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

Personal attack and uncivil behaviour by User:Shah 88

• Shah 88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to report WP:CIVIL and WP:NICE violations on the User:Shah 88, he constantly refer to me with derogatory names such as "indon" or barbarian, as in Talk:2010 AFF Suzuki Cup. Although I already ask him nicely not to do so, but he insist as in his talkpage User talk:Shah 88. Some of anonymous personal attack on my talk page appear after dispute with him. (Gunkarta (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

Actually if I were reporting this I would have escalated this to "Incidents" rather than just Wikiquett" doe to the relentless misbehaviour (which also includes 3RRR violations). Specific evidence of Shah 88's uncivil postings can be found [[1]], [[2]], and even in his [summaries] despite warnings by editors to cease and desist. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

For those not in the know, "Indon" is a very offensive term of abuse for Indonesians. Adding the word Barbarian just makes it a little worse. --Merbabu (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

personal attacks and uncivil comments by User:TimothyRias

• TimothyRias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#wikipedia_is_a_great_source_of_info_for_just_about_anything.2C_with_one_exception:_mathematics. Kevin Baas^talk 23:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

an example from the discussion: "[kevin baas] is a case in point, it is basically a troll. It appears [he] wanted nothing short than a flame war for his own entertainment. If not, he just has very poor people and motivational skills."

my grievances (the more applicable ones):

• personal attacks
• bad faith
• incivility
• discussing editors rather than content

and on a more personal note i brought up these grievances with him and asked him to stop and he refused to even apologize.

Kevin Baas^talk 23:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(note: the following was posted after cyclopia commented, after i saw i'm supposed to give diffs:)

diffs: here's an example of what i'm talking about: [3]

i expressed my grievances and what not: [4]

declined: [5]

Kevin Baas^talk 23:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• I had a look at the discussion and I have to say that TimothyRias is partially right: Kevin Baas is probably in good faith, so not technically a troll. But posting vague, hardly constructive complaints and then taking great offense at basically every criticism of his posting and calling a link to WP:SOFIXIT as a response "wildly out of proportion" is close to disruptive. Kevin, please learn the distinction between standard criticism (even if a bit blunt) and personal attacks and yes, it appears you have poor interpersonal skills (which is not an insult, but an observation: I have quite poor skills myself, but I try to learn at least). --Cyclopia^talk 23:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• clearly there are some more distinctly left to be made. which is not an insult, just an observation. (to give but one example, as i've already made clear in that discussion, expecting me to fix all of wikkipeida is ofcourse wildly out of proportion. there is nothing disruptive about saying say, it is simply a statement of fact. certainly if such things aren't allowed than there are much bigger problems.) i thought this was the place to get some kind of helpful mediation when people are violating social rules of wikipedia. (to put it somewhat plainly) i know what those rules are and i have stated them and i have given examples. i guess that means i can't take criticism and can't simply accept being treated uncivily and having my person attacked when of course i should. Kevin Baas^talk 00:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Likewise, I have to side with Tim and Cyclopia here. You come in WP:MATH and basically says "Math articles suck", and not much else. This is pretty much a textbook case of trolling. Even though you might not have meant it that way, that's how it comes across. Compare "wikipedia is a great source of info for just about anything, with one exception: mathematics[...] [It is] as if there are a number of people who are actively making it worse." with something like "I browsed several maths article (examples) and I found them to be very dense and hard to understand, is there a way to make maths articles more accessible?" Likewise, you're very quick to jump on the WP:WIKILAWYERING train, as examplified by your reply ("i don't know who you're talking about, unless "OP" refers to "original poster", which is pretty transparent, i.e. you might as well use the person's name. it doesn't make it any less of a personal attack, which is strictly prohibited.) to an innocuous statement that's as far removed from a personal attack as it gets ("As for the discussion at hand, the OP's original comment was certainly not the best way to approach this issue.") So yeah, in a nutshell, be less abrasive / more constructive, learn to collaborate with people who don't agree with you, and if you want others to WP:AGF with you, you need to WP:AGF of others as well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  i acknowledge that the way i started came off a bit brash. and i regret that. but two wrongs don't make a right. certaintly you don't mean to condone his behavior? but that is what you are effectively doing. as to "wikilawyering" well i am just saying i would like to be treated like a human being and if there's something wrong with that; if you find that objectionable, well then i have clearly come to the wrong place. i told him what i didn't like and asked him to stop before elevating, and for having done this diligence you accuse me of being petty. i have held my tongue and for quite some time and continue to do so. i have also been accused of not being able to take criticism. but you look at the very section of the talk page that i refer you to and you can clearly see from my interactions with others that that is not the case. in spite of timothy's attacks, bad faith, and incivility, which you apparenlty dont have a problem with, i am having much more productive discussion which people who are being much more civil and polite and -- if i may -- much more mature. in fact, that such interaction leads to more productive behavior is precisely why we (and society in general) have such rules! so go on condoning that behavior and i will go on finding more fruitful discussion with people who don't behave that way. (oh, and i have gone out of my way to assume good faith, holding my tongue quite a bit, where others lacked such restraint.) Kevin Baas^talk 00:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• you don't mean to condone his behavior? : Yes I mean exactly that. Usually I wouldn't but what you did was very easy to understand as trolling, and your conduct in the discussion was overly tiresome. So he is entirely justified.

no. that is never justified.

• i would like to be treated like a human being : And everyone did that. If you don't understand the difference between taking criticism and being treated inhumanely, that's your problem, sorry. Grow a skin.

no they did not. i do understand the difference. apparently you do not. fortunately there are others on the talk page in question who do. maybe one day you will too.

• you can clearly see from my interactions with others that that is not the case. : Yes it is. You look like, from that interactions, that you are utterly unable to take criticism.

and he doesn't even look! wow. utterly pointless.

• oh, and i have gone out of my way to assume good faith : I don't dare to image what happened if you didn't, then. --Cyclopia^talk 00:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

you need not imagine, only to see what other parties have said where i could just have easily said the same thing and be far more justified in doing so but choose not to. from what you said, from what you condone, suffice it to say i do not have high esteem for your moral reasoning ability. and i really don't like talking to you. you certainly don't make for a very good mediator. frankly, you don't sound like a very nice person, either. i think it would be more constructive if you let someone else take the wheel. Kevin Baas^talk 01:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing to mediate. You're wrong in this case, that's it. --Cyclopia^talk 01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

oh, if only the world were ever so clear and simple! "but beware, most of all, of convictions, for they are worse enemies to truth than even lies!" - paraphasing Nietzsche (the aphorism, by the way, is an allusion to the fact that a lie can be discovered and corrected whereas a conviction, by definition, cannot.) anycase i'm well aware of your opinion. you stated it plainly right away befer even looking at all the facts, and the ones you have aren't even correct. so forgive me if i don't give it much weight. Kevin Baas^talk 01:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) oh, and the most ironic part of all this is that i am one of very few people who is actually engaging in constructive discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics with others and yet i'm the one with "bad people skills" and "bad motivational skills"! if that's "bad people skills" and "bad motivational skills", then i'll take it any day over the alternative. Kevin Baas^talk 00:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

oh geez, and i just noticed, you're not even looking at the right person's comments! Timothy, not RobHar! I posted the diffs! Robhar is the one i'm having the constructive discussion with! Kevin Baas^talk 01:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

frankly, you don't sound like a very nice person, either. - And now it is you engaging in personal attacks (even if mild ones). Cool. And I don't get the "right person's comments": I am talking of you and only you. --Cyclopia^talk 01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

hey, i said i was being frank. and i'm just saying how you are coming off to me right now. so i am only _now_ engaging in personal attacks? i thought you said before that i was just vicious, that you'd hate to see me not being polite! well now you have seen me not being polite. scary, right? okay. well i am talking of timothy. you were talking before about robhar, who i dont have a problem with. i'm sorry if i confused you but posted this notice was not my invitation for you to start saying mean things about me and only me. the intention was really for people to look at what other people have said to me, and in particular timothy (not rob, who i don't have a problem with). so now that we've cleared that up... well, i don't think there's much left to say. except it would be nice if somebody else with a more constructive approach, who actually has an interest in considering the diffs i presented, would "take the wheel", as it were, as this clearly isn't going anywhere. Kevin Baas^talk 01:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:BOOMERANG. --Cyclopia^talk 01:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

