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

Talk:Mukkulathor

Kindly have a look at the talk page for Mukkulathor ethnic group. It is full of personal attacks and abusive language. I dont know how to deal with it and whether blanking a page is permissible as per Wikipedia rules. So I request administrators to take action in this regard and against the users involved. -Ravichandar 08:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion with uncivil user on Talk:Unidentified_flying_object

Resolved

 – Jlray is not posting uncivil comments any longer. Therefore I'll close this case.

LightAnkhC|MSG 16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm currently having a problem with Jlray and this user's comments on Talk:Unidentified_flying_object. His comments create an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. He's commenting in a very hostile and uncivil manner and it seems that he does not assume good faith. His first uncivil comments were posted here. I then told him about it, but he did not cease to comment in a uncivil manner. (See here and here).

Hopefully somebody can help out, so I can continue the discussion (of course him beeing a bit more polite :-) )

LightAnkhC|MSG 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To others, it is easier to see the problems by looking at this diff where they were removed. I have left a stern warning on the user's talkpage. If he continues to post uncivil remarks, let us know. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, I'll let you know. LightAnkhC|MSG 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Seems like he still does not assume good faith and is still very impolite on the article's talk page. diff Comments such as You are both trying to dodge the facts of the matter. or Neither of you have addressed the long list of glaring errors and possibly deliberate misrepresentations of facts that pollute this article and prevent it from being informative in any meaningful way. To the contrary, some here seem actively interested in discouraging anyone from noticing the fact that this article, on an important subject that needs to be covered, is a paranormalist's sick joke and little more. Are not what I'd call civil and assuming good faith. It creates a hostile atmosphere. I will not post another warning on the user's talk page (although it would probably be appropriate), because I could have a conflict of interest; since I'm already involved. I think I need a little bit help here :-)LightAnkhC|MSG 16:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Well, nothing has changed: Now users are beeing accused of insulting him and changing his arguments diff. Where's the good faith here? It's really frustrating. Any advice? LightAnkhC|MSG 09:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

It looks like I need to explain what exactly LightAnkh is talking about here, because she isn't fairly representing the case. I invite everyone to take a look not just at my comments but at all the available comments on the UFO discussion page (bear with me because I'm still trying to figure out all the Wikiepdia HTML hotkeys). It is abundantly clear that the UFO article needs massive editing and, contrary to the accusations leveled against me and my brother (who also took part in the discussion), we specifically refrained from immediately setting about touching up the article because we wanted to get the consensus of everyone interested. Imagine my surprise when, because of this, I was accused of being a "sock puppet" and was accused of trying to distort the facts of the UFO phenomenon, an especially infuriating accusation given the glaring bias of the article as is. I am not being "uncivil," I am just very disappointed that an attempt to achieve intellectual consensus on an article that needs to be saved has been warped into a series of baseless personal attacks against me.

Jlray (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

• Personal attacks against you? Sorry, but you are the one who's making uncivil comments on the article's talk page and does not assume good faith. Nobody was uncivil against you. Filing a case on WP:SSP (see your closed case here) is not a personal attack. I will address all comments concerning the article on its talk page. I hope we can continue the discussion in a civil manner now.

• To the others, please don't close the discussion yet. Just in case :-) LightAnkhC|MSG 15:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jlray, the sockpuppet accusations against you were absolutely warranted. Your behavior has been uncivil and inappropriate. Rather than cop to it, you keep referring to these sockpuppet accusations and the state of the UFO article, as if that excuses your behavior. It doesn't. You were accused of sockpuppetry because both you and your brother use the same computer, on different accounts, and make hostile, inappropriate comments of the exact same nature on the exact same pages. And that's taking your word for it. Such a situation obviously merits an SSP complaint, which was made appropriately and in good faith. You need to drop whatever resentment you have about that, clean up your act, and move on. Stop making personal commentary, stop being hostile, and contribute constructively. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, neither of those have any bearing on how the discussion has gone on that page. I happily invite anyone actually interested in looking past the smear here and look at the attitude of the majority of the editors on the UFO page. I am not defending my past behavior as this person is also incorrectly insinuating here, I am trying to explain it. I consider it a courtesy to put up with accusations of this manner that have absolutely no merit of any kind and are utterly baseless, as the record will show. You are free to stew up further rumors and false accusations as you like; I, however, feel more inclined to dodge the mudslinging and endeavor to fulfill my stated aim of being a good Wikipedia editor and try to improve that article. You guys have more important things to do than make up new reasons to insult me, and I have better things to do than pretend that they are relevant. Jlray (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)jlray

Jlray, your efforts to improve the UFO article are much appreciated. However you have made one mistake as far as Wikiquette is concerned. Admit it and move on. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand: this is an unacceptable comment. Filing a WQA report, SSP report, etc - when merited (which in this case, they were) - is not an "insult." Asking you to contribute constructively and civilly is not an "insult." Continuing to ignore WP:CIVIL (which is a policy, and policy is not optional) may result in more serious, administrative action against you. I strongly suggest you reconsider your rejection of such policies and your unwillingness to discuss your conduct. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:WebHamster

WebHamster (talk · contribs)

• [1] -- personal attack/incivility

• [2] -- user created new MfD nomination in blatant violation of WP:POINT

• [3] -- personal attack/incivility/just plain inappropriate remark at MfD

• [4] -- personal attack on the user's opponents at the MfD.

• [5] -- blatant bad-faith assumption and personal attack

• [6] -- user's refusal to assume good faith

• [7] -- this was a response to my warning the user about WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY.

• [8] -- another response to AGF/civility warning, after I took the matter to the user's talk page.

• [9] -- latest inappropriate comment, at RfC

As you can see, I attempted to warn User:WebHamster about violating AGF/CIVIL/NPA, but he only became more belligerent when I did. I think this warrants a polite yet stern warning to the user, imparting to him that his comments are indeed in violation of policy and inappropriate, and that he should try harder to keep a cool head. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:44, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I've looked a bit; seems two things: first, yes, WebHamster seems underdeveloped in terms of wiki-civility; but second, the battleground seems to be inherently contentious, so people with little or no experience with wiki will feel motivated to fight for their PoV. Tough job to mediate. Pete St.John (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree that it's a battleground type environment. Nevertheless this particular user's comments seem more uncivil than others. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:07, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I civily and tactly asked Webhamster to refrain from incivil comments directed at other users. This was his response. It speaks for itself: [10]. If he is reticent to communicate civily with other users, then action may need to be taken. What is the opinion of the WQA regulars on this? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I dropped a note at his talk page. I don't think I qualify as a regular here; if he's persistent then you'd probably have to go for an ANI. But he seems at least rational and voluble, if not obsequious, so maybe patience will pay off. Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably say ANI too, recent edits made to this MFD concern me. Rudget. 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to split hairs or anything, but most of the diffs that you've labeled "personal attacks" are more just general incivility and not directly targeted at the person(s) to whom he is replying. There are one or two that, regrettably, are evidently personal attacks, but there are others that seem to be a misinterpretation of harsh, misdirected rhetoric or even of an honest question. Even the incivility is mild for the most part, given the contentiousness of the issue (not that that's any excuse). It doesn't seem that this user has a long history of abusive behavior (though it appears he's had to be straightened out on a few policies here and there, but who hasn't?), so it's likely that he just got sucked into an argument that pushed some wrong buttons. Needless to say, I've seen much worse. The user has been warned and it would probably be best for all involved to just let this one rest if at all possible. There's no need to further heat up the already contentious issue that's being discussed at the relevant RfC. However, I have noticed that WebHamster hasn't been notified of this discussion, so I think it's only fair that he be made aware of it. I will recommend to him that he take some time to cool off. _{(Freaking edit conflicts...)} However, if this pattern of behavior continues beyond this particular issue, I endorse further action. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just an extra note, I kept getting edit conflicts as I was trying to post this, so as the discussion progressed, some of what I said became slightly irrelevant. Nonetheless, I've had more good experiences than bad with WebHamster, so I'm inclined to think that he's probably getting a little too impassioned over this particular issue. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I tried a plea at ANI for a warning about the general situation (WP:AN/I#Repeated incivility by User:WebHamster), but was met with a response that implied that I had been acting the same way -- which I don't see, although I admit I can't be considered an objective party here (although I still appreciate Jay's initial warning). Equazcion •✗/C • 22:12, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion, you're rushing. You only just posted this Wikiquette item today, right? and we only several minutes ago put notification on his talk page? Wiki does not move that fast. He may not log on until tomorrow...or next week. Please continue your patience. Pete St.John (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No no, I posted at ANI first, and then was directed here. :) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:18, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

OK that makes sense, my mistake, but your "I tried a plea at ANI..." above could have been phrased better ("I had tried a plea...") and you should have referenced that item at the top in introducing this one, IMO. I'm sympathetic with the problem of picking between Wikiquette, which seems generally too little, and ANI, which seems often too much. But anyway fine, we'll wait for his response and maybe everything will chill nicely. But wow, that's a contentious userbox you guys have going there. Pete St.John (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I had pretty much just copied and pasted the same dealy here, removing the stuff about asking for an admin to do the warning. You're right though, I should've prefaced with that. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:28, 17 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Please see my latest comments at User talk:WebHamster#break. He doesn't seem to be interested in commenting here at WQA though. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:44, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

It was recommended that mediation be tried here rather than coming straight to ANI. Admins are reluctant to block unless it is shown that the user is reticent to change their behavior, and WQA remediation would at least show that other users involved had tried to correct problematic behavior. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

← I understand that, and I don't dispute it. I'm just not sure where to go from here. The user doesn't seem to be willing to change whatsoever. See the latest: [11]. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:24, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

What can you realistically expect from an editor who has been forced by a couple of others with an extreme POV into defending, on general grounds, the right to state the opposite extreme POV that he doesn't even support? Denying one's own political convictions for a higher purpose can make one a bit edgy. — WebHamster has stated that you are referring some of his remarks to yourself that were not intended for you, and your latest clash is related to this. When you said "I have no idea what your point is" you referred to WebHamster's reply to you. But this reply started with "(ec)", which I would suggest is an abbreviation for "edit conflict" and means that WebHamster spent a lot of time thinking about this reply to Phoenix-wiki, and so even though it was posted after your reply it does not refer to it. If you reread WebHamster's post with this knowledge I am sure it will make sense to you. Now if we suppose that (at least initially) it never occurred to him that you misunderstood who he was referring to, then your reply must have looked to him like real or pretended stupidity, distracting from an important point. — Such escalations will always happen; we can only try to follow certain rules to make them less likely. If you want WebHamster to learn something from this conflict, as opposed to "winning", I suggest that you stop contacting him directly on his talk page and give Pete's informal mediation attempt a chance to work. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about the edit conflict. I didn't notice that. But still, what we can realistically expect is civility. It's true that some harsh responses can occur initially due to the edginess of the debate, but that has to stop at some point. The incivility has continued long after the fact. This isn't a "clash" between me and this user. WebHamster has acted in bad faith and incivility towards myself and others, and has consistently lashed out at anyone who attempts to discuss his behavior, including an admin. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:52, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I think that's very good advice. Continuing the discussion on WebHamster's talk page is only likely to be inflammatory. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's my belief that this WQA is absurd, and further evidence of the precious unworldliness of too many editors who hide behind the banner of WP:CIVIL without understanding what civility either means or entails. Sure, I'd agree that WebHamster's language was at times a little colourful, and perhaps not always as diplomatic as it might have been, but to unilaterally attempt put the blame on him for the – probably avoidable – escalation of the argument is to show a staggering lack of self-perception. I would rather have a hundred WebHamsters, not afraid to call a spade a spade, than one who goes crying to WP:WQA when their thin skin gets a little scratch. Civility does not demand agreement, and it does not preclude robust debate, which is all I think this was. Civility demands respect, but respect can't be demanded, it has to be earned. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave most of this alone, but if you check my final comments at User talk:WebHamster, I explain there my motivation for posting this WQA. And, civility to a certain degree is respect, and doesn't need to be earned. That's the policy here. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:59, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I had already seen your final comment on what I hope will be, at least for the time being, your last posting on WebHamster's talk page (see my comment above). It is in fact what drew my attention to this discussion. Suffice it to say that I do not agree with your analysis. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes that seems apparent. I was directing you there only in response to your contention that I've made this WQA posting out of hurt feelings. My intent is explained there. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:25, 18 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I would like to report a very serious breach of etiquette by this user that included a clear example of bully and the use profanity.

