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

Latest less-than-civil comment by User talk:Skywriter connected to 1953 Iranian coup d'état article

I posted a complaint earlier about comments directed to me by User talk:Kurdo777 and User talk:Skywriter concerning 1953 Iranian coup d'état. examples below.

---

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Complaints_and_comments_on_Mosaddeq.27s_behavior_by_foriegners "your cherry picking skills are still ...trivial character assassinations ... I must say that this is a new low for you Booga ..."

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoogaLouie#Are_you_OK.3F "Are you OK? ... You allow for no nuance, Booga, no shades of differences"

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Deletion_of_important_language "your addiction to micromanagement would be admirable to anyone who thinks that's a good quality ... If you have a low tolerance for change, try something else. In any case, Get A Grip. For Your Own Sake."

• cute version of my name: BoogaLuise

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#BoogaLouie.27s_whitewash BoogaLouie's whitewash

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Violation_of_WP:NPOV "... your cherry-picked quotes are so one-sided, so cloddish, your WP:POV is transparent. ..."

Other editors who think it may be a problem

• Work permit
• Binksternet

---

My post on one of the complainees talk pages earned what seemed to me to be a sort of taunting reply

The Wikiquette alerts post got some comments to "please consider the possible legitimacy to their concerns against you regarding article ownership" and be aware that I was "unlikely to get help regarding the editing from this forum," .... but no one said anything like "this isn't really a case of incivility" or "don't be so touchy".

So my question is WERE these cases of incivility? If so does this page do anything about it? If not, who does? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your three questions: Yes they were. To the best of my knowledge, no it does not. And finally, try WP:ANI. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's explained at the top of the page. It's not an enforcement mechanism, it's designed to help editors who have misunderstandings/miscommunications get beyond them. There are a few editors who will sporadically try to help based on their own criteria. Personally, when an editor in the midst of an edit war comes here, the incivility isn't blatant and the posting editor's behavior isn't optimum -- e.g. calling another editor's contribution's misleading at best I choose not to try to help. That's not to say you shouldn't post your concerns here as I speak for myself and no one else. Gerardw (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to AGF but I couldn't think of any other way to put it than misleading at best. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll give Skywriter a warning to avoid getting emotional and personal on talk page discussions. However, most of these comments are rather old and therefore do not warrant further action. Booga, your own behavior appears to have been, and remains, problematic in more respects than simply civility on the article in question. You should also not copy/paste a complaint that has already been addressed more than once. Doing so is considered forum shopping. Khoikhoi 06:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya, they were old because I was trying to ignore them and trying to hold my tongue in reply. But over time I felt I should do something. If you think my edits are "problematic in more respects than simply civility" tell me what the problem is as I think I've been playing by the rules. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Michael Glass & Metrication on Falkland Islands Topics

User:Michael Glass seems to have a mission goal of converting wikipedian articles to the metric system. He has contributed extensively on WP:UNITS to that end but has failed to have his suggestion adopted. Unfortunately his chosen means of campaigning is to repeatedly and tendentiously return to Falkland Islands related topics or the talk pages of the units task suggesting at regular intervals that this be a standard approach repeatedly failing to achieve a consensus to have his suggestion adopted. This tendentious pattern of editing is disruptive and other editors are starting to express irritation at this behaviour see [1] for example. His style of talk page postings are combative and accusatory in nature. I feel Michael needs some external feedback that his behaviour is inappropriate and ultimately counter productive. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 09:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not seeing incivility. The manual of style diff links a stale conversation. Do you have diffs of recent incivil contributions? Gerardw (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

[2], [3] and [4]. The purpose of linking to the stale conversation is that the same conversation gets repeated. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 10:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not so much incivility but repetitiousness. We've averaged a long discussion on the subject of units of measure every two months or so on Falklands articles for over a year now. And it's the same editor making the same demands. Over and over again. He has a long record of Wikilawyering - trying to use the letter of the rule to overcome the spirit of the rule - to try and force his preferences through: notably, he has insisted that consensus had to be unanimous based on the wording of WP:CONSENSUS (though it later transpired that this only applied to imperial measures: metrication could be carried by majority vote), he has tried to use an exception listed in WP:UNITS - applied to every unit on every article covered by the workgroup - to overcome the general rule in WP:MOSNUM that we use the most appropriate unit to the place at hand, and he has tried to argue that a lack of consensus for any particular proposal does not mean that we maintain the existing consensus - that latter for long periods of time. He's hardly a newcomer and this has, over the course of the last year, become distinctly tiresome. Pfainuk talk 18:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The two editors above appear to have been using every means at their disposal to ensure that Falkland Islands articles remain Imperial first in their measurements, or failing that, to make the absolute minimum of concessions to those who feel differently. When I first tried to change information according to the sources quoted, they replied that it was policy to have Imperial measurements first. When I pointed out that this position was at variance with many of the articles, they changed East Falkland and West Falkland to Imperial first. I argued that this was at variance with the sources but this also fell on deaf ears. When I found some information on the minor islands and included it, I was accused of making a mess of these articles because I followed the sources and put the metric measures first.

