerning Cat clean is not about content, it is about behavior. Their statement "will apologize if their edit..." demonstrates they still do not understand WP:CIVIL. Even if you think an editor is acting in bad faith you cannot accuse them of lying or deception.

AMENDMENT

I would like to amend the original complaint and add

1. Accusation that I "misrepresent sources"
2. Accusation of vandalism

(As indicated in the above post by the editor.) I categorically deny these false accusations leveled without any merit whatsoever. I have always edited in good faith and resent being called a vandal. This editor has repeatedly violated WP:AGF. This editor is continuing their uncivil behavior on the WQA page itself. Lionel (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources:

Here is the case I found unacceptable: You added "Gay organizations, in the beginning, were very supportive of NAMBLA." [5]

This replaced the original first sentence of the section "Ostracism" which stated "Opposition to NAMBLA from the larger gay rights movement was evident months after NAMBLA was founded:"

Here is what I wrote from the very same source:[6] "In the beginning of NAMBLA their stated aim was to "attack social and legal proscriptions against sexual relations between adults and pubescent or teenage boys" which won support from leftist gay groups."

You'll note specifically that one version claims all gay groups were supportive of NAMBLA, which the article goes to great lengths to point out is about pedophilia which omits that the main focus for the gay left was to help protect gay teens.

The original content was: Opposition to NAMBLA from the larger gay rights movement was evident months after NAMBLA was founded: in the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington in 1979. In addition to forming several working committees, the conference was responsible for drafting the basic organizing principles of the march ("the five demands" Flyer for March on Washington [see p. 23]). Originally, the Gay Youth Caucus had won approval for its proposal demanding "Full Rights for Gay Youth, including revision of the age of consent laws." However at the first meeting of the National Coordinating Committee, a contingent of lesbians threatened not to participate in the march unless a substitute was adopted. The substitute, authored by an adult lesbian and approved in a mail poll by a majority of delegates, stated: "Protect Lesbian and Gay Youth from any laws which are used to discriminate against, oppress, and/or harass them in their homes, schools, job and social environments."

Vandalism: Restoring disputed section about NAMBLA on Ginsberg bio without any consensus.[7][8],

adding sexuality categories on living people biographies against policy (adding LGBT categories to people convicted of child rape, murder) [9][10] [11] [12][13]

Looking through the user's work they evidently wish to remove content that is positive towards LGBT people and they wish to add scandalous and negative information. If sources state clearly that a person is both homosexual and a paedophile then simply produce the sources. If they don't then that content should be left off until sources justify adding it. Cat clean (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Kevorkmail, does not want to talk

Summary of complaint:

• User:Kevorkmail ignored my discussion and chose instead to force his edit on me.

More details:

I am working on the Aleppo page. User:Kevorkmail is active there and he seems to have been taking care of the page. The climate section was empty. Right after I filled it up he changed what I wrote without leaving an edit summary:

• [14]

I reverted and asked him to talk:

• [15]

This is the discussion I opened, I was critical of him a little bit because this was not the first time he changes what I write without writing an edit summary or discussing with me first:

• [16]

He refused to discuss. Instead he lashed out at me and overrode my edit:

• attack on my talk

• overriding my rev, ignoring what I said in the talk

This is not the first time he does that. I asked him before on his talk page to talk with me or at least write an edit summary when he changes what I write. He respoded with an apology, but he really did not change his behavior and he keeps editing what other people write without saying a word as for why. My demands to him are two: 1-that he talk and explain what he does when he does it, especially if it involves something I wrote. 2-that he does not override me when I revert his edits and ask him to discuss.--HD86 (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You wrote something, and Kevorkmail modified it, rearranging parts and adding information but not removing information. He should have used an edit summary, you are right about that. But modifying things that other people write is the whole essence of Wikipedia. People modify my contributions all the time; I expect it. For you to object to these particular edits indicates ownership on your part -- which, I might add, you expressed in a pretty rude way. Looie496 (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I never said that "people shouldn't modify things that other people write." I never said that "Kevorkmail does not have the right to modify what I write." I never complained about that. Did you really read what I wrote above? I am sorry, maybe it was too long?

Maybe this page is about serious offenses, so this is what makes you people tend to speak like policemen. Anyway, here is the complaint again (hopefully) in a clearer and more direct way:

• User:Kevorkmail ignored my discussion and chose instead to force his edit on me.

If you, Looie496, think this is not a problem, then I think I am going to say: thanks anyway.--HD86 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is not the page I am looking for. Thanks anyway. The problem is not that serious. I tried at first to have somebody from the "third opinion" page but they refused and told me to come to this police station. I withdraw my complaint. Have a nice day.--HD86 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)