The individual flagged a topic within 9 minutes of my creating it. Frankly, it is a highly specialised topic of which I am sure he has no knowledge whatsoever, [12]

I flagged up that I was present and working on the topic, I was involved in its techincalities and linking it to other specialist pages and portals. [13]

Despite this, and whilst communicating with other contributors, WebHamster started to engage in what I can only describe as a thuggish, pedantic and hectoring edit-war [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] against myself and another editor ... whilst I attempted to develop the page.

Additionally, he immediately turned to aggressive profanity in discussion on the matter "starting to piss me off" [19] when finally cautioned by a third party.

The Wikipedia needs to look such behaviour and decide when it considers such behaviour conducive to the development of an educational facility, especially where very specialist topic are involved that were, frankly, well over the heads of aggressors. Especially those aggressors that are allowed or choose to administrative tools.

I think in this case a caution is required. This is not behaviour that would be tolerable in an academic environment. I see he also repeated himself the same day with another deletion case [20]. Thank you. The user name no efforts at courteous communication whatsoever in the first place. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have crossed swords with Webhamster today[21] but I certainly don't interpret his behaviour towards me, or towards anyone else in any of the above links, to be any more than robust argument - certainly nothing to go running off to teacher about. Let's all try not to be so sensitive. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And continues to harass with the same aggressive profanity following the discover of my comments here, [22]. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – Discussing this matter here would fork an ongoing Arbitration Enforcement discussion, which isn't appropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of extremely uncivil and unjustified remarks directed toward me: [23] [24] I don't know if any action is warranted, but I would like to submit this here just for the record. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a matter to take up at the arbitration enforcement discussion in progress. Don't try to fork or forum-shop the discussion here. It's a part of the ongoing discussion there and should be handled there. It appears that your behavior is open for discussion in that matter, as you are a party to what is happening there. I will not comment on the nature of JzG's remarks because I do not have the time to contextualize them properly. Also, there is no need for you to put anything "on the record." This is not a court of law. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Arb Enforcement discussion has nothing to do with the incivility JzG laid upon me. It has nothing to do with JzG at all. He piped in to defend the editor whom the Arb Enforcement is about and in doing so personally attacked me. To my understanding, Arb Enforcement would be the wrong forum to pursue a behavioral issue such as this. Wikiquette alerts is - to my understanding - the correct forum. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you bring up an issue on an administrative alert board, your behavior is also just as much under examination. JzG's comments may seem hostile, but you made a complaint and you can't pretend that you're an uninvolved party or that you couldn't possibly have anything to do with the problem at hand. I'm in no place to decide if he's right or wrong in his assessment of the situation, but he's an admin responding at the arb enforcement board. You simply cannot say "The Arb Enforcement discussion had nothing to do with [it]," because it did. He is in the position to evaluate your behavior, and your opinion of whether or not he was too harsh is clearly not objective. Whether or not his comments were appropriate must be considered within the context of the ongoing Arb Enf complaint, and considering it was on a page that is presumably monitored by hundreds of admins, I can't imagine someone wouldn't have spoken up if it wasn't out of line. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

refactored: I happened to notice a comment that I feel is prejudiced and uncivil, this user describes another user as being "batshit insane", as someone who lost someone to mental illness, and working in the mental health field, I strongly feel that this is inappropriate terminology (sort of like calling a black person by the n word.) I have noticed upon checking out this user's history that he frequently uses this kind of language towards other users. What can be done about this?: (near the end of the page). If this is the wrong place, where can it be reported?Jonathanwins (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This statement by Jonathanwins is a lie. This is banned vandal, Tweety21 (talk · contribs), forum shopping. Revert, block, ignore. This particular vandal is a particularly tiresome troll and knows she is not welcome here. --Yamla (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Cheeser1 (2)

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.

---

Nothing more to see here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Though he/she is a volunteer here, this person Cheeser1, in responding to a civility complaint against me, accused me of something I did not do and refuses to retract it. He/she is being extremely prejudiced and I need another editor to review the comments on my talk page (talk). I agreed to the civility charge, but there is a larger issue here. I cannot let this accusation stand that I actually threatened someone when I did not. I am disturbed that he/she showed interest at all in my point of view. Neil Raden (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* What is with it with people and filing frivolous complaints against people responding to a WQA? Asking you to keep your behavior in line is not a personal attack. If you are concerned because your behavior on Wikipedia is causing you problems in real life, you have three options: stop using your real name on Wikipedia, stop wishing other people harm and being otherwise uncivil, or stop contributing to Wikipedia (especially since all you do here is comment on an article about your wife's medical protocol). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Totally outside editor, looking at this for the first time. The original complaint that was made about you ("you" meaning Neil, not Cheeser!) was about a post on someone's Talk Page that included the phrase "But if he can't turn their hearts, he should turn their ankles so we can recognize them by their limp." You then went on to tell the editor to "soak her ankle." It was part of a parable, yes, but that's not exactly a warm and fuzzy sentiment, is it? You also posted it on the Talk Page of an editor with whom you apparently have a longterm adversarial relationship, both on and off Wiki, so it's not at all surprising that it was taken as a threat or a wish for harm. Frankly, if someone who wasn't a friend left a message of that nature on my Talk Page, I'd take it as harassment and a threat, just s Dev did.

Whether or not you see it as a joke, making any sort of threat of bodily harm is unacceptable on Wiki. Cheeser1 did nothing wrong by warning you about it, and your complaint here really is frivolous. DanielEng (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt, I think Cheeser1 did step a bit out of line in responding to Neil. It's not to the point that I think any serious harm was done, but I can see how his directness (paraphrase: "Go elsewhere, because this is totally unacceptable") could inflame more than help. I'll leave a note on his Talk page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use quotation marks if you are not quoting me. Not only is that statement, as far as I'm concerned, totally misrepresentative, it is not a quotation at all. I have no further comment on this matter, because I'm done dignifying this stuff with any sort of response. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to address just that one specific point (the paraphrase from KieferSkunk). First, the use of quotation marks to distinguish grammatical sense is normal: Alice said something like "good morning" attributes the demarked phrase to Alice, even though it specifically does not atrribute the specific words to Alice. As a mathematician Cheeser1 completely understands this, so the arguement that the (self-described) paraphrase is not a quotation, is specious and eristic. That leaves the representativeness of the paraphrase, which of course is somewhat more subjective. I'd make three points regarding that: first, the phrase "go elsewhere" is not a good representation. It reflects the tone of the actual quote, but is in itself particularly inflammatory, and Cheesher1's original avoided such particulars. Second, IMO the actual quote is uncivil and the paraphrase was an honest (if imperfect) reflection of KieferSkunk's reading of the quote. The "totally misrepresentative" assessment is wrong. Third, Cheeser1, like me, sometimes fails to express himself perfectly succinctly. That makes quoting particular phrasing for uncivility very difficult. I actually try to be more terse when I lose my temper, but one cannot judge oneself. Incidentally, I find the poetical use of the parable to be very mild, rhetorically, compared to much of what I'm used to here. I myself wouldn't expect Cheeser1 to bring a WQA against me if I expressed the desire for all his neuronal soma to simultaneously increment their homotopy class. Pete St.John (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake! I just seriously burned myself, as the key word "paraphrase" was a late addition to KieferSkunk's remark, after Cheeser1's reply. So on the strictly technical point about use of quotation marks, I let myself be misled. For that I apologize to Cheeser1. Regarding the late ammendation, however, much better would have been to replace blah "foo bar" with blah "foo bar" [--which I had meant as a paraphrase ~~~~] or some such editorial device to make the ammendation explicit. Anyway, ouch. Thanks to Hans for pointing this out to me. He really is patient. Pete St.John (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry for the confusion. I had indeed meant that to read as "this was meant as a paraphrase, not a direct quote". I will keep that in mind for future reference. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the edit that I was referring to. While my quote was not verbatim, it is close to what you said. That particular diff was what I took issue to.

I would like to state, for the record, that I do not condone Nraden's actions and am not validating them. I am specifically referring to your response. I am not asking you to leave or to stop helping out. I am only asking you to be mindful of the policies yourself - it's all too easy to break them while telling other people about them. (See WP:AAGF.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I should clarify that Cheeser's responding to Neil, and the overall substance of what he said, was not out of line. It was the way in which he responded and argued with Neil that I felt was counterproductive. I regret that my earlier comment made it seem otherwise. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to point out to Nraden and Debv that, short of murder, the most promising strategy for "winning" this conflict is to maintain an impeccable conduct in the face of the other party continuing on the current level of immaturity. ("Holiday greetings", offsite publishing of Wikipedia communications, absurd accusations against mediators...). My impression is that the long-term goal of both parties is that both be banned. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Cheeser's remark above about how I should "escalate" the dispute was rude as well. Escalate may literally mean "to go" but it connotes bad faith. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1 has already explained the technical meaning of "escalate" to you. I myself regularly use this term in real life. Telling cold callers to escalate the call, i.e., to put me through to their boss, is a sure way to make them hang up immediately. This has nothing to do with bad faith. Please read again what he wrote, and make sure to assume good faith. You will realise that far from being sarcastic he gave you reasonable advice. When you replied irritatedly, he immediately understood the misunderstanding and calmly explained it to you. Since you were quiet after that I thought you had understood his explanation. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

See Google results for "escalate the call". I have chosen the telephone version of this use because it is particularly easy to search for. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Note I mentioned the connotation and specifically said that the "technical" definition is irrelevant. A person is not going to say, "escalate the dispute," unless they're talking about bad-faith edits, because of what the word escalate connotes. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are reading Cheeser1's mind just like I am reading his mind. But you are assuming bad faith (innocently, of course) and I am assuming good faith. The technical use of the word uses the metaphor of a process as stairs, and escalating (from French "escalier") means ascending one step. In this technical sense there are no emotional connotations whatsoever. And it is obvious from context, once you follow my advice and reread his statements while assuming good faith, that by "dispute" he meant "a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate", which can be escalated by following a process step by step until it is resolved. In contrast to a conflict, which can be escalated by making it worse. Cheeser1 is here to defuse conflicts, not to escalate them. It makes no sense to suspect him of intentionally using inflammatory language. He unintentionally used one ambiguous formulation in a blatantly positive context. Picking the negative meaning is exactly the counterproductive behaviour that the AGF principle wants us to avoid, because it creates drama out of nothing. --Hans Adler (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not mind-reading. I'm reading connotations, which are as much a part of language as definitions. To use your own example, technically, there are a number of synonyms for dispute. Despite this, would you actually claim that the following sentences are identical, in meaning?

• "User X and user Y were having a disagreement."
• "User X and user Y were having an argument."
• "Use X and Y were bickering."
• "User X and user Y were bitching at eachother."

The last one is definitely bad etiquette and the third one comes close.

And again, to use the word escalate:

• "I escalated the mountain."
• "I escalated the stairs."
• "Steam escalated from the teapot."
• "Yes, I've been on hold for 15 minutes, could you escalate me to your boss?"