They persistently claimed that there was a consensus for using Imperial measures, so I challenged them to put it to a vote. Initially this showed a bare majority favoured the older system. However, as my arguments had raised more heat than light I said I would let it rest.

Soon afterwards, other editors began to express their opinions, especially about the weather data. I asked people to express their opinions, and this time it was clear that a majority of those who gave their opinions favoured the metric system and a strong majority favoured changing the weather data. In response, Pfainuk proposed a compromise that would involve Imperial distances for all land distances and square miles for land areas, but metres for the heights of hills and metric for the weather details. I said I would not contest this minimally metric position even though I believed it was unsatisfactory. On the strength of this, Pfainuk changed the articles according to his proposed compromised.

However, other people expressed their concern, and Pfainuk's response was to return the articles to the previous position of Imperial first. I protested at this reversal, because it meant that Pfainuk went back on his agreement, that it was at variance with the majority of the people who had expressed an opinion and that it was at variance with the great majority of the people who had expressed their opinions about the weather details. This once again met a blank wall. The more I argued, the more Pfainuk dug his heels in, arguing that as his proposed compromise didn't work, the previous "consensus" prevailed. But how can a consensus prevail when a majority of people have voiced their opposition to it? Despite this position being nonsensical, Pfainuk maintained it against all my arguments, stating that my real agenda was to metricate the Falklands articles, even though I had said that I would not contest his proposed compromise.

Now it appear that they have tired of arguing with me they want to silence me by other means. They haven't accused me of edit warring. They haven't accused me of being any less civil than they have been. So the chosen method is to accuse me of a lack of good manners in pushing my opinion so vigorously. Interesting tactics. Michael Glass (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a conflict in my total support of Michael's efforts to bring the Falklands into the 21st century, along with modern British practice. What I want to say here is that it is a bit rich to have an accusation of rudeness from someone who has an appalling record of rudeness himself. Tony (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a series of strange allegations there. Yes, I changed units in line with what I believed to be consensus. I made a proposal. Justin agreed, and Michael said he "wouldn't contest" the units. After five days, no-one had objected, so I implemented what I believed to be a new consensus. Then two other editors announced that I really should have known that they opposed and that we had no consensus. Given their involvement, I reassessed: it was now clear that there was no consensus for my proposal. In response, I reverted my implementation of that position.

Michael, incidentally, describes that proposal as "minimally metric". It isn't minimally metric. It accepts metric units in all circumstances not explicitly mentioned by WP:UNITS. On the other hand, the alternative proposed by pro-metric editors remains 100% metrication in practice, something that I and others are unwilling to accept as it is not in line with British usage.

It is not unfair to suggest that imperial-first would not, based on what current editors are saying, have consensus if newly proposed. But it is the standing consensus position, a consensus originally reached in March 2009, the first time that Michael demanded full metrication of Falklands articles.

Michael's position seems to be that if there is no consensus for any specific position, we should be implementing majority rule. Counting all those who have expressed an opinion, there is probably a bare majority in favour of metric units. But no consensus for it. And we should be clear about this: majority rule only applies when the majority agrees with him. As you see, he previously argued (and apparently still maintains) that a consensus for a position he disagrees with has to be unanimous. The standard practice on Wikipedia - as all of us including Michael know - is that where there is no consensus, the last position to reach consensus is maintained.

I do consider it bad manners to repeatedly demand the same thing over and over again for a period of months. I do consider it inappropriate to demand that the letter of the rule be implemented over the spirit of the rule. And I do consider in inappropriate to continually demand that we implement a consensus that has not been reached.

But by the looks of things, outside editors aren't actually interested in this. Ho hum... Pfainuk talk 06:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I read with interest Pfainuk's comments above. It is obvious that we have radically different ideas of consensus. His "standing consensus" is based on the assumption that even when opinions have changed, that the consensus remains unchanged until people reach a new consensus. This line of thinking leads to defending a supposed consensus even when it is obvious that this position has only minority support. And this is exactly the position we have here. Pfainuk admits that "there is probably a bare majority in favour of metric units." Despite this admission he still holds to the position that there is a "standing consensus" for Imperial!