why should i read anything when you don't even look at my diffs? when you don't even care that you're demonstrably wrong about e.g. how i responded to other criticism (e.g. i responded to robhar's criticism with "you make some good points", certainly not indicative of "thin skin".). sorry, you're not even listening anymore (if you ever were) so if it had any relevance it would be accidental, anyways. and due to your failure to get the facts straight - or care - you've lost all credibility with me. Kevin Baas^talk 01:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

though i might just out of curiousity. oh... curiosity. not good for cats. Kevin Baas^talk 01:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WHAT?!? oh please. you are incorrigible. you're not even listening. Kevin Baas^talk 02:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This report is out of proportion to the comment made by TimothyRias. I noticed this report after reading WT:WikiProject Mathematics#wikipedia is a great source of info for just about anything, with one exception: mathematics., and I saw that the discussion there got a little tense. However, that tenseness seemed justified to me, given the lack of information provided in what amounts to a complaint that the vast majority of mathematics articles are poor. Of course there are many mathematics articles which are not accessible to general readers (due to the nature of the topic), but there was no case made about such a problem in an article which we may hope could be made significantly more accessible. People who robustly report a claimed problem without providing details should expect some robust replies. The report that "he refused to even apologize" is not a correct summary of the reply. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, how basically one remark can be blown completely out of proportion. In my defense, if you consider the plaintiff's open post of the thread at WT:MATH — which consisted of a generic complaint without any particular constructive input and a blanket insult to the community he was addressing — and his consecutive behavior, which consisted mostly of aggressively attacking responses that did not agree with him, the conclusion that this poster was in fact trolling seemed by far the most logical.

My response was to another user (user:WhatamIdoing) that commented, that the WP Math community is generally not amenable to this type of criticism. My response to him was that, the response of the community is hardly surprising, given the general tone with it is brought, for which I brought up the present thread's starting post. I probably should have just not said anything at all.

I, however, contrary to the plaintiff's claim, did offer to apologize, on the condition that he do so as well for issuing a blanket insult to the community. Instead of doing so, he instead decided to go straight here.TimothyRias (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Tim, perhaps you should have just not said anything at all. That's what I decided to do when, shortly after my comment, I noticed this and this and this, looking more like Usenet trolling than like Wiki-collaboration—highly inappropriate. Of course you could have known that offering an apology on some condition usually doesn't work, but, on the other hand, sometimes even an unconditional apology fails to register. Anyway, I think that coming here was not a very good idea. DVdm (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully support Kevin on this issue, with some further clarification. The problem is a cultural one over at WikiProject Mathematics. They are collectively a VERY arrogant group. A bunch of prima donnas they are. Kevin brought up a legitimate issue in a civil manner, and since it calls into question the activity of the WP mathematicians he has inevitably gotten this response. He is not a troll AT ALL. He brought up a valid criticism, and the some of the people which he has indirectly criticized are not mature enough to engage civilly or too myopic to see that his point is 100% correct.Greg Bard (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This sort of attack on a group of editors is not at all helpful. The context for Gregbard's comments can be seen here [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw that thread, read it, and learned from it that there is a useful site called MathOverflow. For reasons that should be obvious I decided not to post to that thread. I don't know why I am posting to the present thread. Maybe bad judgement. Hans Adler 13:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in the broader perspective, both User:Kevin Baas and User:Gregbard have been in conflict with WikiProject Mathematics, over their pushing of OR into mathematical articles. And they have both (in different ways) reacted to this situation, not by taking the trouble to go to the literature and craft some additions to the articles that would take the content forward, but by being combative. Kevin, in particular, assumes that a bluffer has to be taken seriously, when that is not the case. The fact that provocation sometimes succeeds in provoking reaction is hardly surprising. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey charles. i see you haven't changed a bit. still the same --- er --- well, let's just say you haven't gotten any more civil. or humble, for that matter. or any less condescending. i was hoping to see some improvement. Kevin Baas^talk 19:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and why i'm here, tim, you should know that there's no such thing as a conditional apology. a conditional apology is just not an apology. among other things wrong with all that. maybe in time you'll start to realize them. i really don't have the patience to explain. frankly, i'm already too disgusted with all of the behavior i'm seeing. Kevin Baas^talk 19:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

the aim of course, was to bring attention to people with cooler heads to a situation where ettiquette was clearly failing before it spiraled out of control. obvioulsy i came to the wrong place. (or in any case didn't get the right people.) ettiquete _here_ is even _more_ abysmal. oh, the irony. Kevin Baas^talk 19:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My apology would be completely non-conditional and heart-felt, if you would give me reason think that you were acting out of good faith, by apologizing and saying that you had no intention of insulting the community. Your refusal to do so, however, only asserts that your insult to the community was in fact intentional, which makes my original assertion of your motivation correct and leaves me with no reason to apologize to you.TimothyRias (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, Kevin (and this is a sincere question) do you think that your own behaviour here and on WT:MATH is civil?

WP:Harassment by User:Jehochman

• Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Allegations of Jewish control of the media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Jehochman has continued to attack and harass me with a mischaracterization of my current views based on a 7.5 year old off-Wikipedia email rant made in 2003 when I was upset because of getting documented death threats from a pro-Iraq war/pro-Israel individual. He has brought this up several times on the talk page, plus other venues, including a WP:ANI complaint, which he was chided for. Please advise me if I should bring this to WP:ANI and/or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, especially since he is an administrator who is supposed to set an example not engage in harassment activity. Or feel free to take relevant steps if you are an administrator who thinks it can and should be handled from here. (Note: Since I'm banned from User:Jehochman's talk page, I have posted notice of this on the relevant talk page.) [Note: Another editor just brought the final issue to WP:ANI, and I alerted them to this, so now it's really getting confusing!!]

• User:Jehochman was uncivil when I first complained he had reverted to the old name of an article without consulting anyone on on the talk page - getting a reprimand from another article for his hostility.See this and two previous diffs.
• User:Jehochman brought his complaints to WP:ANI and was soundly told both by other editors to stop it. As the closer wrote: An admin should know better than to come to ANI with what amounts to "I don't like this user's POV". Especially as within this topic any ANI thread is likely to be unpleasantly conflictual. Yes, we could continue talking here until the cows come home and accuse each other of POV-pushing... but let's not.
• User:Jehochman tried to get me to stop editing the article at this diff with my response.
• User:Jehochman brought this issue up again in this current threat at Disruptive editing talk page and I replied:

Read WP:Harass. Bringing up old incidents on wikipedia over and over is bad enough. Bringing up old incidents from 7.5 years ago OFF wikipedia is really absurd. Find current evidence on wikipedia, not off-wikipedia internet researching of some strong POV I have (as I have found abundant evidence of yours here) and use that. Or do you think opposition research on Wikipedia is fine and dandy and oppose the outing policy?

He then deleted the comments here and here, only referring to the holidays, not my concrete complaint.

• User:Jehochman In an edit summary at this diff threatened me and other editors with “a trip to ArbCom” if we disputed or reverted his edit. He failed to respond on the talk page when at this diff I complained about the threat and asked him why he did not follow established WP:Dispute resolution processes.
• User:Jehochman again brought up the issue to which another editor and I politely replied “please focus on the issues at hand.” All three comments at this diff.
• User: Jehochman in response created [responded to] here a straw poll on the talk page demanding I share my current views, meanwhile mischaracterizing them, which was removed by another editor at this diff. But which another editor reinstated and is in this section. [Later note: because User:Jehochman was first person to respond at the edit summary labeled "Straw poll" I mistakenly thought he created it; easy to do when one is under constant attack!]