It sounds patently absurd. I understood his point, but it was rude to suggest that I'm acting in bad faith and after seeing somebody else complain, I thought I'd comment as well. Lastly, I find it appauling that you'd suggest that users should be banned for etiquette violations -- in a case where they aren't even the ones being accused. Were their actions so objectionable to begin with, surely, you should've put forth such a case before this point, particularly if you're concerned with avoiding unnecessary drama and unfounded accusations. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I will just point out: [25] [26] (note the definition that refers to escalating a complaint in a support-type setting, which is what we are in). I can't believe this is still going on. This is the most blatant non-WP:AGF I've ever seen in my time as a Wikipedian. And also, for the record, two of four of Zenwhat's examples of the use of "escalated" aren't even correct. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I left an extensive comment on Zenwhat's talk page, as I don't think it makes sense to continue this here. I have learned from this that the WP:AGF article may need more explanation, perhaps in the form of an essay that explains why it is needed on the internet (no faces to look at) and that it is something one actually has to learn. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do WP:AAGF and WP:POT help at all? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure who this is directed to. In this context you could theoretically mean any out of three people, and so there are no less than 7 possibilities. Could you please clarify? --Hans Adler (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my request. I half expect the 8th answer, which would be "No one in particular; I just thought these essays were a bit like what you proposed." But this involves a bit of mind-reading, which seems to be dangerous in a situation such as this where people are living in one of two severely different realities. In any case thanks for the reminder. I do think that these essays are relevant. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)?

My question about whether the essays helped or not was directed mainly to you (Hans Adler), but those essays are applicable to all parties. I had intended to point you to some essays that I felt served the same purpose as what you were proposing - they're likely not the answer to whether WP:AGF itself needs to be clarified, but I find they help out a lot when discussing situations like this. — KieferSkunk (talk) &mydash; 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree absolutely. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys are a nice self-selected sample. I don't know why I would ever expect you to call out a peer in a case of contributory incivility. as for the above, can you guys spell "wank"? What does any of this have to do with my complaint? If you can't figure out what I meant from the context, you need to get out a little more. This guy is a powder keg. I may be blunt, but I don't hang out on WQA posing as a mediator until someone disagrees with me (although I guess he did give you some more fodder for semantic disambiguation with his comment to me "Get a life."). Anyway, I don't care, just keep him away from the page I'm working on because he has no reason to he there except to harrass me, which he is doing with the COI banner (note, DebV described herself as COI in her complaint against me, which Cheeser1 has apparently overlooked). And here is my last question to you prodigious parsers - where was the assumption of good faith in interpreting my holiday greetings? If you're going to talk the talk, well, you know the rest. Neil Raden (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, not helping your case, buddy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Well, if there was any doubt as to your intentions before, your incivility here just now has really justified everyone's comments. I don't know you, and I did look at your complaint, as well as the allegations against you, with an open mind. I also made a point of not reading your article of interest so I would not be biased one way or the other. What I saw from your own words and comments to DebV was a conflict between two editors that have an acrimonious relationship outside of Wiki, and seem determined to drag it here as well. You have made over 15 edits, some significant, [27] to the Wiley Protocol article. Whether you are currently editing it or not, you've contributed and you're very closely affiliated with the subject, so the COI tag on the Talk Page is appropriate. The COI tag on the article itself does not specify which editor has the conflict of interest, so it could apply to either you or DebV. The issue is already over at WP:COINand the consensus there does not indicate that the tags are 'harassment' or inappropriate.

You are not allowed to assume ownership of articles on Wiki, so no, nobody here can keep an editor away from an article for you. It's an open project and everyone has a right to edit every page. If you don't like how they're editing, talk it out on the Talk Page or seek a third opinion. If there's vandalism, report it. Otherwise, you will just have to learn to get along with others. If someone sees what they believe is a personal attack or threat, or believes that you are not acting in a way that benefits the project, s/he has every right to warn you about it. If it bothers you, ignore it, or change your behavior. DanielEng (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hans Adler: In our talkpage discussion, you were rude to me as well, but I didn't bring it here because I mostly think it's silly to run to WP:WQA every time somebody makes an assertion of "incivility." In our discussion, I disagreed with you about Cheeser1 and you characterized my disagreement as "your version of reality." Hence, the claims about how you left a lengthy comment on my talkpage and want to clarify WP:AGF may be true, but they are misleading. You don't call a person's disagreement their "version of reality," while at the same time portraying yourself as a patron saint for civility. Administrators are frequently "snooty," when it comes to discussing policy violations and examples of this can be found all over various noticeboards. I don't particularly think it's a problem (sometimes it's funny to watch them do it), provided that it's enforced equally, which it isn't -- not because any "cabal," but because of human nature which tends to cause us to gather into silly, irrational cliques. Wikipedia policy should attempt to address this some way and, in this one case, I thought that commenting here might be helpful to encourage Chesser1 to be a bit less caustic and terse as many people often are.

Anyway, because of the way you spoke to me on my talkpage, I removed your comments and ignored you. On this basis, I don't intend to continue this debate here or elsewhere. I simply wanted to leave my statements here to clarify the historical record when this page gets archived. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean, just look at the Dreadstar discussion below. A SysOp is accused of censorship assuming ownership and the conversation gets archive tags clamped down around it. Horrible. Just horrible. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For someone who filed a complaint against me for (appropriately) using the word "escalate" you sure are prone to ranting and tossing around words like "horrible" and "clamp" and "silly" and so forth. Now that is silly. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser1, you continue to act in the way described. "You sure are prone to ranting." Yes, Cheeser1, I am a raving madman.

I will not engage in a lengthy debate here on the matter, because that would be disruptive and counterintuitive. You may have the last word on the issue if you would like it. Your actions speak for themselves. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A famous Zen master was well known for having very bad breath, but out of respect for his old age nobody wanted to tell him to wash his mouth. One day, a little child said: "Why do you stink so much out of your mouth?" The Zen master got very angry and would have flogged the child if he had not been too doddery. On the same day, half of his students were enlightened. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious. You're concerned about being disruptive? When did that start? You tacked on an unrelated nit-pick to a frivolous complaint. And what was your problem? My correct use of the word escalate, which is by the way a word you do not even know how to use correctly (as I pointed out when you tried, and failed, to use the word in a few sentences). Thanks for continuing to drag this out even further, and then trying to play it like you've got the moral high ground by saying "you go ahead and get in the last word, now that I've tacked several ludicrous rants onto this WQA." I guess that's what I get for trying to help you with your concerns. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Then please stop replying with pointless character attacks in an attempt to gain the "high ground" in the conversation. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Dreadstar

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.

---

nothing more to discuss here. Proceed with DR and leave out the rest ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Talk:WTBDWK.

Per a rather rude suggestion by Dreadstar [28] I've decided to mention some problems I'm having with this user's behavior at this article.

First of all, Dreadstar has been assuming article ownership by claiming consensus in instances where there is obviously great controversy. He's been consistently baiting me through the use of continual accusations about myself and seems to be genuinely uninterested in assuming good faith about my suggestions or proceeding through normal processes of content disputes. It would be nice if some uninvolved editor would tell him to stop this kind of behavior.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Two things, a) what exactly in that diff do you consider rude? b) If you feel you're being baited don't bite. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

b first)Biting simply isn't allowed. I'll note that Dreadstar is more-or-less asserting that he's been around longer than I and so has some understanding of the situation that I cannot grasp. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

a second)Here are other relevant diffs where this user is being particularly rude by asserting article ownership, commenting on contributors rather than content, and claiming consensus with little justificaiton: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. This is all that the user has contributed to the discussion over the last few days. Obviously, this user doesn't think that he can do anything but be confrontational and basically tendentious. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

SA, you are hardly a newbie, so WP:BITE isn't quite applicable here. You have been around long enough to know when and how you should react to something. What I see in the diffs is someone trying to carry on a calm discussion. What you are doing here is the same thing other users have tried to do to you in the past. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, what I'm doing is pointing out that I have a problem with Dreadstar. Also, note that WP:BITE applies to places where people are new, not just Wikipedia in general. He asked me to escalate the dispute resolution so I did. I think that by continually referring to me rather than my proposals (he has a tendency to talk about "what you are doing" rather than dealing with the situation) and by referring to consensus in order to contradict people stating other opinions, and by asserting article ownership he is basically being tendentious. I'll also point out that this user is an administrator and is therefore held to higher standards per WP:ADMIN. One more thing, I'm happy to have a discussion with you, Rlevse, but you are hardly a neutral character in this situation. 21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs)

I'm just as neutral or non-neutral as Raymond Aritt or JzG in the disputes you get into. Believe it or not, my primary goals are peaceful editing and better articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what your goals are, that's irrelevant. And I don't see Raymond or JzG commenting here, do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I reserve the right to comment like any other editor, but I will not act as an admin since I could reasonably be seen as involved. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

←I agree with Rlevs, there is nothing uncivil in Dreadstar's comments. Also, the accusation of WP:OWN in the statement of this WQA is inappropriate. Dreadstar has not exhibited that behavior. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you act more-or-less as a meat puppet for other members of WP:PARANORMAL, I don't know what we're supposed to get out this. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Now this comment by ScienceApologist looks to be an uncivil and personal attack on Jack-A-Roe; and it appears to violate ScienceApologist's ArbCom restriction not to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Clearly an assumption of bad faith, a blockable offence under ScienceApologist's ArbCom restrictions... Dreadstar † 22:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you may need to sleep over it to understand it, but your complaint is frivolous. You were overreacting and making phantastic, unsubstantiated accusations. It seems quite possible that Dreadstar felt you cannot possibly believe what you are saying and tried to call your bluff. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That interpretation implies that he is not assuming good faith. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation of meatpuppetry, in itself and aside from your arbcom restrictions, is uncivil and just plain silly. I've edited those articles only rarely, but in the few times that I have seen you in action, I've observed complaints and accusations from you towards others, and no examples of friendly, mutually respectful collaboration on your part. Your filing of this WQA violates WP:POINT and is a representative sample of what I've seen so far from you. That is not an effective way of making progress or getting the results you want. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, can we leave these things until tomorrow? Please see my comment at the end of this section. It seems that ScienceApologist has followed my advice. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but why continue it tomorrow - why not just close out this alert now? I don't mean that sarcastically, I mean it sincerely, to actually place the resolved tag... I see no reason to continue it at all. It's just a content dispute and doesn't belong here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If we close this now, we don't give ScienceApologist a chance to comment here in a calmer state. That's basically my only objection, but I feel it's important. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain what I've done that's rude, I believe I've been civil and have abided by policy. I have commented on a few of ScienceApologist's actions, but I have done so according to policy. I have merely been trying to convince ScienceApologist to participate in the ongoing quest for consensus, part of which he has even exhorted other editors to ignore, even though it is a valid step in the dispute resolution process; and this after ScienceApologist made a very rude comment about the poll, saying "this poll sucks".