Surely it must be obvious that the Imperial-first consensus no longer stands.

What then should be done? Pfainuk's response, to go back to the all-Imperial position, defies logic. If people were not satisfied with his revised proposal, it should have been crystal-clear that an Imperial first position would be even less palatable! That makes as much sense as abandoning the Reform Bill of 1832 because the Chartists wanted more. The very least that could be done would be to hold to their new position, pending further discussion. After all, they have argued forcefully that this new position has the virtue of being in line with British usage. Why retreat to something that isn't even in line with modern British usage? It defies logic.

I have said repeatedly that I will not contest their revised position, even though I do not believe it to be satisfactory. I cannot speak for others, who may contest this position. If this is not satisfactory, then all I can say is that we follow the letter of the policy, which is to go metric first. I believe that Pfainuk and Justin have only two options: follow British usage, or declare that there is no consensus, and apply the rules that state that metric measures must have precedence. An Imperial-first policy is no longer a viable option. Michael Glass (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As Pfainuk tries to explain, the existing consensus remains until a new consensus is formed. Yes he, I and others will accept a compromise but that was rejected and so we're back to square one. What it doesn't mean is that by frustrating the consensus you get to impose what you want. What is also unacceptable is the presumption of bad faith for simply following established guidelines for consensus building and making personal attacks on other editors for not agreeing with you. That is entirely why I raised a WQA. This is not a forum for continuing a debate about your crusade. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 14:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If no consensus is achieved, the last position to get consensus remains. You know this. I know that you know this. And you know that I know that you know this. So your trying continually to insist that the consensus process regarding units on Falklands articles is somehow different from the consensus process in every other situation and on every other article on Wikipedia is disruptive.

This is not the place for discussing the content dispute. This is a place for discussing user conduct. I believe your conduct here, and in the diffs I provided, demonstrates your continued insistence in trying to game the system to get your way in this matter. This is disruptive. Pfainuk talk 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again! How can Pfainuk and Justin argue that there is a consensus when people no longer agree with it? How is it being disruptive or trying to game the system to quote Wikipedia policy? How is it trying to get my way in this matter when I have explicitly said I would not contest a position that I believe is unsatisfactory?

MOSNUM says: "UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts...."

MOSNUM says: "If editors cannot agree on the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second. If the choice of units is arbitrary, use SI units as the main unit, with converted units in parentheses."

I have stated repeatedly that a consensus that no longer exists is non-existent. They state the contrary, that that it's rude to state that a consensus that no longer exists is non-existent.

Nonsense is proof against reason or logic. I rest my case. Michael Glass (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that no-one's actually reading this, so there doesn't seem a lot of point in continuing. But I note that nothing has changed. You're still demanding that the letter of the rule be used against the spirit of the rule. You're still demanding that Falklands articles be a glaring exception to the standard consensus process on Wikipedia. The standard consensus process has been explained to you so many times - despite the fact that you are a long-standing editor who is perfectly aware of it already - that you insistence on continuing to deny its existence is in and of itself disruptive. Pfainuk talk 06:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand Micheal' and Pfainuk' position. Personally, I don't agree with the treatment of consensus on Wiki in border circunstances. Consensus can change, then when is it valid to defy the consensus again? Should we let pass X time before discussing a new consensus? When does that turns repetitive? When I saw Pfainuk proposal converted into a project guideline, with only one support (and his), when previously several voices has not completely agreed with that, that doesn't seems any consensus to me; silence is a weak form of consensus. In this situation, I understand that previous consensus remains, I have no complaints with that logic, but I don't agree with that consensus, and it seems that it doesn't have consensus anymore.