As the article history shows, I have done many constructive edits on this article in the last couple weeks. However, User:Jehochman's constant harassment - and his refusal to answer another editor with similar concerns about his edits - remakes it difficult for me to work to improve the article. Any help appreciated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything useful in the diffs you provided to support your concerns. A good read of the essay currently under development at Wikipedia:Activist may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Essays do not trump policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Essays describe the behavior of editors who put up no diffs at WQA of policy violations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That particular essay describes little but the mindset of those who created it, and are unwilling to accept that others see things differently - see its talk page for evidence of why it is a spectacularly bad example of the very thing it purports to condemn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And how is your post related to Jehochmans' or Carolmooredc's editing behavior? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It was you that attempted to cite the essay as relevant. Given the controversy around it, I felt this was giving inappropriate weight to a work-in-progress which incidentally has nothing to do with Carolmooredc's Wikiquette alert concerning the misuse of an article talk page (unless you were suggesting that this misuse was carried out by an 'activist', in which case surely it should be him/her that would need to read it). AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not surprising that various editors who'd like to use Wikipedia for advocacy would dispute an essay that identifies their behavior as a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'm not surprised at AndyTheGrump's characterization, after I most clearly stated that it was an "an essay currently under development". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Response from Jehochman

CarolmoorDC has been heavily involved in editing articles on anti-semitism, Israel, and Judaism. She is self-described activist who has apparently imported real life battles into Wikipedia. I am involved in these discussions, acting in the capacity of an ordinary editor, not as an administrator. Please see:

• She has talked about, "Dealing with the nefarious influence of Israel Firsters on Congress and in the media (which is mostly owned and/or controlled by pro-Zionists, mostly Jews)..."
• Discussion from July 2010
• Current page naming dispute at Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media

All editors should be reminded that it is not outing when an editor disclosed that they edit under their own name, and self-discloses their off-wiki activities. Every editor should be aware of what topics they have problems writing neutrally about, and stay away from them. They should especially avoid disputed editing of those topics, actively having a conflict of interest, or creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such editing damages the reputation of Wikipedia. When an editor fails to self-regulate, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the problem.

I consider her filing here to be retaliatory and thus, bad faith. Jehochman ^Talk 16:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As for civility, CarolmooreDC, did you once say,

"Sharon would love to have Hamas killing American troops, just like he's delighted to see them killing Jews, since it makes his facist goals of "leibenstraum" and grabbing the rest of Israel that much easier by inflaming the public."? [7]

Can you explain why you shouldn't be banned from all topics related to Israel and Judaism? We already have enough problems in those areas without radical ideologues joining the battle. Jehochman ^Talk 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The topic here is your harassment after multiple editors have rejected your claims, as I evidence above. [Later note: And the Sharon comment was from a 2003 off-wikipedia email, 3 years before I started editing here. Not relevant as the WP:ANI I refer to above found.] CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, the topic at WQA (as any DR forum) is the behavior of all involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you still think that "Sharon would love to have Hamas killing American troops, just like he's delighted to see them killing Jews"? Do you still think that "Dealing with the nefarious influence of Israel Firsters on Congress and in the media (which is mostly owned and/or controlled by pro-Zionists, mostly Jews)" is a priority? Coming to Wikipedia to push an activist agenda is not acceptable. No matter how superficially polite you are, no matter how well you've learned to use wiki-process to intimidate and stifle your perceived opponents, it is still not acceptable. Jehochman ^Talk 16:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit weird to say the least, Jehochman, why are you spamming comments made 7 1/2 years ago all over wikipedia? You were previously told at ANI that you should open an RfC/user to bring a case, yet instead you use the talk pages of articles and indeed a WQA thread that tries to address your problematic behavior continue pasting excerpts. un☯mi 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like my concerns to be addressed on the merits. Why are we allowing a self-avowed activist to repeatedly spin articles according to her world view? This is not right. I don't like to jump to WP:RFC/U if a simple discussion might lead to a proper resolution. I also want to get feedback from uninvolved editors. At the moment there is very little uninvolved feedback here. You commented previously, so your thoughts (while potentially valid) are not adding any fresh perspectives. Jehochman ^Talk 17:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, Unomi, Jehochman did not bring this WQA, but he does need to defend himself, since Carolmoore did not bring an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he needs to defend the actions that were cited as reason to open the WQA, the proper way to do that is surely not to continue in the same vein? Jehochmans defence above seems to be consist of stating he is doing it in the interest of wikipedia in order to expose "having a conflict of interest, or creating the appearance of a conflict of interest", yet previously at ANI he was told to open an RfC/U if he felt he had a case - he is likely also aware of the existence of WP:COIN (which is exactly about this), so why is he doing the same thing he was told at ANI not to do? un☯mi 17:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The ANI thread admin said, nothing actionable here, try WP:RFC. I prefer not to start RFC/U's if at all possible because they take a lot of time that could be better spent other ways. Your suggestion of WP:COIN is a good one. I will try that next time there is a problem, and only if that fails would I escalate to RFC/U. I did not start the current thread, so don't criticize me for responding to an attack on my character! It is not harassment to raise concerns about apparent violations of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Jehochman ^Talk 17:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to belabor the point but the ANI admin said: An admin should know better than to come to ANI with what amounts to "I don't like this user's POV"., I don't think that was an invitation to repeat the same behavior on an article talk page in the form of a strawpoll, though I suppose we may want to ask the admin in question for clarification. I think the easiest way to close this thread asap is if you acknowledge that your actions were inappropriate and I would also recommend that you in the future rely on evidence of inappropriate editing in the form of actual diffs of such editing rather than referring to very old off-wiki comments. un☯mi 18:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've presented links and diffs and would like my concerns to be addressed. CarolMooreDC has filed a frivolous and retaliator complaint against me. I didn't start this thread -- she did. I didn't start the straw poll you mentioned. Somebody else did. Please don't try to blame me for something started by another editor. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable for the editors of an article to discuss the question of who has been disrupting the progress of that article. It is not an inappropriate talk page topic. Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I was under the impression that you started the strawpoll, I see now that it was Spaceclerk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In general I find that talkpage discussions are at their most fruitful when they focus on edits rather than editors. It is getting a bit late here, I will look at the diffs you have mentioned and comment after some sleep. un☯mi 18:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

FUI, at WP:dispute resolution wikiettiquette alerts is mentioned as a move to be taken before WP:RFC and in fact I ask if a WP:Rfc is appropriate at the top of this complaint. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(←) "Furthermore, it is not unreasonable for the editors of an article to discuss the question of who has been disrupting the progress of that article. It is not an inappropriate talk page topic." I disagree. The guideline "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." seems a very good one here. An editor's contributions may be criticised -- discussion of their behaviour should be taken elsewhere. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked over the article and talk page in question or any of the diffs, or are you just reciting the general principle? Jehochman ^Talk 19:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reminding people of general principles and asking them to evaluate their own conduct in the context of established guidelines is often a way forward. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In general we comment on content, not contributors. But there are exceptions such as cases of conflict of interest or sock puppetry. The present issue has been from the start a matter of WP:COI or WP:ADVOCACY that has manifest because the user is making WP:NPOV-questionable edits that happen to line up with their highly public advocacy. We are not required to ignore obvious problems that impact the editing of our articles. I'd like my concerns to be addressed on the merits. If you think CarolMooreDC's editing complies with WP:NPOV and WP:COI, please say so, but please do look into the matter. Please don't be dismissive of my concerns. Resolving this will require looking at Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media. Jehochman ^Talk 20:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am neither dismissing nor endorsing your concerns, and I am not saying that CarolMooreDC's editing does, or does not, comply with WP:NPOV and WP:COI. What I am saying that an article talk page is not the place to make comments about an editor. If you think that an editor's contributions to an article are WP:NPOV-questionable, then it should be possible to explain your concerns on the article talk page with reference to those edits. It is not necessary to discuss the editor on that page. For the situations you describe where it might be appropriate to comment on an editor as such, we have boards such as those you already link to. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It should be sufficient to answer concerns wherever they are raised, or else an uninvolved editor should feel free to move a thread to a more appropriate place (and leave a link). My point is that the concerns need to be addressed. Constantly trying to stiffle concerns with "wrong venue" objections is not productive. Part of the purpose of the discussion was to try to determine what the next step should be, what the most appropriate venue would be. Thank you for your feedback. I've posted my concerns to WP:COIN. Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion continues at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#CarolMooreDC.