I did change my comment to make it more accurate, that "we" are going around in circles, but I don't think the wording where I suggested ScienceApologist was going around in circles was rude. It appears to me that he is, and in several areas, WP:CON and WP:NOR being two primary issues we've returned to over and over. I certainly apologize if I've given offense. Dreadstar † 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I've removed the "Dreadstar Supporters Respond" section. I was going to remove the "Dreadstar Supporters" section, but someone beat me to it. :) That, quite frankly, makes a mockery of the WQA process, and it is not helping your case at all, ScienceApologist. WQA is not here to polarize people against one another - if you want to do something like that, please file a Request For Comment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the links you've provided concerning Dreadstar's behaviour, and I find his remarks to be civil, and your claims to unfounded. Further, since I have been working on this article for awhile I have yet to see him behave in a way that is not civil. Since the discussion most of the time on the Bleep article is convoluted and complex I've felt Dreadstar's efforts to create a focus to be appropriate and commendable.(olive (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC))

We should stop right now. The incident we are discussing happened less than two hours ago. Per WP:MASTODON it is counterproductive to discuss it now. As the article in question is blocked anyway, may I suggest that everybody takes a break now? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If this edit by ScienceApologist isn't an edit war declaration, I don't know what is. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is in fact hard to interpret this as anything but an invitation to practise the bold, revert, discuss method. When seen in context it becomes clear that this invitation refers to talk space, not the typical place for edit warring. Rlevse, could you please explain how this misunderstanding happened? --Hans Adler (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Outdated and disparaging remark about a WP editor should be removed

On Wikipedia:Wikiproject Rational Skepticism/Skeptic watchlists, one (and only one editor) is singled out by a disparaging remark involving content disputes. This editor has not even edited since September 2007. Morgellons Under very aggressive attack from User:Pez1103 Ward20 (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The page you are referring to has not been edited since May 2007, a short time before you joined the project and became very active on the same article. If this is at all a Wikiquette issue, then fixing it seems to be much more constructive than discussing it much later. Why don't you just remove this remark with an edit summary like "User:Pez1103 (Special:Contributions/Pez1103)/User:72.231.188.136 (Special:Contributions/72.231.188.136) stopped editing in 10/2007." It really doesn't look like an issue for this board. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I will do that, I just saw it for the first time yesterday. I wanted to get advice from some neutral parties because as you stated, I have edited that article frequently. Ward20 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

user: Happyme22

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – The matter involves multiple editors. The IP user has requested mediation and the parties seem amenable, discussion is pending completion of the request and the providing of diffs by both sides. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This user/editor is truly bullying the Nancy Reagan article. If you look at the article's history, several editors have tried to create a more neutral POV to the criticisms of the subject, but Happyme22 will not let go. Even if this writer has made major contributions to this article does not give him/her the right to argue his points to a stubborn degree that his "opponent" becomes exhausted and gives up.

The article remains somewhat skewed and does not give an appropriate degree of validity to the criticisms of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.228.83 (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this earlier comment by this IP might be taken into account when evaluating the above complaint. Tvoz |talk 22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in politics, but this Wikiquette alert appears to be baseless. The reversion of uncited claims, especially potentially controversial ones is not a reason to file this alert. Further, Happyme22 volunteered to check and confirm the claims. Happyme22 also deleted a picture, but that picture was not cleared for posting, and appears to have been deleted. Further, per Tvoz, there should have been a warning left on that IP addresses Talk Page. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, looks like Tvoz did that already. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Concur this is a baseless alert; Happyme22 is a cooperative, collaborative, civil editor and I've seen no problems on the Reagan articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please look at the contribs of the IP who filed this report; that's the issue here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Inder315

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

1. Said I was "connected to" Sonia Gandhi [34]
2. Called me "adamant and spolied person"(sic) [35]
3. Started a section titled "ReluctantPhilosopher's creditbility"(sic)[36] (Started section through proven sock Mimic2, then supported through Inder account)
4. Asked me to "go to Sonia and grab a congress ticket ... done enough praise" - by his proven sockpuppet User:Mimic2 [37]
5. Called me a "big fan of her" [38]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've created an RfC for this at [39]. Neutral editors are implored to comment thereat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReluctantPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SlamDiego

User:SlamDiego's discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barzilai paradox is combative. He has driven one person from the discussion with veiled legal threats regarding libel (check his comment line); the user driven from the discussion (User:Zvika) drew this attack for suggesting that we maintain some civility. I have had some personal clashes with him regarding the article itself (Barzilai paradox and Talk:Barzilai paradox), and so someone other than myself should probably call him to task and remind him about WP:No legal threats. Considering the edits he wishes to make to the article itself while the AfD he proposed is still open, he may also need a reminder concerning disruptive edits, should the AfD fail. RJC ^Talk 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I do not see any edits from User:SlamDiego after the civility warning, which I note was redacted.

2. The edit summary in question reads: "Because I mistakenly thought that you wouldn't willfully libel me." I don't see this as a legal threat. It may be an accusation of libel, but that is not the same thing as threatening to take legal action. Saying something like "If I thought you were libeling me, I would sue you", or something to that affect. Also, is there any indication that the User:Zvika has been "driven" from the discussion. There was a strongly worded statement, but nothing uncivil in regards to his comments on the AfD. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

After some hunting, I do see that there was some discussion carrying over to Talk. I'm seeing a misunderstanding, but nothing that I would call uncivil. SlamDiego may have misunderstood something Zvika wrote, and Zvika may have taken SlamDiego's response a bit strongly, but there is nothing uncivil from where I stand. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the concept of libel is not peculiarly legal in nature. Note, for example, that The American Heritage Dictionary defines libel thus

1a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. b. The act of presenting such material to the public. 2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.[40]

Only the last of these definitions is peculiarly legal, and I was plainly not claiming that Zvika was dragging me before an admiralty or ecclesiastical court. Further, while “libel” is defined under law, so are a great many other things, such weights and measures. But making reference to these things does not in-and-of-itself imply legal reference, let alone legal threat. First Amendment absolutists, who include me (and, famously, Nat Hentoff), in fact believe that libel, though repugnant, should be legal. That doesn't mean that we don't have use for a word to name the act of presenting to the public false publication that damages a person's reputation. —SlamDiego_←T 16:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Phil Hall (US writer) and user DoubleCross

Resolved

 – Editor initiating complaint has decided to end the discussion

Ecoleetage (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

During late December and early January, the user DoubleCross engaged in a hostile flaming attack against writer/actor Phil Hall on an IMDB forum board. Since then, he has twice attempted to bring his IMDB abuse to the Phil Hall Wikipedia page. Although his flaming was twice deleted under the complaint of troll behavior, he has threatened to continue to revert the deletions. Such behavior is, at the very least, infantile; at worst, it is borderline stalking. I am asking for administrator assistance to keep DoubleCross away from the Phil Hall (US writer) page, as his goal is to harass and humiliate Mr. Hall. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is just beyond nonplussing.

I had never heard of Phil Hall before reading those topics on IMDb's Contributors Help message board about him. What people there claimed about him led me to look at his page on Wikipedia. What I asked on the talk page is, I feel, a legitimate question raised on that board: at the time, the Phil Hall article said that Hall had been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in 2006, but Pulitzer's own web site does not list him at all. That's a pretty big deal, right--an unsourced claim about a Pulitzer Prize nomination that Pulitzer itself doesn't even mention? That's why I posted a comment: I wanted to be sure there was nothing I was missing about that, since I was going to be bold and just remove it.

(Also, a couple of days after I posted that comment, Ecoleetage--who probably is Phil Hall--edited the article to remove the thing about the nomination, instead saying that Hall's book review column was just submitted to Pulitzer--the very thing I said was apparently the case on the talk page! He also didn't mention that he is the person who deleted my comments for "trolling".)

Ecoleetage's complaint also contains a blatant, stunning lie. I do have an IMDb account--I implied so on the talk page by saying that you have to be logged in there to read the topic I linked to--but I never once posted in those topics, "flaming" or otherwise. Not once. I only read them, which, like I said, is what led me to look him up here. Think about what Ecoleetage is saying for a second--even if I had posted in those topics, how would he know that? How could he possibly know what my user name on that site is?????? (It sure isn't 'DoubleCross'.)

Anybody who sees this, take a look for yourselves at the discussion history and see if any of the content of the two comments I made there falls remotely under flaming or stalking or hostility or humiliation or whatever else. Jesus Christ, what a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense. - DoubleCross (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Ecoleetage: I'm afraid I have no way to even verify, let alone deal with, off-site conduct. With regard to Talk: Phil Hall (US writer), you may wish to review Wikipedia:Talk#Others.27_comments. As pointed out there some editors do not believe it is appropriate to remove even personal attacks and blatant incivility. Although much of User:DoubleCross's comments are irrelevant or include original research and references to off-site discussions, I can't see what the justification was for deleting them, particularly as they indicate the rationale for the change on the article which you made. I notice that you also referred this WP:AIV earlier in the same day that you brought it here. Your comments on that referral suggest you may wish to review WP:Vandalism. In the future you may wish to consider discussing your concerns with other editors rather than removing their comments and accusing them of trolling. I notice that some of your edits on other pages contain original research suggesting you know actors whose pages you are editing. Please be sure you disclose any conflicts of interest (review WP:COI) and refrain from "original research" which other editors may delete as with any unsourced material. You may also wish to review WP:NOR regarding "original research". These may be the articles which you have the most knowledge and interest in, but you may wish to consider editing in some other topics, where the appearance of possible conflicts of interest would not exist. Finally, if User:DoubleCross were really a troll, you would have been feeding DoubleCross by the truckload.

• User:DoubleCross: your references above to page histories were helpful, however, in the future consider using this as a place to de-escalate the situation. Your accusations that User:Ecoleetage is actually the subject of the article is unsupported by any facts (having a small topic as one's primary interest is not evidence of identity). Your talk page comments were not entirely useful and you should try to keep your talk page comments focused on the mission of building an encyclopedia.

• I note that you are both experienced editors. I am sure you both know that you need to use caution when writing about living people (including on talk pages) and comply with WP:BLP. Maybe you could both take a step back from this article and take some time editing other articles before coming back to this one. In any case, I hope you will both agree to edit and comment with civility. Unless User:Ecoleetage has genuine WP:BLP concerns about the talk page material, it should be restored. Maybe in the spirit of reconciliation User:Ecoleetage would do that.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Another suggestion, it might be worthwhile for User:DoubleCross to consider refactoring the talk page comments to omit the unsupported, WP:NOR and irrelevant material and to simply state the concern regarding the Pulitzer site not supporting the statement, essentially a WP:V concern. This is sometimes used in WP:Mediation, see e.g. Wikipedia:Mediation#Why_should_mediation_be_confidential.3F. The original will remain in the history of course. Do you think that might be possible?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello! To answer some points raised:

The question of Mr. Hall’s involvement in the 2006 Pulitzer Prize competition was a mistake on my part and it has been fixed. The Pulitzer organization’s web site (which only lists winners and finalists, not all entries in the competition) states being an entrant in the competition is not the same as being a nominee, which I didn’t know. Since the correction was made, there is no mature reason for calling attention to an extinct error.

The original DoubleCross message includes a link to an IMDB forum where Mr. Hall was the subject of harassment by trolls and flamers. This is of no value to the Wikipedia readers, nor does it bring any depth to understanding Mr. Hall’s achievements in writing and cinema. I see no intelligent reason for its inclusion.

Since DoubleCross acknowledges that he never heard of Mr. Hall, I might recommend that he learn more about the subject before editing this article. For my part, I only work on articles where I have knowledge of the subject. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have to agree that the link the IMDB forum has no place here. Not because of the content cited, but because it's not a reliable source in any event (see WP:V). However, I must disagree that DoubleCross needs to learn about the subject before editing: 1) DoubleCross didn't edit the article, 2) There are many valuable edits one can make that require absolutely no knowledge of the article, 3) editors without personal knowledge of topic often lend perspective that can help ensure a neutral point-of-view. Remember, it is a guiding principle of Wikipedia that: any editor may edit any article. I also believe very strongly that the relevant content on the talk page that led to this discussion, must be restore. I will look again at the page history and suggest what the edit could be made to look like without changing the meaning if you and DoubleCross could agree to that in concept.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Doug, but I respectfully disagree. DoubleCross' complaint is not relevant because the complaint was centered on the IMDB flamer forum which, as you stated, does not belong here. The mistake about the Pulitzer submission has already been corrected, so I see no reason to call attention to extinct errors. As far as I am concerned, the matter is resolved. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, well I hope it is, I haven't heard from User:DoubleCross on this matter at all. I am, however, going to issue a warning on User:Ecoleetage's user talk page for three concerns I have, as I am concerned that the editor may not be taking them seriously and there needs to be a record that is accessible to other users. The concerns are 1) refactoring other's comments because it removes a valuable record of the reason for edits, notwithstanding the irrelevant material that was in the original comments; 2) failing to assume good faith; and 3) suggestions that the editor may need to self-evaluate with respect to compliance with ownership and conflicts of interest. In the future please assume good faith and not refer to other editors as trolls merely because their comments are written in an inflammatory way.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• In the interest of fairness, I have added a caution note to User:DoubleCross's talk page regarding the use of irrelevant material and compliance with WP:BLP.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia: "Assuming good faith is about intention, not action. Well-meaning persons make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do."

Posting links to forums where people are being flamed, insulted and humiliated (as DoubleCross did) does not meet this definition of acting in good faith. I sought to correct the mistake, as per the definition, and I get a "warning" while DoubleCross, who threatened to repost the irrelevant link, gets a "caution"?

Fairness would be placing "caution" notes on both of our pages. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify, "caution note" is not a recognized term on wikipedia and nothing on the post on User:DoubleCross's page uses that term. It is merely intended to indicate a level one warning for which there is no special tag and is not meant to minimize the matter. At the same time, the matters recited above and on User_talk:Ecoleetage are too numerous to ignore, I chose to customize a standard warning message rather than use several different warning notices for related conduct which I thought would be unfair. I have posted a note on User:Ecoleetage's talk page to the effect that the user disputes the warning. Warnings don't have any particular effect on their own and an admin or other user may decide whether they wish to give this warning any particular weight.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I am disputing your ruling and, thus, I do not recognize this matter as being resolved.

I am repeating my contention that your judgment is harsh, one-sided and blatantly unfair. I reported what I perceived to be a disruption of Wikipedia and I am being penalized with condescending commentary, while the person who was cause of the disruption is being treated with unusual kindness. This is not my definition of a resolution.

I am repeating my request for the "Warning" to be removed from my page. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I will also dispute the following logic:

1) "refactoring other's comments because it removes a valuable record of the reason for edits, notwithstanding the irrelevant material that was in the original comments"

Please define the "valuable record" of the original comments, which consisted solely of pointing to a hostile source that you dubbed "irrelevant."

2) "failing to assume good faith"

Please define the "good faith" in posting a link to an IMDB forum consisting of insults and demeaning commentary, and in the user's desire to provide input on a subject which he openly admitted he knew nothing about.

3) "In the future please assume good faith and not refer to other editors as trolls merely because their comments are written in an inflammatory way."

Please define "trolls" -- I am unaware of pleasant people who write in inflammatory ways and openly make threats to continue posting such comments.

And, Doug, I would ask of you to "assume good faith" -- after all, who initiated this complaint? Did it occur to you that I was reporting what I perceived to be a violation of terms of service? I find it obnoxious that you are treating the user DoubleCross with compassion and you are being nasty to me.

Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think you may misunderstand both the purpose of this method of WP:Dispute Resolution and my role. I am just another editor. Other editors are free to jump in anytime, but none have. I do not give a Judgment or render a Decision, even if those words have been thrown around (though I hope not by me) - only WP:ARBCOM does anything resembling issuing a judgment. I evaluated the Wikipedia etiquette issues and made suggestions. I have warned both you and User:DoubleCross for what I personally believe are violations of those standards, but warnings are not penalties they are cautions. They are telling you in clear and unambiguous terms to check yourself. Anyone can warn, even an IP user (though issuing frivolous warnings is disruptive and carries its own warning) and it does not have any particular negative effect, though it does tend to stand out when another user is reviewing your talk page history. You were unwilling to agree to restore information which I believe is crucial to preserving the integrity of the way we do things here - even when I suggested a middle ground of restoring it in part, eliminating the irrelevant material. You can decide for yourself whether my warnings are justified or not and whether you should act on them, though in making that decision you may wish to review the policies and guidelines that I have linked to above.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I asked you specific questions and you ignored all of them. Please behave in a professional manner and answer them.

I also have to ask if you know this individual DoubleCross and if you are applying a double standard, since your communications with the subject of the complaint is excessively soft and your language in communicating with me comes across as rude and condescending -- particularly in an editing fix of the Phil Hall (US writer) page that is clearly an act of juvenile stick-out-your-tongue sarcasm aimed directly at me (and you know what I am talking about!).

We did not receive the same communication from you -- my page has a "Warning" and his does not.

If you want to restore the "irrelevant" (your words, not mine) posting by DoubleCross, be my guest. But take that insulting "Warning" off my page. That is poor and biased judgment on your part. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Doug: Just wanted you to know that I read the message on my talk page, and some of the ongoing discussion here; I apologize for not responding, as I haven't had a lot of time in the past few days (and unfortunately don't have much now). I'm going to try to respond in depth shortly. Thanks, and sorry again. - DoubleCross (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ecoleetage: I think I must have miscommunicated: 1) No, I've never had any interaction with User:DoubleCross before, I have no idea who he or she is. This the first time I have encountered either of you as far as I recall. 2) I do not know what you mean by my communications being aimed directly at you (and you know what I am talking about!) - I am afraid you have me completely baffled on this one. 3) I originally suggested that the entire post should be restored, then I suggested as a compromise that certain irrelevant material be refactored to remove the IMdB material but that the material relating to the valid Pulitzer references be restored - You were uninterested in this proposal, so I never suggested particulars; however, I can try to propose something if you wish. Absent an agreement to do so, I am not going to restore it and start a revert war, so I warned you for removing talk page material. As for the requests for definitions in your previous posts, they are all in the references I provided above, e.g. WP:TROLL, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. and those are explained in my first post here. If you need their specific applications referenced, it may take me a few days to put them all together, but I will if it will help us resolve this. As for removing the warning, I can't do that any better than you can; it will remain in page history. Nothing requires you to leave it out in full view; however - and if you want to leave it but remove the little icon and the indentation, fine - I don't believe there is any official guideline for warnings, WP:UW is not policy - although I applied it to your page, you are free to change the organization. If you are looking for a retraction, sorry, the warning was warranted. Finally, the fact that you initiated this referral is not particularly important - etiquette goes both ways. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Doug, the sarcasm in question is found in your edit on [41]-- to whom were you referring in your obnoxious comment about editing? That is not professional behavior and it appears to suggest a bias in your handling of this matter.

Doug, I have major problems with the manner in which you handled this issue. I have no further need for your services in this matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:ThuranX

I made a report on AN/I concerning this user some days ago and it was recommended I take my concerns to this page.

Although I don't normally make an issue of such matters, I feel obliged to do so in this case, because I don't see how I can possibly be expected to extend any sort of goodwill to a user who holds that I am a racist and a bigot. So I feel this issue needs to be resolved one way or another. Gatoclass (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have asked User:ThuranX to bring in his side of the story here so that we can reach some kind of a resolution. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to talk about. He lumped all editors opposed to his edits into one racially/culturally homogenous group, dismissed all concerns, and was called on it by many people. I entered as an uninvolved 3rd party from an AN/I thread, available in one of his two 'complaints' against me on AN/I, found that he was, in fact, being highly uncivil, and said so. This is his fifth or sixth attempt to get me in trouble, all others being dismissed or ignored outright. He is forum shopping for some sort of ridiculous apology. He's pursued this demand for 'redress of his grievance' against numerous editors, all of whom agreed his comments, not the person, were the sort of bigoted crap that shuts down debate. This being the fifth or sixth time, it's forum shopping, and I have no intention of apologizing to an editor who was in the wrong and found to be so by numerous other wikipedians. A review of all the relevant facts will bear this out. I can provide diffs if needed, but II think his contrib history will help you find everything quickly, if it's not in the original report, or the "reprise" complaint.(THe original thread that started this, with numerous editors finding his words troubling, is here ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What a mess! I have red through the talk pages, and AfD and the IA. I think this is being caused by a lot of miscommunication. My two bits:

1. I think Gatoclass did in fact write some things regarding the ethnic background of editors that very well could have come across as bigoted (please note: I am not calling Gatoclass bigoted). I am saying that I could see how questioning an editor's impartiality because of their ethnic background can be interpreted the wrong way.

2. I think that while ThuranX may have been working with all of the best intentions by getting involved when he did, I'm not sure that the particular choice of words (no matter how accurately descriptive that you thought they were) were constructive. I am of the opinion that you could have been as forceful and direct (something I appreciate) with different words.

Certainly, not every incident of calling someone a "bigot" or "racist" is a violation of civility. I would caution both editors in this case: before you write, think about whether what you write will end up having the intended affect, and think about how it will be interpreted by another editor.

I am sorry if this sounds wishy-washy. It is not meant to be. This is the best I could come up with after weeding through all of those page. I wish you both the best editing. Peace! LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, I was invited by one of my opponents to share my thoughts on why I thought people were voting against the AFD. To that, I simply made the obvious observation that the opinions of the editors involved might be swayed by their countries' former relationship with the Soviet Union - or, in the words of one of the users in question, the fifty years of suppression these countries suffered at the hands of the USSR. In those circumstances, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume that such users may have difficulty maintaining objectivity toward the subject in question, which is all my statement was intended to convey. That was not even an assumption of bad faith on my part, because bad faith is an assumption that users are deliberately editing in a partisan manner, and I made no such accusation. So for you to characterize my comment as "racist" and "bigoted" is, quite simply, ludicrous.

Furthermore, I have not asked you for an apology, only for a retraction. By refusing to retract your statements, you are effectively maintaining that I am a racist and a bigot, and I don't see how I can be expected to work co-operatively with an editor who holds such an opinion of me. I am simply asking for you to extend me a little goodwill here, admit that my statement can be interpreted in more than one way, and thereby give me the benefit of the doubt. It is incumbent upon editors except in the most unambiguous cases to the contrary to WP:AGF, and that is all I have asked you to do. Gatoclass (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear: No. You said something bigoted, I said you said something bigoted, and even HERE other editors agree you wrote something "which could be considered" bigoted. That's being nice. You made a broad-stroke personal attack at all opposition, based on a wild guess at the origins of all opposition. A retraction is tantamount to an apology. You're not getting one from me. YOu never bothered to apologize to everyone you attacked, and at this point, I have great doubts you would, as it would be you admitting you did wrong, and even if you did, it would ONLY be the grudging sort you'd give in the hopes of seeing me apologize in kind. Not happening. I saw you for this kind of editor when I told you to get off my talk page, and I was right. You're more interested in establishing 'ill-will' with editors who oppose you so you can brush off their opposition as a grudge, than you are with just getting the actual facts into articles. I will not participate in your bruised ego redress seeking behaviors any more. Post this where-ever you like, I've got better ways to spend my time on Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A statement "which could be considered bigoted" - as preposterous as I believe that interpretation is - is a far cry from a statement that is unequivocally bigoted - which is what you are outright accusing me of. The point, as I've always maintained, is that there is an alternative, good faith interpretation of my (actually very innocuous) comment, which you refuse to consider, preferring to smear me instead as a "bigot" and (ludicrously) a "racist".