(ec) I think that you should have considered moving the "straw poll" to a more appropriate place yourself. Who is trying to stifle your concerns? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. As an involved party it would be inviting much criticism for me to move something that way. I didn't start the straw poll; somebody else did. It wasn't up to me to move it. Jehochman ^Talk 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So you thought it should have been moved? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not the location where I would have started the discussion. Kenilworth, do you have any idea how frustrating it is to spend weeks trying to talk sense to somebody, and they just keep going on and on and on, impervious to any feedback? I just want the problem resolved. I want concerns to be addressed, and I don't care whether that happens here, there or some place else. Would somebody please look into the substance of the matter and stop the endless wikilawyering. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but you need to initiate the discussion in the correct forum. If you want to resolve an issue about an editor's bias, start a discussion in RFC/U or ANI. If you want a content issue resolved in an article, start an RFC. You are wasting everyones time by discussing matters in the wrong forum. --Noleander (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I hear you, sir, but I'm being sent in circles. Wherever I go with my concerns, various editors pop up and object to the forum, or say to go some place else. Everybody just keeps passing the buck. Jehochman ^Talk 21:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Jehochman

Anyone who reads Jehochman allegations (two of which refer to same 2003 email) can see there is "no contemporaneous there, there" which is why he must resort to harassment. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that accusing another editor of harassment without evidence is, well, harassment, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The contemporareous evidence can be viewed at Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media. A user simply needs to read that page to see the style of your editing. As for article space, your contributions are often tendentious, repeatedly attempting to legitimize the false and anti-semitic slander that Jews control the media.[8][9][10] Moreover, you have never retracted your 2003 remarks. Once you say something bigoted, you own that position until you renounce it. Given the alignment between your stated fringe position and your current editing, what are we to conclude? Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

USer:SandyGeorge: please note that the subject of this complaint IS documented harassment by User:Jehochman.

User:Jehochman: I doubt anyone but someone with your own strong POV will find those edits problematic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What strong POV do I have? That saying "Jews control the media" is an anti-semitic lie? This is a well documented fact in scholarly literature. Jehochman ^Talk 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

J, I suggest you disengage for the moment and let the facts speak for themselves. Carol, WQA will look at the behavior of all involved, including yourself. WP:BOOMERANGs can be nasty. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Jehochman's incendiary comment on "antisemitic lie" (i.e., the use of "canard" in the article): Please note that at both this NPOV discussion to take canard out of the title and this Jehochman requested move to change the name of the article to include “canard,” numerous editors rejected canard as the primary description of the allegations. That Jehochman nevertheless moved out of the lead evidence that myth and conspiracy theory are used more frequently and by more academic and journalistic WP:RS than canard is one of the subjects of this talk page thread where another editor agrees with me. Jehochman did not respond with wiki policy arguments but launched a personal attack on me on the talk page - thus my complaint here.

User:HandThatFeeds: Thanks for the reminder. I believe my on wikipedia behavior has been exemplary, considering the constant attacks for something said in the heat of the moment off wikipedia 7.5 years ago. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Crossposting this in hopes that it helps.Original post, tweaked below

Carol, to facilitate communication, you may post to my talk page hereafter. I'd prefer to de-escalate this conflict and resolve concerns directly. You are welcome to ask me about my conflicts. I do not have any conflict of interest in this area. I am not employed or obligated to anybody regarding this topic. I've got nothing to gain or lose in the outcome. COI is a difficult question because there's no easy way to know where to draw the line. My request to you would be twofold: (1) Disavow any past comments you made that you don't currently support. If you do that, I promise not to raise them again, and will correct anybody else who tries to do so. (2) Avoid making edits that look like you are trying to move the coverage to be more positive or more negative to align with your off-wiki advocacy activities. The guiding principle is that when other good faith editors start to object to your editing, step back and ask yourself "Am I helping or hindering the process?" What's especially odd is that you and I probably would agree about a good many things, yet here we are having a big, unproductive disagreement. Jehochman ^Talk 18:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I am glad I can come to your talk page with my concerns.

Please specify the wikipedia policy that says I have to disavow comments made off wikipedia 7.5 years ago or otherwise explain in detail my current POV? I have been thinking of rewriting that email in line with what I would have written if I had not been so upset/ticked off by death threats, but I don't think it would be appropriate for me to link to that from wikipedia.

Since I also have current comments of yours I could quote that I think are very POV and problematic, please tell me if there is a wikipedia policy where I can ask you to change those?

You write: COI is a difficult question because there's no easy way to know where to draw the line. That would depend on the specifics.

The most recent objections to my editing (leading to the Straw poll which I do note above was created by someone else) were regarding the same questions both I and User:Noleander had. He was not attacked and our concerns were not answered. So I don't see a process of discussion of issues at the talk page yet at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not wikilawyer here. There's no policy requiring you to disavow your previous statements, but it'd go a long way towards showing good faith. The entire point here is for both of you to calm down, stop sniping and edit cooperatively, not nitpick policies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman, you argument gets across really strange. You are talking as if being an Anti-Semite would be disallowed on Wikipedia. As if it's policy to completely suppress such views here. Why don't you just point out when a user edits disruptive ? Without commenting on his views, just for balanced and neutral articles ? I don't like such views but just trying to suppress them did never work. 217.235.16.127 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not accusing anyone of anti-Semitism. 217.235.16.127 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a regular account? If so, please login and claim your edits. Thank you. Yes, being an Anti-Semite and editing articles about Jewish topics in a way that overtly or subtly violates WP:NPOV would be a big problem on Wikipedia. Being Anti-Russian and editing articles about Russia that way would be equally problematic. We have enough trouble with these articles that we don't need editors who come here with a publicly disclosed positions that cast strong suspicions over whether their edits comply with WP:NPOV. Jehochman ^Talk 20:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No I got no account. I know that there can be a COI, that was not my point. But you are getting across as if just the POV would be disallowed, which it isn't as long as it doesn't lead to unbalanced articles. There might well be a problem but I think you should focus on the edits and not the POV of the user. 217.235.16.127 (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've cited diffs above. The user's edits all point to weakening the historically accurate claim that "Jews control the media" was a malicious lie started by anti-semites. CarolMooreDC's editing of the topic generally aims to legitimize the claim, contrary to what the majority of mainstream sources say. She is quite tenacious and posts so many talk page comments that she tends to overwhelm the discussion and frustrates the formation of any consensus that disagrees with her own view. That's my concern in a nutshell, and I'd really like some uninvolved editors to take a look and address the matter on the merits. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Racism is one of the few things not tolerated on Wikipedia. People can be (and have been) banned for being racists, regardless of their edits. Usually their behavior gets them blocked first, but ethnic conflicts are a raw nerve and result in close scrutiny with little wiggle room. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, most racists will attack other users (indirectly) by just stating their views. Just wanted to say that suppressing such views completely is not an effective way to deal with them. Cheers! 217.235.16.127 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — 217.235.16.127 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's often the only way to deal with them on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for collegial, cooperative edting. Racism is not just detrimental, but has a chilling effect on other editors. There's no point tolerating it, and allowing other editors to be intimidated. But, this is getting off-topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I aqm not an expert on this sort of thiing (and have never been her before) but when an edds (admin or otehrwise) launches a series of ANI and otehr attacks on a single user over POV issues (at least one of which has been turned down) it does look a bit like harrisment. Perhaps it might help if Jehochman agreed to disiengage from this and allow oterh admins to deal with hte problom.Slatersteven (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to get another admin or editor to step up to the plate and review the matter in depth. Nobody has come forward yet. All I've been getting are suggestions to take my concerns to some other venue. You might say I've been given the run around. My ANI report wasn't rejected on the merits; I was advised to take my concerns elsewhere. Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the harassment and screaming of antisemitism because Jehochman doesn't want to work cooperatively on editing a difficult article. In fact, his only edits to the article are related to making "canard" prominent in it. I, however, have tripled the history section and fixed a bunch of real WPL:BLP issues. He has not had one complaint about any of that. And I have not been attacking him or anyone else, just defending myself constantly. I believe any neutral editor looking at the history of the article will agree with me. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"Jews control the media" is a false statement, a canard, an anti-semitic lie originating from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Henry Ford's Dearborn Independent. It is not a debatable claim or allegation. My grave concern is that your editing is essentially violating WP:NPOV by suggesting that Jews might actually control the media. They don't. This is a lie that was used to dispossess people of their property and their lives. It is a horrific thing that Wikipedia might be used to perpetuate this myth in any form or fashion. It's a pure fabrication, just as evil as Holocaust denial. Jehochman ^Talk 22:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is all diverging from the scope of this board. It really begins to look like an Arbitration issue. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think a mediation would be great, usually a better first step. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Carol and I seem to be able to get along well enough when we focus on content. If we reach disagreements about content we can use WP:RFC or WP:M to resolve them. At least we can try. I don't feel like this issue is quite ripe for arbitration, though that might eventually change. Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me but that is not what I see. I see accusation of COI (and you have I bleives launched a COI investigation against carol) and harresment. Ther are accusations of racism and anit-semitism flyigng about. That is a very serious accusation. I have susgested that for 7 days the pair of you leave each oteh alone. If what you say is true and that this is a temporay disagrement then would not a colling down period be the answer?Slatersteven (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The only problem we have is every time I say something Jehochman and a couple other editors disagree with they go ballistic and try to kick me out of the article. Noleander doesn't have that problem. Don't even get me started on the Sexism problem on wikipedia, including false allegations of antisemitism and racism against me. It's absurd. Maybe the whole article should be locked for a week. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't solve the underlying problem here. And unless you have evidence of sexism, don't throw it out there carelessly. Look, it doesn't help your case that you're throwing out accusations every time someone comments here. Disengage, let some folks review what's going on here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is Jehochman's statement ""Jews control the media" is a false statement, a canard, an anti-semitic lie originating from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Henry Ford's Dearborn Independent. It is not a debatable claim or allegation. That's a political position, not a given. A few decades ago, it was a credible claim, and US Presidents Nixon and Carter, along with Rev. Billy Graham, are on record as agreeing with it. It's comparable to "Republican control of talk radio" today. In this discussion, that statement is being used to Jehochman to stifle disagreement. We have to look at the merits of the claim; it can't merely be dismissed because some people don't like it. --John Nagle (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Er, no, it is a given. It's a racially charged epithet, and not comparable to claims of political bias in the media. The "Jews control the media" canard is a more recent version of "Jews control the banks" anti-Semetic claims. There are no merits to this, at all. Claims of political bias are charges that people of a certain political persuasion are giving favorable reports of their preferred political bent, while giving negative reports of the other side. That's wholly different to claiming a racial group is controlling and manipulating the media as a whole. The former is politics, the latter is racism. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside view

Cross-posted from WP:COIN

I've been trying to follow this mess, which has been spread over multiple notice boards and discussion pages. From what I can see, Carol has a strong POV which sometimes causes problems, but does not appear to fit a COI. If her edits become disruptive, that can be dealt with on its own. Jehochman also has a strong POV, which seems to be more in keeping with Wikipedia's policies, but has a very aggressive attitude which tends to undermine his own efforts. It does not fall into the realm of harassment but it's certainly borderline with WP:CIVIL at this point. Both editors need to reign in their emotions, edit collaboratively and allow third parties to intervene without going into these multi-page back-and-forth arguments over who is being more mean to whom. And, of course, any actual anti-Semitic edits will be reverted and result in sanctions; but, not all edits critical of Israel are anti-Semitic. This is going to be a touchy area, but this constant barrage of argument isn't helping anyone. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I can disagree with here. If Users:Jehochman, Spaceclerk and Brewcrewer could just focus on content and not attack me (and to a lesser extent others with more subtle innuendo) when they don't have a policy backed argument to defend their edits or deal with community consensus (for noticeboards) disagreeing with their POV, everything would be fine. All you have to do is look at the edits and talk page since last Friday to see what the problems are. It's not an interpersonal thing between me and Jehochman but a political issue of trying to keep high quality WP:RS information (including academic views that conflict with their favorite advocacy groups' views) out of the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:WOLF, WP:TE, and finally WP:ADVOCACY. Otherwise, I consider this dispute to have reached the end of its usefulness (or well beyond), and I am going to do other things instead of carrying it on further. Thank you, and good evening. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally I see Carol as pushing a POV and Jehochman the victim of civil POV pushing. This should be an open and shut case but like normal, people get all bent out of shape as soon as a POV pusher says "He/she is being uncivil". Block the pusher for a while and reset. Shot info (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Lycos

Could someone please look into Talk:Lycos and in particular the comments by Allamericansuperwhizkid, Fairykillersuccessful, Inspectorgeneral333, and Gaius Valabius (who may or may not be socks)? The thread starts out with comments not appropriate for talk pages and quickly devolves into personal attacks. I have tried to inform the editors of WP:TALK and got WP:PA for my pains. --Macrakis (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've closed the discussions as off-topic and warned Gaius for personal attacks. I'll keep an eye out to see if it continues. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Those people are obviously nutters... doesn't matter whether they're sock puppets, they're definitely meat puppets as I understand the term. An alternative possible term is schizo loonies. See no reason to block them, they should just be told not to carry on their insane crusade on the talk page. On the other hand... In fact, letting them contribute could bring some enjoyment to the rest of us as long as they're kept away from articles. Anyone know who this alleged super paedophile is? Sounds amusing. Egg Centric (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

... seriously, I already had to warn one of them. I won't template you but drop the "schizo loonies" bit, okay, Egg? And no, we're not here to get amusement from people attacking other editors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that the thread appears to be one sock puppet talking to another and making very serious (and groundless) accusations, is there a process by which the whole conversation can be deleted (but not expunged)? Or, we could just keep the original non-sock comment. I'm not opposed to people making complaints on that page - it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, but if a user has a gripe with the company, fine. Wikipedia isn't here to make any company or individual look good. But the abusive nature of this one, plus the fact that someone coming to the page for the first time would see an apparent "conversation" where it was really one user responding to himself, it rises above simple WP:FORUMing. JRP (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I am opposed to people using Talk pages to complain about the article subject, since it doesn't help us fix the article. That said, keeping the conversations hidden should be fine for now. They'll eventually be archived as the page length grows. We can remove off-topic conversations from the Talk page, especially abusive ones, but that tends to attract screams of "censorship!!11!1one" and more drama. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I think a lot more people think like me than care to admit it ;) Egg Centric (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Friendly warning?

Greetings. Could someone politely advise User 194.238.70.70 that calling someone a "moron" ([11]) isn't really acceptable? I've posted some information on Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Trivia sections (to help with the point in question) on their Talk Page. Many thanks. 125.7.71.6 (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

User: O Fenian

• O Fenian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of armed conflicts and attacks, 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor has repeatedly been uncivil to various other editors to the point of trying to scare them away from wikipedia so he can monopolise articles

section on O Fenian where past issued have been tried for which apparently his blackmail/threats have previously cropped up.

Also tried olive branches here and on the talk page of the article, yet, most importantly, not a SINGLE message of his on that page has constructively tried to tackle the issue. He just keep resorting time and time again to threats and blackmails without even an attempt to discuss.