This is not about bruised ego. It's about maintaining constructive relationships here. I don't want to have a hostile relationship with any editor here if I can possibly help it, which is why I've asked you to reconsider your position. But I can hardly be expected to retain an amicable relationship with someone who continues to denounce me openly as a bigot. That's why, if you are not prepared to withdraw your offensive remarks, I will feel obliged to take the matter further - because I am reluctant to deal with ongoing hostility when there may be a more constructive alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hopiakuta

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

---

Resolved

 – User has been blocked. DanielEng (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The above user made edits to John Coward and Talk:British Airways Flight 38 that were factually incorrect. I posted to the talk page here stating what I thought to be their point of view and stating what I knew to be fact in the case.

The user subsequently replied here but as this response was removed from the talk page by another user I didn't get to see it. However what I did see in the edit history was the user removing my response to their initial query with the edit summary "removing libel" here.

I then posted a question to the user's talk page here asking for clarification on what I said that was false or defamatory.

The response here is quite lengthy and I find it offensive. First my user name is pulled to pieces as "advertizing of someone who would write an accusation, then delete the response." I am then accused of forcing a response only on their talk page, conspiring against them, being libelous and slanderous against them, of accusing them of being brain damaged and "excessively European", of ignoring an earlier request, of commiting fraud, of being a hypocrite and a demand is made that I restore their comments immediately.

At this point I posted here my displeaure at these accusations and stating that I did not remove their comments as they appear to be suggesting.

Their response to this here was to again accuse me of libel, of making false accusations and of being a dictator. I have not responded. -- Roleplayer (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated, I'm afraid: see this, including the links in the "Past discussions" box on top. Tvoz |talk 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK what do I do to make sure the right people are made aware of this? PS I did leave a message on their talk page as requested in the header of this page so I've probably started another discussion accidentally. -- Roleplayer (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, I don't know what should be done about the problems people encounter with this editor. It's a long-standing situation, and I think perhaps people higher up in the Wikipedia hierarchy - maybe including legal - should take a look at it. I don't know the circumstances of your specific complaint, but accusations of libel certainly could be construed as a legal threat which is not tolerated. I guess you could try copying this to WP:AN/I, and ask for some intervention. I was just pointing out that I think this is beyond being a "wikiquette" matter, and is rather a matter for senior administration to consider. Tvoz |talk 04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. This is an unusual case and some guidance from an administrator or the ArbComm would be helpful at this point. I'd also suggest taking this to AN/I and asking for help. Good luck--DanielEng (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already a page on AN/I dedicated to Don, it is here: Wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/Wiki editor DonFphrnqTaub Persina . I do agree that a higher-up over at ArbComm needs to be brought into the loop. I like to fancy myself a patient person, but after dealing with this case for very near four months with absolutely no change from the user in question, I'm beginning to tire. I and others have shown him many places he can go to get help, given him much advice about how he work with his age-old computer, etc etc, with no sign from him that he's listening at all. All the best- l'aqùatique ^talk 18:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Is anything actually happening with that AN/I page? It seems to be very detailed documentation of Don's edits, but it doesn't seem as though there's any action being taken. Approaching someone on the ArbComm seems as though it might be the way to go. Has anyone considered an RfC on this? I don't know if it would be appropriate, but I can't think of any other remedies. I wish I could. Best, DanielEng (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• After reading the diffs, and to avoid further imminent damage, I am blocking [User:Hopiakuta]]. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

User:156.34.215.223

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

---

Resolved

 – Another editor warned the IP User to refrain from personal attacks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The above IP has referred to me as a "knob" here. Óðinn (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry issued a warning on the IP User's talk page about 1 hour after this post.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Mitrebox

Work in progress; comments welcome

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

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

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

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

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

Also, I looked into the matter and the article above, after this WP:WQA is over, should be speedy deleted. You see the content in the article that's all piped? It was added by a user with an unapproved bot, adding obscure European athletes to Wikipedia. [42] An article added that ISN'T in English, containing content that was added by an unapproved bot -- Mitrebox has some reason to be upset over the horribly low quality of Wikipedia. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

DarkFierceDeityLink has a vendetta against me of some kind

Let me give you the backstory real quick to understand the problem.

This morning I removed a few confirmed characters from the game Super Smash Bros. Brawl since up to that point I believed the sources were not Wikipedia standard. In any case the user quickly reverted my edits and went more to 4 reverts on that article page. But that is not my problem. My problem is that when I was JUSTIFYING my actions on that talk page he removed my comments. When an Administrator posted as well he REMOVED his comments but after a heads up from the Admin he restored said comments.

Now we had a resolution for that article, as I was in the wrong I cleaned up a portion of the article and another user cleaned up my wording, life goes on.

Then a few hours later when I have made a discussion on the main page of Super Smash Bros. Brawl he yet again brings up my actions from earlier this morning, citing that I was annoyed or mad at the roster. I have shown any signs of that and I have posted multiple times that I wanted it well-source, that was my only concern. On the same talk page for the article he yet again when back from hijacking my discussion to demeaning my character and if I responded in any way/shape or form he removes my statements. This has gone far enough, I am not letting him remove any more of my comments when I defend myself.

You can see the log here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros._Brawl&action=history

He constantly keeps removing statements and keeps ups his own, despite his frantic screams for 'ITS ON-TOPIC'!--HeaveTheClay (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This entire dispute is the topic of a request for comment that can be found here: Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Please consider both sides in this dispute and make any comments there to attempt to reach consensus on how to proceed with this article. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

veiled threat by user Wikidea

user left aggressively hostile comment on my talk page. i had reverted the user's comments on Talk:Universal health care, as they didn't contain a single comment addressed towards article improvement - it was nothing but this user's opinions, shared in response to another editor who actually did address the article. WP:FORUM is quite plain, and easy to interpret. general discussion is discouraged, strongly at that. i regularly remove unadorned commentary from article talk pages, since it merely degrades the process of article improvement. if there's even a single word in the commentary about the article, i don't revert it. i found the response uncivil, and bordering on a threat, which i advised the user on his talk page was inappropriate. i see the user has again restored his comments, with more hostile commentary in the edit summary. help? Anastrophe (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy or no policy often discussion page statements do not contain comments with regard toward article improvement. The frequency of this increases with the contentiousness of the issue at hand. Bring in the inherent cultural differenced indicative of an ailing empire clinging to its last vestiges of notarity as it is slowly consumed by its supernational obligations and theirs bound to be some miscommunication. The removal of comments from a discussion page is a serious action and should only be taken in the most extreme of cases. Wikidea's comment on your page, while obviously tense, appears to be a natural net reaction to what he feels is loss of contributions. In this case your actions act as a microcosm of larger eroding of British power. Having read the statement I was not able to find any sense of threat or veils. I did see a request that asked you to 'not dare'. He also commented on your 'nerves', clearly a sexual innuendo, it could possible be interperated as inappropriate if your feelings weren't mutual. I won't speculate however, I must point out that you did not notify the user of the alert you posted here. In the future I encourage you to both read and follow the instructions listed at the top of this page. --mitrebox (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

um, i thought this was the wikiquette alerts page. your digressions and commentary i find offensive, and not helpful to the issue. there is no caveat on WP:FORUM that removing non-article-directed commentary should be a "last resort". thanks anyway, i guess i'll look elsewhere for help. Anastrophe (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

i have alerted the user. also, the phrase 'don't you dare' has an implicit 'or what?' as the response. it's a threat - 'if you do x, i'll do something in response'. Anastrophe (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

final addendum -the comments i removed are also very uncivil. on that basis, with being non-article-improvement directed, it was entirely appropriate to cull them, in my opinion. Anastrophe (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Its good to have opinions, it's also good to note so do others.--mitrebox (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

i have not suggested otherwise. but it's a red herring. that isn't the issue here.Anastrophe (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

i think it's becoming clear that i again need another wikibreak. i'm showing strong signs of addiction. Twinkle - while an incredible boon to editing - makes it way to easy to slap that 'revert' button and slap on a WP:FORUM warning. i need to back off and just let the crap roll by. Anastrophe (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I cannot agree that there was a "veiled threat", or a threat of any kind. However, Wikidea did make what I consider to be a a broadly prejudicial statement, appointing themselves as the spokesperson for the entire United Kingdom. As insulting and thoughtless the comment is, I'm not sure that it was so bad as to be deletable. I think Anastrophe was acting with their heart in the right place. I will leave a warning with Wikidea. LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reversion wars on Iran nuclear program

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

I'm a subject matter expert in nuclear non-proliferation, having an ongoing dispute over Irans nuclear program. See Nuclear Program of Iran and Iran and Weapons of Mass Destruction. My adversary (how else do I describe him or her?) appears to be a single anonymous user.

Granted, we both have a stubborn streak, but I think I've been reasonable in sticking to substance. My adversary has adopted various frustrating tactics. These include changing my edits and failing to respond to the reasons I give when changing them back, and most recently nitpicking my citations. The behavios has gone from disagreement to disagreeable to downright rude. I've just about run out of patience.

I would like this dispute to end, but I think it's beyond my control. NPguy (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs and links to recent changes regarding this issue? I'd like to take a look at this one. Also, the main thing that concerns me here is the overall idea of a "reversion war" going on over this. Are we teetering on the brink of 3RR with this? Edit Centric (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also taken the liberty of dropping a note to the IP editor, advising him / her of this discussion, and inviting them to take an active role in resolving this issue... Edit Centric (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just note that my edits are out of concern for Wikipedia's policies on no original research and verifiability. I'm sad to see myself referred to as an adversary, and was heading to the talk page per NPGuy's edits on the Nuclear program of Iran article. I'll check back to this page as the discussion continues, but will also be discussing on the article's talk page. --68.72.38.42 (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to work it out on the talk page. That is the best way to handle that... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you recommend a way to get outside input to help the discussion? --68.72.38.42 (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me suggest this. It looks like the both of you have a handle on this, and are willing to discuss on the article talk space. If somewhere along the line talks stall, or you feel you need a third-party perspective, please feel free to drop me a message on my Talk page, and I'll gladly lend a hand. Edit Centric (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to try to work it out on the discussion page. I actually made that suggestion after posting here. Probably should have tried it first. NPguy (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, personal attacks, etc.

I normally (and almost exclusively) edit articles associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants. I have recently been drawn, reluctantly, into what is apparently an ongoing, widespread and extremely acrimonious controversy at Wikipedia with regard to homeopathy and how it should be treated at Wikipedia. I am not a proponent of homeopathy--quite the opposite in fact--but I have argued that an article about a plant species can factually and neutrally express the fact that the plant is used in homeopathy. There is as yet no consensus but the discussion has been made considerably more difficult by both the behavior and commentary of several editors. Several editors on both sides of the issue are engaging in edit warring, but in particular User:ScienceApologist and User:Orangemarlin, who seem to have no interest in reaching any kind of consensus--see for example the edit history for Thuja occidentalis where they have systematically deleted every reference to the use of this species in homeopathy, however neutrally worded and however well-referenced. In trying to work through these issues with other editors I have been accused by User:Orangemarlin of engaging in personal attacks here. In pointing out on his talk page here that he has been inconsistent in what he expects of other editors, I received another accusation of engaging in personal attacks; upon expressing my frustration at this and attempting to enlist the advice and assistance of other project editors here, User:Guettarda launched a personal attack against me. These comments are contributing to an atmosphere that only fosters acrimony and will make any kind of meaningful consensus unachievable. So... how do we proceed from here? On my own part I will be taking a long break from Wikipedia as I don't see any possible resolution. MrDarwin (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe that there are so many different plants and other substances used in homeopathy that every single plant and many other articles, both on organic and inorganic substances on Wikipedia, numbering in the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands, could have homeopathy sections.

This is excessive. For one thing, homeopathy is not really mainstream science or medicine, and according to WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE and so on, we would be giving too much weight in Wikipedia to homeopathy if we did this.

I think we should pick the 10 or 15 most common homeopathic remedies, and then include sections in those articles, along with material from the mainstream view of science or medicine stating exactly what the mainstream view is (debunking homeopathy) for NPOV balance. That would be a reasonable compromise, don't you think?--Filll (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. FWIW, I'm not high on homeopathy, but if there's a reliable reference that a particular plant is used as a homeopathic remedy, I can't see why it would be a problem to mention that in a neutral fashion in an article. In articles on various medications, it's common to mention off-label uses without saying whether or not they are effective, and this seems to be similar.

I looked over the editors' comments and they don't seem to fall into the category of bona fide incivility or personal attacks to me. The editors do seem to be engaged in an edit war and they also seem to be unwilling to listen to other points of view, which does seem to be making for a stressful atmosphere.

I think that asking for help at the WP Plants project was a very smart idea: getting support from other editors who are experts in the field will help. If WP Plants can devise an official policy on homeopathy--not for or against, but when and how it should be mentioned or incorporated into articles--that might also really help, because then there would be a clear-cut, consensus-driven policy to stand behind. You might also want to consider bringing the issue to Third opinion. Good luck! Best, DanielEng (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear-cut. Do we mention homeopathy in the article on water, given that water is the primary (often the sole) ingredient in homeopathic preparations? No, because while water is essential to homeopathy, homeopathy isn't a noteworthy use of water. If homeopathy is an important use of the plant then we can mention it. But I'm not convinced that we need to mention homeopathy in every single plant that has ever been used in any homeopathic preparation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. If it's a plant that has been used in some obscure homeopathic remedy in Grandma Ethel's kitchen in Kansas, no, it shouldn't be mentioned. If it's widely used enough to be mentioned in scientific or medical literature that qualifies as a reliable neutral source as per Wikipedia guidelines, I would consider it notable and shouldn't see why it would be omitted from an article. There's no reason they need to use the article as a platform for homeopathy, but if it's a case of adding a sentence to the section on plant properties that says "Plant X has been used in homeopathic remedies as a treatment for Illness Z" and it's footnoted with a reliable citation, it seems neutral enough to me.

This is also really why I think WP:Plants should consider making some sort of official policy on homeopathy. Like it or not (and I'm in the "not" category, I don't really believe in homeopathy), homeopathy is mainstream enough that many MDs use elements of it now, and since many plants are used in homeopathic treatments, it's invariably going to come up in Wiki again and again. Addressing it and setting some guidelines, instead of deleting it out of hand or deciding it can only be in 15 articles, seems as though it'd be a better way to go. Best, DanielEng (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an "all over the place" filing .... partially a contention over content and partially over personal behavior. The content issues don't really belong here, and there has been good advice about coming up with official policy .... not to mention that even if there is an ability to meet WP:V, there is a question as to how far a fringe topic should be included into so many articles.

As for personal attacks, from the diffs I read here, I must say that the beginning of the acrimonious language began with MrDarwin, with some rather flippant commentary about the acceptance of sources. I think all sides (heck, anyone), needs to be cautious with the language they use when referring to other editors, which is to say, focus on the work, not the workers. LonelyBeacon (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. Please note that I am not making an issue about content here; that is being handled on the project page and various article talk pages. My grievance here is solely about the actions and language of several editors which are making resolution of the content issues extremely difficult. MrDarwin (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Abrupt outbreak of edit war re C S

C S flagged Duke Math Journal as COI (after a six month interlude of no debate, I was honestly surprised). The discussion very abruptly broke into uncivil edit warring, I would say with this diff. His stated purpose for the COI tag was to get attention from an outside third party; now certainly we both need that. Thanks. Pete St.John (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no edit war (reversion). Instead, Peter St. John takes comments I make on my talk page in response to him, adds them to an article talk page and narrates them to some (nonexistent) 3rd party. I find that very rude. In addition, one of his comments intruded on my privacy (as can be seen in the diff), which I find completely unnecessary. I have been polite. It is hardly "uncivil edit warring". Now, I have some other things to do, but let me finish by saying that I find this action by St. John a break of Wikiquette. But I'll refrain from filing my own alert. --C S (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take this one up initially, let me do some research on the overall issues, and I will comment further. In the meantime, what I would suggest is that any comments that are left on user talk remain on user talk, unless they pertain directly to the article. Again, let me dig into this one for a few minutes.. Edit Centric (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm typing these talking points while I read from the other monitor (the benefit of having a dual-monitor system...). First of all, C S; if you want comment from disinterested third-parties on an article, tagging it as COI is not necessarily the best way to go. Instead, try a request for comment. Also, I see nothing in the diff that you provided that alludes to a breach of privacy. (If I'm missing something there, please drop me an e-mail from the "email this user" link at my userpage, so that whatever privacy concerns you are citing are not re-cycled on yet another publicly-accessible userpage or talkpage.)

I am not seeing a revert war or edit war here yet, and by all means let's not take it that far, either. The sole breach of Wikiquette that I DO see is possibly PeterStJohn bringing an off-line conversation over and cross-posting it in article talkspace. Even at that, it looks to me like the entirety of the conversation pertains directly to the article, and CS's tagging of it. Edit Centric (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thought, C S, I think the "third-party" that he's narrating the comments for would be us, the rest of the Wiki community. (Is that a correct assessment, Peter?) Edit Centric (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) At this time, let's go ahead and move this over to the following location: Duke Math Journal talk page, as a significant part of this deals with the article and it's content. All disinterested third-party may also weigh in there. Edit Centric (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:JimBobUSA

The main problem with this individual, in relation to Yamashita's gold, is that he seems to see much of the content, and reliable sources used (including a Chalmers Johnson article in the London Review of Books, inter alia) as "fiction" or "fringe theories".

He has also repeatedly deleted material without warning or discussion, repeatedly made accusations of bad faith towards me, and refuses to seek compromise/consensus for edits on the talk page, in regard to various content disputes. Rather than discuss matters properly, he engages in lawyering.

This has dragged on for months. I have suggested formal mediation twice, without any response. I would block him myself if I were not personally involved. Grant | Talk 14:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have nearly enough time to review the entire history here, but from what I can see so far, it looks to me like JimBob has provided quite a bit of evidence to support his reversions and removals of content in the article. I don't see a problem with the overall way he's handled his side of this issue. I agree that there may be a bit of wikilawyering going on here, but it would take far more time than I have available to determine to what extent any Wikiquette policies have been broken.

Could you please provide some diffs that point out specific issues you have with this editor? That will help us help you in this matter. Also, please note that WQA is intended to help editors resolve civility issues with one another so they can get back to constructive editing. I don't see any obvious WQA issues from my initial skim of the article talk - possibly a little non-WP:AGF from both of you, but otherwise it looks like just a big, protracted content discussion.

One thing I am a little worried about, Grant, is that you said you would block this user yourself if you weren't personally involved. Could you please point out examples of the behavior you feel is block-worthy? I don't see anything other than possibly WP:3RR at play here, but like I said, I'm unable to review the whole thing right now - diffs will help. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My good faith is long since exhausted. The guy is a sociopath. He has repeatedly deleted referenced content. He just did it again. See also this, for a worse example. They are just the two most recent cases. Grant | Talk 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how this is a Wikiquette issue. It looks more like a content dispute, and an RFC is more likely the right place for this. Please see WP:RFC for the content dispute, and if you feel it's necessary, WP:RFC/U for a user RFC on JimBobUSA. However, I see no incivility in what he's doing. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We have had an RFC regarding the page. It was fruitless because Jim doesn't understand/respect consensus editing.

He refuses to acknowledge the validity of two main sources: Sterling & Peggy Seagrave and Johnson's lengthy review of their book in the LRB (see above). How can his purported requests for further citations be satisfied if he doesn't respect the sources?

Moreover, several editors have asked him not to delete referenced material. Do we now allow the deletion of referenced material because one editor finds it disagreeable? Grant | Talk 03:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, Grant. This is the wrong board to help you with this matter. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that content is not the issue, you are effectively saying I should take it to WP:RFC/U. That requires the support of another editor, which is always going to be problem with a low profile article on an obscure subject. Not impossible, just difficult.

All I really want is for an admin other than myself to tell him:

1. the Seagraves and Johnson are reputable sources
2. that it is not OK to delete material which is supported by reputable sources

I thought that I would use official channels. Maybe I should have just asked another admin informally. Grant | Talk 05:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What we seem to have on Yamashita's gold is a low-intensity edit war that's been running for months. The issue has appeared at ANI {1}, back in November, and been raised at WP:FTN {2} and at WP:RSN {3} and {4}. A review of the last half-page of Talk:Yamashita's gold will give a flavor of the doubts of some editors about the quality of the sources used in the article. When the sources are weak, it is hard to have a solid article on which everyone can agree. With an infinite amount of research, somebody might come up with better sources. Until then, we may have to make do with a more modest article that makes fewer claims. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:NJGW

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

---

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

Editor NJGW has repeatedly deleted parts of a talk page : Talk:Predicting the timing of peak oil. A number of his/her interventions on the article page are questionable, and the editor is trying to hide facts.--Environnement2100 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved non-content related discussion to my talk page. The discussion in question has been on the article's talk page for over a week, and the only comments added were that the discussion belonged on my talk page. NJGW (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This does not appear to be any sort of breach of Wikiquette, in terms of civility policies. I've closed as such, and following are some general comments about the issue:

I think that the section of the Talk page that NJGW moved to his talk page should probably have been kept in the article, as it pertained to the article, even if it was about questioning a particular editor's motives. However, I also agree that this topic should have been brought up on NJGW's talk page in the first place, and only brought up in the article talk page if progress couldn't be made privately.

Please note that Wikiquette alerts is intended to help editors resolve interpersonal disputes so they can get back to constructive editing. For content discussions, please see WP:RFC and WP:3O. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunbs

User Axamir has repeatedly attempted to delete the Arabic names of these Iran-administered, UAE-claimed islands and to delete mention of the (well-cited) UAE claim. (Examples: [43] [44] [45], among many others.) For several weeks, he declined to justify these repeated deletions either through edit summaries or on the Talk pages. I have reverted these unexplained deletions, each time entreating Axamir to discuss them. He has responded with insults [46], threats [47], false statements [48], deletions of Talk page discussions[49] [50] [51], apparent sockpuppetry [52] [53] [54] and more reversions [55] [56]. Any assistance would be appreciated. PRRfan (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I invited User:Axamir to join this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston for your invitation to take part in this conversation.

The references the user PPRFAN refers his arguments to, are not valid references. I am afraid I can not accept propaganda. As for mentioning the name of an Iranian island in Arabic or any other languages other than the language of the native people of the island, I do not think it is necessary due to the fact that there are pages put up with those languages and people of those languages can read through those pages.

Here is what I propose, if the user, PPRFAN, is insisting on writing the name of the island in different languages: We can put up a headline at the end of the page and write the name of the island in Arabic and other languages. --Axamir (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Axamir, I'm afraid you'll have to do better than to dismiss references as "propaganda." You will have to demonstrate that those references are false and to provide references of your own. Remember, the point of the article is not to render a judgement about whether Iran or UAE has the valid claim on the islands; it is to properly note that such a dispute exists. Citations for the existence of such a dispute include these: Can you provide more persuasive references that no such claim exists? PRRfan (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PPRFAN: I can not go over this with you all the time. I keep explaining to you but you again take us to square one!!! Please do not mix things up. All I am trying to tell you is that these claims have not been accepted by United Nations and Iran. They were mentioned by UAE but due to lack of back up they were all rejected and they are counted as false claims by United Nations and also Iran.

Kindly provide references backing up your assertions. PRRfan (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to mention these in the page, they need to be placed with an headline, I emphasize with an headline, in the bottom of the page NOT in the introduction.