Please note his continual BAD FAITH EDITS DESPITE an ongoing discussion pertaining to its validity (Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011#Splitting_and_other_stuff)

also note: ALL attempts at civil discussion with him are perpetually futile.Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011#lone_wolf_tag

Also note that all other editors on the aforementioned page HAVE resorted to discussion to resolve issues (issues that cropped up gain his blackmail that he still didnt even attempt to resolve. apparently "threatening to edit war once per 24 hours will be considered as simply gaming the system"

also note his own suggestion of Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which i think every other editor here would/has already proved he adhres too(Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC));

Suggest WP:BOOMERANG be invoked. As I object to his policy violating edits Lihaas has abused me on mulitple talk pages. For example someone replying to my question about whether he will certify a requst for comment on Lihaas is "strongest possible case of a tag-team army". More incivil accusations here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

One administrator already made it clear he was not interested since then Lihaas has admin shopped and is now forum shopping here. I am sure this will begin to be resolved tomorrow when the request for comment for long-term disruptive editing is filed against Lihaas by myself. Since he refers to every attempt to get him to follow core Wikipedia policies as threats and blackmail there is little recourse left. O Fenian (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is quite amusing Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#Ultimatums is cited as evidence of threats and blackmail, since anyone reading it will see Lihaas in misrepresenting the contents of it. O Fenian (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

thats rich. accusation of long term disruptive editing when ANOTHER EDITOR accused him of the tag-team on the RIRA/CIRA edits. when multiple editors seem to suggest he has this problem without event attempting to discuss vs. threatening/blackmailing and refusal to discuss (note- not the first time for me OR other editors) as his only resort. instead of improving articles he seems to resort to sulking.Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Funny how I see three edits to the talk page in question that are after the diff you cited as my alleged "refusal to discuss". Lihaas believes content policies do not apply to his edits, come tomorrow he will find that is not the case. O Fenian (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

what rot is this? linking to contribs READ THE EDIT, threats, blackmails, etc. NOT ONE DISCUSSION ON CONTENT.

and he accuses me of deceptively reading edits.Lihaas (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm seconding this. His ultimatums, provocation, harassment, and general abuse of the Wikipedia process should not be tolerated. If he wants to be a dictator, perhaps he should move to the third world. Trelane (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Lihaas wants to talk about other people's lack of etiquette, whilst he makes unfounded accusations that other editors are "tag teams" for offering to certify a request for comment. Now that is what I call uncivil. This is why I asked him to assume good faith earlier today when he made such an accusation. As HJ Mitchell has stated, such accusations are without merit. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that why ANOTHER editor accused you two of such? AGF is laughable when the ONLY retort is to attack and blackmail

is that why C of E, Trelane, me and others on the aforementioned talk page have disagreed with his blackmailing "consensus"?(Lihaas (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC));

olive branche offered, lets see the reaction..(despite the threats to collate data as if is hes trying to persue some legal case (see above, the case hes waiting to get vengeance with)(Lihaas (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

Well, I was asked to do a report and I'm going to make my comment here. O Fenian is good at quoting policy where it suits him and disregarding most others such as WP:IAR when it doesn't support his viewpoint and sometimes refuses to achnowlege a legitamate statement or question on something. as well as the fact he also does ignore certain statements and sometimes belittles policy where it suits him He is also known to make derogatary (and some could say offensive) comments about the former flag of a country. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And he's just proved that he will ignore peoples's statements on his talk page if he does not agree with them. Also that 193 question mark counter at the top of his talk page is also most suspicious as he said that if he revealed the reason for it's slow incrementation and not explaining what it's for that he "would only get in trouble with certain people". Interesting, WP:STALK? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And yet again an edit was an edit was reverted without ANY edit summary explanation, while he has not mentioned anything on the talk page either. it seems he contributes to talk AFTER reverting where another editor made a suggestion that i tried. An attempt to revert now would more than likely somehow lead to allegations of "edit warring" and blocks so i ask admins here to deal with this.

it seems his god-given right to scare off other editors comes first

he seems to have a real problem in doing anything with controversy and discussion (the premise for the talk facility to deal with controversy) as he cant do much without biting(Lihaas (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC));

My view

I personally found him rather exasperating to deal with and clearly selective but the former was more through lack of communication (and irritating assuming bad faith accusations, e.g. that Talk:Derry#Who'd_like_to_discuss_names? was clearly biased) and as for the latter, why shouldn't he be biased so long as he abides by policy? In my view he should try to talk to people a lot more. The above also looks politically motivated, but then again so are OF's "sins" so this is 6 and 2 3s and I refer everyone to this.

Or to put it another way: Yes, he's biased and annoying. But I don't think he damages anything and it better he's doing this on the internet. Egg Centric (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

the key point being that he should discuss instead of threatening, thats exactly what were trying to initiate. As you see above i did try an olive brach to suggest he does have knowledge but he refuses to use discussion. THAT is the dmaging [art.(Lihaas (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC));

Completely disagree. I think his bias has had a negative impact on articles. That isn't a conversation for this board though.Cptnono (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

wirh meEgg centric or me?(Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC));

I think he disagrees with Egg and is sharing your view, Lihass that the bias is damaging. Cptnono, I would indeed have said that something needs to be done but would it be worth moving this whole thread to WP:ANI and gauge further reaction there? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We tried Arbcom but it was rejected so thought something lesser would be a trial, then if it doesnt work to pursue further. But i wouldnt object if youd prefer that.Lihaas (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's the only way that it would get mainstream admin attention but you'd need to have a policy breach to have anything drastic done (although incivility does count as a policy breach as WP:CIV but WP:PA may help if there is a reason to use that) If you need some more evidence, maybe check the history of WP:IMOS for more. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well ultimately I lean very much towards your viewpoint, I just don't see the point in pursuing it. If you do, I'll endorse it. Egg Centric (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto

ive tried as well as Trelane. I think 3/4 editors have to mean something before the wiki project goes to shamistan ;)(Lihaas (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)).

English Defence League, incivility between Alexandre8 and Multiculturalist

• Alexandre8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Multiculturalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• English Defence League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lots of personal attacks flowing between them. Personally reminds me of small children squabbling. Alexandre8 has removed comments from the talk page. It'd be nice if someone could sort this out: I just try and keep an eye on the article on Watchlist! Heh. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring talk page comments like this (reverted) and this (re-revert with ironic summary to "feel free to revert" after this) unilaterally and part and parcel of what an edit war is. (there is even an WP:VANDALISM warning on this) that is certainly grounds for some sort of "talking to" if not temp. block even. Multiculturalist's username also suggests some pov in this article, though that alone is not grounds for action. A brief overview of this article and talk page edits indicate he hasnt been uncivil as much. Although id be interested in seeing which edit/s Tom Morris wa talking about. Off the bat, id reccomend some sanction for Alexandre8 for gross violation of etiquette and possibly a warning on Multiculturalist pending Tom Morris's confirmation of incivility (and depending on the degree thereof)(Lihaas (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).

User:Snowded seems to be joining in on this - I trust he knows better than to revert a deletion of a personal attack :). Collect (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If you check my comments on Alexandre8's talk page Collect you will see I worked to get this one resolved before it got out of control and I note you didn't bother to notify me that you were making comments here. Otherwise I don't know why this was raised here. Alexandre removed the comments and apologized, bringing it here after that had happened is a mistake, its the sort of thing that could inflame things. --Snowded ^TALK 11:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just reporting what was going on. I'm not interested in getting involved further in sorting out personal disputes. I've got new pages to patrol and pending changes to check. ;-) —Tom Morris (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

butyou must have some reason otherwise it could be WP:BOOMERANGLihaas (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a reason: I looked at the talk page and the user talk pages and saw "woah! AGF! Incivility, much?". So I duly reported it here. I'm not a participating party, so I don't think BOOMERANG applies. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have resolved itself as amicably as it could have been. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)}}

apparently non admin gestures mean NOTHINGLihaas (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Hullwebs

This is an occasional editor, who may be acting in good faith but resolutely refuses to engage in discussion either on his talk page or on article talk pages. He/she has created an article, Selcovia, of highly dubious provenance and which is proposed for deletion, but keeps removing the deletion notice without any explanation (here, here, here). As I say, he may be acting in ignorance rather than any other motivation, but should anything else be done to engage with him? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax to me. But not a Wikiquette issue? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well there's this and other similar stuff - mostly allegedly sourced to Britannica - unless it's the same guy. Not really a wikiquette issue. More pointing the way to policies on sourcing/copyvio etc.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If not a hoax, then perhaps Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is the place to go? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith at Talk:Homeopathy