I am glad that you are justified about the redundancy of using foreign languages other than native language of the island residents in the English page.

I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence. PRRfan (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you to read valid sources like Britannica encyclopedia, and .... I will do a major editing of the page as I get some time. --Axamir (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And I encourage you to add references to such sources as you find. PRRfan (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Josepha Marschke

This user added information to pages that was unreferenced and in some cases patent nonsense. I reverted their edits, noting in one case that the edit was probably in good faith, but that as their other edits on the same day had all been reverted I was removing the information just in case. I gave them standard warnings regarding their edits on their talk page. Their response was to call me an "uneducated, pretentious jerk"[57]. I am ready to admit an error if they are able to verify a single edit, however would appreciate someone else stepping in to reaffirm my request not to make personal attacks. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Could you provide WP:Diffs of the underlying unreferenced edits? Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite happily.
    • [58] - In this edit (which has not been reverted) a name is given that gets zero ghits associated with the place, and the title of the reference with the author's name also gets zero ghits.
    • [59] - another edit with it's own reference. A search of the New York Times digital archive finds no mention whatsoever of the name given.
    • [60] - a search for the information provided produces a single ghit, of another wiki.
    • [61] - the name provided appears on a single website from a google search, as a client testimonial for a national park.
    • [62] - a google search shows that the person quoted wrote a paper on the Opium Wars for Harvard University in 2004, so to state that they took part is patent nonsense.
    • [63] - the edit that I admitted at the time was probably in good faith, but was reverted based on the user's edit history. In all honesty neither the new nor the old percentage agrees with the 68% quoted on The Lumberjack's Website.
  • That exhausts the entire edit history of this user. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • PS note that four of those edits have yet to be reverted. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User 68.236.36.160

Resolved

 – Advised editor to disengage from this and ignore the IP user. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I would appreciate some advice regarding User:68.236.36.160. This user has insulted me diff 1, diff 2, and asked for apologies for my good faith edits diff 3, diff 4 and I am tired of responding, so I deleted their comments from my talk page. I was under the impression that this was fine, as they're still in the history and I'd just prefer not to look at (or respond to) any more offensive comments from this user.

This seems quite low key compared to some of the other items on this page, so hopefully it will be relatively simple to address. Can you please confirm that it's fine for me to delete these comments, and that I haven't been uncivil when dealing with this user? I think I have been a bit snippy in the most recent remarks, but it's just tiring to log on to read another insult. Thanks for your time. Somno (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'd suggest trying to disengage from the IP User. Stop going back and forth between talk pages, stop commenting, stop reverting, stop deleting. The substance of the underlying edit disagreement is pretty minor and probably not worth a fight. It is, IMO, perfectly OK to delete the material from your usertalk page in any case - it will remain in history - just as long as you don't refactor by changing or deleting portions and leaving the remainder visible in order to change the meaning. However, the user may simply post the material again, so you may wish to just leave it there until the user stops watching your page actively and then archive it together with old discussions. The comments are definitely uncivil IMO, but anyone looking at them would recognize that and not likely hold it against you. If the other user is willing to talk, another form of dispute resolution may be in order, such as WP:TINMC - although I participate there at times, I would not involve myself since I've given an opinion here. However, mediation will not work if the other user isn't willing to discuss the matter and both parties willing to assume good faith. Another option might be to place a Request for Comment on either usertalk page per WP:CIV.

• On a side note, the other user seems to have a habit of not signing posts. You might want to take a look at WP:SIG for some templates for unsigned comments, I prefer {{unsigned}} which is used like: {{subst:unsigned|68.236.36.160|18:19, 31 January 2008}} to the IP specific ones because it allows others to see the contributions link. It may be difficult to do for the prior comments on your talk page since it has been deleted and moved several times, but for future comments you may wish to use this template so there is a record of who posted it and when.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Doug, it's reassuring to know that I am not at fault. When I first removed their attacks from my talk page, I didn't even consider that the user would have it on their watchlist, since they'd "dismissed" me twice - I figured they'd moved on! Strangely, this has all happened because I took the time to explain to the user why I had reverted one edit that they'd made (which the 2 other editors who'd also reverted the same edit hadn't done) - somehow this has made me the subject of 85% of the user's edits on Wikipedia. Crazy! I wish they had this enthusiasm for improving articles, not just attacking people. I will ignore any further communication from this user. Unfortunately they've now started complaining to another editor about me, after they gave the user a welcome message and a polite note to "comment on the edit, not the editor". I hope they also leave that user alone soon. Then it won't need to go any further.

Thanks for the note about how to sign posts on behalf of a user that hasn't signed; that's going to make messages clearer in the future if I'm communicating with another person who doesn't sign, and I didn't know about that before.

I appreciate you reviewing the case. Mostly, thanks for taking the time to "listen" (technically it's not listening, but you know what I mean!). It's very disheartening to be a polite editor who assumes good faith, yet receive nasty messages every time I login. I have received similar messages before after reverting vandalism, but those users have moved on to other things (or been blocked for vandalism) shortly afterwards. Anyway, thanks again! Somno (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the other editor can teach the IP user something. I'm glad this helped. I'll mark it resolved if that's OK. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any other questions.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield (creature) and Verifiability

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

---

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – issue best addressed at WP:RSN. DanielEng (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

Various users have attempted to add that the "creature"'s name is "Clover". The source of this comes from this website: [64]. It directs you to "click here for the production notes." That takes you to a page that has a list of quotations, but no mention of authorship, copyright, source, nor any verifiable set of information. The section that claims the crew believed the monster was called "Clover" is not quoted nor given a direct citation. Vary claims that the cite meets WP:Verifiability although it lacks an author's name. Furthermore, she claims that "Jeff Giles" is reputable enough to be taken for his word, although he does not back up his data, and that I believe he is a blogger, since he is posting in a user area for regular user critiques of movies, and that his homepage, according to [[65]] is the continuation of his blog, "http://www.jefitoblog.com". I objected to Vary posting that information, and it has lead to her constant denial about the issue, along with her defense of the source as proper. Her argument seems self-contradictory, and the reason why she continues it is incredibly confusing. But that is not the matter. The matter is the issue involved: is such a link verifiable and how do you address such? Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue, as well as the specific website rottentomatoes, would best be addressed at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Having read WP:SPS, which says that a blog is a self-published source and cannot be considered reliable, I would be inclined to agree with you, but I'd advise putting it out there on RSN so you can get an 'official' neutral opinion on whether or not the sources can be used as is. Good luck! Best, DanielEng (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Zenwhat

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

---

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere

 – issues have either been resolved or are already under discussion at two other noticeboards. DanielEng (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Without entering into any discussion with me at all, Zenwhat apparently has decided to characterize me. He continues to make public reference to me with perjorative terminology; ignoring the noticeboard rules, WP:NPA, WP:ATWV, and WP:DONTBITE. In his ANI, I am referred to variously as a "conspiracy theorist pusher," a "vandal," "troll," "editor with bad faith," and "possible sockpuppet." In his FTN, I am implied to be a " crank."

Overall, the attempt feels to be focused on marginalizing me, and driving away any further verifiable (perhaps, controversial) edits.

Thank you for any advisement on this matter. BigK HeX (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this is both a content and a personality dispute, but both are already being addressed: this issue is already under discussion at ANI and FTN. Both noticeboards are patrolled more thoroughly by administrators than WQA. I noticed that the sockpuppet issue has also already been addressed by another admin who determined you're not a sock. Zenwhat's contributions and motives will be scrutinized at ANI and FTN as much as yours will be, and if there are any personal attacks happening, they will be addressed there. It's better to allow the discussions to happen there instead of bringing them to a third forum. Best, DanielEng (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that I didn't bring this here. Someone else copied this here without my direct acquiescence. As I am unsure of policy, I did not protest it being copied, though. BigK HeX (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but it really doesn't belong here. Putting the exact same issue in different noticeboards is considered to be forum shopping, and while I don't think it violates any particular Wiki policy, it's generally frowned upon. Also, it's never a good idea to let someone copy/paste your words this way on your behalf, without indicating that they've done so. Looking at the page history and diffs it's obvious now that you didn't file this yourself, but anything with your user signature is going to be attributed directly to you--so protect it well in future. I'm going to leave a note for AdHoc about this. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My claim about "monetary crankery" on WP:FTN wasn't specifically with regards to you, but the content of the article. I didn't mention your name and I've used the same term in several postings of several different articles not involving you.

I referred to your behavior on Monetary policy of the USA as "trolling" on WP:ANI. [66] If any of the administrators there thought it was uncivil, they could've made that comment. On the contrary, some of them recommended that I put in a checkuser request, which I intend to do.

Starting a new thread about uncivility on WP:ANI about a thread just a few threads back, then posting about this in WP:WQA seems like a classic case of Wikilawyering. Please stop attempting to own Monetary policy of the USA. If you're truly extremely biased as you've acknowledged, and have in good faith been misled by several fringe sources on monetary policy, as you've acknowledged, it might be a good idea for you to edit something else besides stuff related to monetary theory and Ron Paul. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, looking at the diffs for this page, BHx is right--someone else apparently copied and pasted this from ANI, using BhX's sig.[67]. I'm leaving a note for the editor who brought this here, because it seems as though it shouldn't have been done. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I didn't notice that. Doesn't seem appropriate for them to do that [68] or for them to remove your comments when you comment on their talkpage to complain. [69] Writing in the edit summary "no opinion," is absurd, because if the person didn't believe the claim had merit, say, if it was blatant gibberish, they wouldn't re-post it.

However, BigK HeX does seem to be aware of this posting, since he made revisions to it immediately after it was posted. [70] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the editor who originally brought this here has been over on my Talk Page leaving comments, but is deleting them from his/her own page. *shrug* Not a big deal. Unless there are other opinions, I'm content to leave this as a closed case and let it run its course elsewhere. DanielEng (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Paul Harald Kaspar and Talk:Wachovia Spectrum

Paul Harald Kaspar has repeatedly deleted the same chunk of text on Wachovia Spectrum, and another user has filed a request at Requests for Mediation on it. This may be overlapping, but I'm more concerned about the user conduct issues. If you read Talk:Wachovia Spectrum#Wrestling content, he repeatedly calls the other editors "wrestling fan kids" and finally accuses the two editors disagreeing with him of being sockpuppets.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that he has refused mediation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Abusiveness (not directed at me)

I'm a third party happening to observe this; I am not directly involved.

Can we get a block on this user for edits like this and like this where he is verbally abusive to another, established (and rationale... one who pulls me back down when necessary)? There is no need, no matter what, for any WikiUser to have to put up with this sort of language directed at him/her. I went back 100 edits also and found this seems to be a matter of course for this editor. Seems like a pattern of bad behavior. VigilancePrime (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming here to report this. A more complete history has been compiled by Dreaded Walrus, which I copy here from User talk:Blue eyes gold dragon.

Incidents of incivility: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82].

Warnings issued: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91].

Thank you for considering this. Pairadox (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a user I have been familiar with in the past: See User talk:Dreaded Walrus#I dont delete warnings, or banning templates, which is in response to this, and User talk:Dreaded Walrus#Talk:Pokémon Gold and Silver, which is in response to this. I've been lenient, and civil in the past as this editor has always been easy to wind up, and sometimes a few kind words help (see the first discussion on my talk page I link above, for example), but as we've seen today, doing some good editing does not excuse limitless incivility. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

thats me! block me for as long as you want, i wont have much internet access anyway--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 09:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

and just so you know i wasnt being a smartass above, 2 weeks till i go to another isp and a lot of time without the net :( --Blue-EyesGold Dragon 10:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)