• HkFnsNGA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Homeopathy (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Homeopathy|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm involved in a discussion with an editor trying to change the article's lede. I'll readily admit that I don't think their suggestions are very good, still I'm trying to stay civil and explain what is wrong with their suggestions. HkFnsNGA has an enormous output, so it's quite hard to follow the discussion and voice objections before they change the article, causing me (and other editors) to revert them, which they seem to see as an indication of bad faith. I've tried to stay calm, but I think I need some outside opinions on whether I'm being unreasonable in my explanations and requests on this talk page. I'd also like someone uninvolved in that discussion to tell HkFnsNGA it isn't appropriate to accuse me of hypocrisy, extensive nitpicking and acting in bad faith. Thanks in advance for the time you'll have to spend reading at least some of the discussion. Six words (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have made changes in accordance with all of the numerous comments of User:Six words and other editors on the talk pages, which has taken much time.
• User:Six words stated that WP:MOS does not have to be followed when I replaced "ipse dixit axiom" in the third lede sentence with WP:Use plain English wording, so that a laypersoncan does not get scared off by the third sentence of the article, before any definition has been given of the topic. He reverted my plain English edit back to "ipse dixit axiom".
• User:Six words insists that the simple topic not be defined in the first sentence, in violation of MOS. His argument is that MOS does not have to be followed, even it it easily can. His replacement sentence makes homeopathy so vaguely "defined" as to appear to be something, when it is only selling water to people as a "remedy".
• User:Six words claims that (other than the definition in the first sentence, these [12] changes are "major" so need his approval to make, even though they were all made in to accommodate comments by other editors on the talk page.
• I responded to all talk page points by other editors (including User:Six words here [13], and incorporated every suggestion by other editors.
• User:Six words then reverted all of my tiny edits responding to other editor comments by setting up a straw man argument. He changed my second sentence in the lede to one roughly the same, but subtly different. He then used his own subtle difference to argue that because of the slight change he made to the second sentence, my next slight change must be reverted. He then used this to change my next edit, and so on like dominos. A straw man argument is not made in good faith.
• Here [14] is the summary of the edits in question, and here [15] and here [16] are the talk page discussion of the small changes I made, and of the definition. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• In the proposed definition here[17], evolved word for word through a very long talk page discussion, every suggestion or complaint by all editors (including those by User:Six words were incorporated.HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• The substance of my small edits are discussed here [18] and here [19], and these have been developed in response to User:Six words own numerous complaints that I should not have called "nit picking", except that after I incorporated these, he reverted my responses to his own comments.
• The discussion hinges on whether homeopathy should be defined to show how it is uniquely defined as a pseudoscience, as mentioned here [20].
• I should not have used the loaded word "hypocrisy" to refer to reverting an edit in which dilution was not required under an edit summary that "dilutions not required" (a quote from Six words on the talk page about his revert), after which he put in a (non) defintion to replace the first lede definition sentence I had with one that only mentioned "highy diluted", or after I made the many modifications he suggested on talk, only to have him revert them after my work. He made a huge number of complaints, and I incorporated each one and made changes accordingly, only to have him revert the changes I made. I should not have called it "nit picking" and then "hypocricy". HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What I actually said was that the manual of style gives us some leeway (e.g. in respect to the lede's length and that the first sentence needs to be a comprehensive definition of the article's subject - I don't think that's possible in this case and since the article is very long three sentences aren't too much) and that WP:Plain English is an essay. --Six words (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Given that HkFnsNGA has apologized for the attacks, I'd say that the incident is closed -the rest is a content dispute which is not relevant here. --Cyclopia^talk 00:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My main point was actually about HkFnsNGA accusing me of bad faith and I don't see him retract this, neither here nor on the homeopathy talk, so I'd like to keep this open if you don't mind. --Six words (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right, sorry, had a better look at the talk page. HkFnsNGA, just to be sure, could you link diffs for the "dominos edits" you talk about above? In any case yes, judging from the discussion, it seems a pretty honest content dispute with Six words being supported by another editor, and HkFnsNGA shouldn't be so quick in stopping to assume good faith. That you can't immediately understand the rationale behind another editors' edits doesn' mean they are in bad faith. I see little proof of bad faith here (but again I'd like to be sure to see the editorial pattern of Six Words you complain of) --Cyclopia^talk 00:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Straw man arguments are here[[21]]. My edit, responding to extensive discussion of other editors on talk, was this -

• (2) In 1796, German physician Hahnemann stated the first of his principles of homeopathy. (accurately describes that the principles of homeopathy only began to be proposed in 1796)
• (3) The principles were not verified, but were to be accepted on Hahnemann’s word. (Replaces not plain English “ipse dixit axiom”, states all principles are ipse dixit, not just similars)
• (4) The first principle is “the law of similars” which says that if a substance causes a healthy person to exhibit symptoms similar to those of an illness, then the substance can be used as a cure for a person who already exhibits the symptoms. (more simple law of similars definition)
• (5) Hahnemann believed that at each step of the dilution, the “remedy” must be shaken by forcefully striking it on an elastic body, which he called the3 principle of “succussion”. (isolated definition of succussion)
• (6) The principle of “potentization” is that a remedy is made more potent with each step of the dilution process. (very simple definition of potentization)

Six words reverted my (2) saying "sentence number two is in no way better than the previous wording", and so he changed my wording to remove the word "principle" to this -

• (2) Homeopathy was first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. (Homeopathy was not really stated until much later with its dilution process; It was not "proposed", it was stated ipse dixit. Only the law of similars was stated in 1796, without being verifiable as would a proposition)
• (3) It is based on an ipse dixit[4] axiom[5] which he called the law of similars, which states that a substance which causes certain symptoms in healthy individuals can cure patients who already exhibit similar symptoms.

He then reverted my (3) because, after his "in no way better" change of my sentence (2), his change no longer contained the word "principle". His reason was "number three speaks of 'principles' when the previous sentence only mentioned one", referring to his own "previous" sentence, not mine. By similar reasoning, my (4), (5), and (6) contain the word "principle". All were reverted, even though I did these edits responding to detailed comments of other editors about numerous problems, all of which Six words ignored.

That is a straw man arument for replacing (3), (4), (5), and (6), and etc. in prior times.

"Ipse dixit axiom" is not plain Enlish violating MOS for no good reason. After stating I MUST get consensus on his article to make an edit, Six words says he can revert my attempts to follow MOS with plain English because he wrote "MOS is just an essay", even though MOS has consensus. That is one of the isses that ultimately caused me to use "hypocrisy", which I sohuld not have done. His revert leaves the MOS violating "ipse dixit axiom" in the beginning of what should be an "easy to read for laypersons" article.

By simply calling it a straw man argument, this is an accusation of bad faith, because all straw man arguments are in bad faith by definition of a straw man argument. I did not yet retract calling it a straw man argument because it is a straw man argument.

What is best for me to do in such a case according to Wiki, and I will do it. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

HkFnsNGA, I've read your take on the content dispute here and on the talk page, but what I'd like to see are diffs, not your interpretation of them. Can you provide them? In any case a straw man argument is not necessarily in bad faith -it is simply a logical fallacy. See straw man. --Cyclopia^talk 02:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What is a "diff"? Here [22] is his revert, showing the differences, if thats what you are asking for. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you are right that it is possible a straw man argument can initially be made in good faith by accident, but once the error in reasoning is pointed out, and the argument is still not retracted, it is intentional not to retract it, so then is inherently bad faith, in so far as it continued to be put forth. Once I pointed it out, Six words could have undone his revert, or otherwise explained it. He did not. Bad faith according to Oxford Dictionary online [23] is a refusal to confront facts. HkFnsNGA (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you're still not accepting that two people can have different opinions on which wording is better without one of them acting in bad faith? I can tolerate a lot of things, but WP:AGF is a prerequisit for working together productively and trying to win your argument this way isn't acceptable. I've told you that I don't think your preferred wording has found consensus and even showed a way to gain consensus [24], wich is pretty much the standard way of successfully editing controversial articles, I think. Yet you prefer to brush this aside as a bad faith move, citing some imaginary straw men. I also don't see you retract your false reasoning for removing the first sentence (which has two references so per WP:V it is acceptable even if you think it's a false statement) over and over again, even though I pointed out your mistake [25]. Even subtle changes in wording can lead to different meanings, which is why I oppose so many of your proposals - that's not bad faith editing, it is me trying to make sure any change to the article is actually a change for the better. --Six words (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

HkFnsNGA: Diffs are links of the kind you provided me. I have seen the diff with all the changes but I want proof of the sequential "domino" changes you talk about and their argumentation. Anyway, Six words is right: Unless clear evidence of the opposite comes out (and I want to see if there is, that's why I'm asking the diffs), this seems a normal content dispute. What you call "facts" can be opinions for others. What you think is an error in reasoning could not be for another person -perhaps because one of you is misunderstanding the other, for example. For example you said on the talk page: arguing "Dilution is not required", and reverting to "uses highly dilute" is classic bad faith. - This is not bad faith in my opinion, one thing is to say that X is a requirement, another is to say that X is commonly or even always used. So I can perfectly argue that X is not required but that it is used. So, as you can see, there are multiple facets for every argument, and be sure to try hard to understand them. In any case, even if you think someone is possibly in bad faith, better to shut your mouth about it unless the situation really is blatant to everyone, to keep a working collaborative environment. I hope you can agree with that.

What you both ought to do now is quite obvious, and I was through exactly the same situation once so I think I can give advice. Cool down, refrain from edit warring and agree, everyone, to work on the talk page only unless a consensual lede comes out (it seems some of you are already doing that). I would suggest you to focus your work sentence-by-sentence for now. --Cyclopia^talk 13:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Also: If possible, call other editors in (inform a wikiproject for example). I see only three active editors discussing the issue, perhaps better if another couple jump in and help smooth things out. --Cyclopia^talk 13:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

HkFnsNGA is currently producing an enormous amount of text on the talk page that makes it impossible for anyone but the most highly motivated editors to follow the discussion. Claiming consensus in such a situation is highly inappropriate, although due to lack of editing experience (especially at highly contentious articles) HkFnsNGA is probably not aware of this. "Summaries" of discussion only make the problem worse. They are of course not neutral summaries but one editor's opinion of the outcome of the discussion so far, so they must be read in addition to everything else. That wouldn't be so bad if they weren't so long.

I can't comment on the interpersonal problem because everything relevant is hidden within insane amounts of text. Hans Adler 15:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Hans Adler: the verbosity is not helping. That's why I asked for the relevant diffs, and I still wait for them. --Cyclopia^talk 16:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Since readers here may not be aware, my opinion is not an outside opinion. Rather, I tried to take part in the discussions, but I am currently neither willing nor able to spend an hour or more per day just to follow what's going on on the talk page. HkFnsNGA, while having basically the right approach and a good attitude, has neither the knowledge of the topic nor the experience with editing Wikipedia that would be required for successfully pushing changes in this way on what at times has been one of Wikipedia's most contentious article. Hans Adler 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If Six words' nonretraction of his straw man argument for his revert was unintentional, then I take back saying that he was editing in bad faith. Many of his comments are clearly made in good faith.

Cyclopia, how do you "inform a wikiproject"? It is not necessary here, as there seems to be a consensus developing, but I would like to know for future articles. HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

All of my comments were made in good faith and intentional; since in my eyes there's no straw man argument (remember that Brunton agreed with me) I think you're retracting your accusation under a false premise, but if you'll stick to WP:AGF from now on that's OK by me. I'm also less optimistic about reaching a consensus soon, after all you've again edited the article even though another editor disagreed. Anyway, I think there's nothing more to be said on this board so I thank both Cyclopia and Hans Adler for their input and unless anyone disagrees within the next hour or so I'll mark this resolved. --Six words (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If you do not understand that it was a straw man argument to revert sentence (3), then I accept that it is unintentional, so I should not have said "bad faith".

Without consensus, Brunton deleted important content from the existing lead, and you did not revert his deletion, althoug he did it without consensus. After I put the deleted content back in the lead, using plain English, you back his revert of my edits. Again and again that my stylistic edits were reverted by you and Brunton as "major changes". It is difficult when things like this happen to maintain an attitude that this is done in good faith. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if two or more editors revert a single new editor this is an indication that is some kind of consensus -against the single editor. Again, HkFnsNGA, the problem is that what you see as merely stylistic could not be merely stylistic as you think. You seem to be a constructive guy, and personally I like most of the changes you made to the article (I don't dare going into the content dispute because I know little about the subject); but you have a bit of difficulty in understanding other editors' points of view. I suggest you to begin by suggesting smaller changes and discuss single small issues or sentences one by one, and get slowly consensus on the talk page. It is slow and a bit painstaking but it's the way to go. To inform a Wikiproject, it's simple: write on the wikiproject talk page. --Cyclopia^talk 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If there's no consensus for your additions the logical consequence is to revert to a previous consensus version and take it to the talk page, discussing a new wording and waiting with changes to the article until a new consensus is established. That you don't have consensus for your additions should be clear when two or more editors revert you. --Six words (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Two editors in an edit war prone article is a very small number. Oddly, the two editors who have been reverting my edits likely have the same POV as I do regarding homeopathy. I believe that I (used to) have the BENEFIT of being new to the article, because I had not read and re-read it. I could tell where it was unnecessarily confusing and awkwardly worded or longwinded. I also found the article lead "definition" and first defining paragraph to be a PC whitewashing of what homeopathy really is. I have been gradually buying into and giong along with the whitewashing, and doing it myself.

But when Cyclopia wrote, "I know little about the subject", I changed back. Cycopia's remark best sums up my original point. There are only about three sentences needed to know almost everything about the subject. If the first sentence and first paragraph were properly worded to define homeopathy, without POV PC whitewashing, Cyclopedia might not have thought that.

Homeopathy is an alternative medicine and pseudoscience that typically treats ill patients with a placebo, taking a pharmaceutically active substance and repeatedly ritually diluting it, usually so much that it no longer has any effect, then calling it a “remedy”. Homeopathy is based two principles that are inconsistent with established chemistry, physics, and biology, stated without using any scientific method by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796 ; that a preparation believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms similar to those of an illness can cure a patient, and that each dilution followed by striking on an elastic body increases effectiveness, with this method striking believed to be of importance. Hahnemann recommended dilution levels as low as 1 part in 10⁶⁰ (1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion), at which no molecule of the original substance remains, before the idea of the existence of molecules was widely accepted.

That's it, three sentences about reality and you no longer know little about the subject. There is not much else going on.

So when I came to the article I found the existing first definition sentence to be sidestepping the definition of what homeopathy really is. I found the first subject defining paragraph to be too long and a POV whitewashing of the reality about homeopathy. 02:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the content issue. Please bring that to the talk page (By the way, what is written in that lead is more or less exactly what I know/believe about homeopathy, but I don't understand how my opinion is relevant). --Cyclopia^talk 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right and I will, but reworded. I put it here first because it was your comment in this dicussion ("I know little about the subject") that knocked the sense back into me, and caused me to remember thinking, after I read the first sentence "definition", that a person reading it would not in any way know the definition of homeopathy. Your comment that "I don't dare going into the content dispute because I know little about the subject' is backwards, as the content is already in the article, its just the style and presention of it that is in dispute. Since you "know little about the subject", you are perfectly situated to have an opinioin as to how to present the content to a person who knows little of the subject, and you might want to weigh in on the "definition" discussion at some point, with an opinion as to which definition best helped you as a person with little information on the subject. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)