What should we do? May we reach a consensus to remove previous consensus? It's an option. It actually conflicts with MoS, as a project policy can't be above WP policies, so we could reject previous consensus and appeal to MoS, where it says to apply British usage (which includes certain metrics and imperial in some context), and when editors can't agree (this case) appeal to source units, or if usage is arbitrary (also this case, if we choose to maintain consistency), MoS says to use SI. Other option, is to go by parts; for example actually there is a consistent support for metric first on weather units, we wouldn't have any problems splitting the issue and discussing use per use, and start updating the previous consensus. Divide and conquer, we will get some progress. pmt7ar ^(talk) 19:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is it was raised, a consensus reached. Michael doesn't like it, so he raises it again a few weeks later. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. As the diff I added shows, he has done the same at WP:MOSNUM Repeatedly raising the same point is disruptive. In addition, he is abrasive and pedantic in the extreme and it creates conflict over the most ridiculously small points. Thats why I raised the WQA. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 08:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The link that follows was written by Justin Kuntz. [5]. After he was rebuked for this posting he changed his Wiki name from Justin Kuntz to Justin the Evil Scotsman. This is the one who raised this WQA. Michael Glass (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No I changed to the Evil Scotsman after being accused of demonic possession. For those with a sense of humour see The Evil Scotsman Warning:Explicit Language. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 10:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually would someone mind pointing out to Michael, why it is inappropriate to raise stale issues - and one which was already sorted. Some diffs to put the isolated diff presented by Michael [6], [7] and [8] (which Michael conveniently forgot to tell me about). Whats also interesting is his resort to abusive posting but complains when he receives a humorous response. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC) (and Imperial Storm Trooper)

Justin might think his comment was humorous, but he had to withdraw it because of its offensive nature. "I was only joking," is no excuse for abuse. If he still feels that his comment was only a joke then it appears that he has not learnt better. Michael Glass (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Conservapedia

We are having quite the problem over on talk:conservapedia, editor User:Nobs01 started out claiming a content dispute, refused to tell us what specifically the dispute was, and is now spamming what amounts to, from my perspective, as personal attacks and unfounded accusations. He has also been threatening and arb com case against editors, all while completely ignoring the usual steps in dispute resolution. Suggestions? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my statement here. Thank you. nobs (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet amazingly, after weeks you have failed to live up to even the most basic issue of defining something on the CP article that you object to. Give me one thing, just one. And we can talk about that, rather than you attacking me and other RationalWiki editors. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My Mediation request [9] per WP:DR. nobs (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't confuse them with details, it will get them all flustered and they'll write memos till they're blue in the face. Meanwhile, it's worth noting that I put "rag" in the search box and it took me straight to Conservapedia. Coincidence? I think not! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse, can you provide any diffs and point out the specific "personal attacks and unfounded accusations" you've mentioned? Nobs, it would indeed be wise to be specific about proposed changes. But if you're hoping for a conservapedia-esque article here, you're out of luck. The way that a "neutral point of view" is typically achieved at Wikipedia is by illustrating all significant points of view, including both praise and criticism. Your best bet for change is if you can identify an issue with the article describing Conservapedia that is not also an issue with the article describing Wikipedia. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Today he has been thumping a conspiracy, that in 2007 I hung a template on the talk page of CP to specifically orchestrate a mass vandal attack of antisemitics at CP [10][11][12]. He has also claimed repeatedly that I am running some sort of cabal on the article and that I control its content when I haven't edited it in years. All of this against the back drop of refusing to even bring up a specific content issue is getting old. He is also threatening an Arb Com case [13], again without even following standard dispute procedures, even given me a chance to address the content concerns. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There are at least three issues here:

1. The privacy concerns of both RationalWiki editors and Conservapedia editors.
2. The factual accuracy of a WP:RS which cites by name several editors from both wikis.
3. The inordinate amount of control RationalWiki editors have had of Conservapedia related articles in Wikipedia, and evidence RationalWiki editors have used Wikipedia to engage in cyber-vandalism against Conservapedia.

Please note, user:Tmtlouse and myself have had a history of respectful civility for the past three years which I would like to continue. It should be unproblematic for an editor who feels an organization he is associatd with is under attack to ask for assisstance. This is a helpful first step. Thank you. nobs (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The main concern in regards to wikiquette is your claim in point 3, which is completely unsubstantiated, insulting and a personal attack on a whole group of editors. I suggest you drop that point as it goes nowhere and will produce a hostil editing environment. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's begin with the privacy concerns, the other issues can follow. nobs (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So spell it out, in specifics, exactly what you are talking about. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I post this here because you've refused off-wiki discussions to resolve these disputes (this morning I was blocked for 96 hours at RationalWiki for posting a link to an off-wiki discussion forum that could be used if you don't like forming a private googlegroup with you, me & Sid, perhaps a volunteer medeiator as well). nobs (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What? Why are you posting a link to the donation page of RW? What does any of this have to do with anything? I told you I am not interested in talking about this off of WP, why do you insist on forming a "private" group off of WP? This is about content on WP, why can't we discuss it hear? Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is for discussing Nobs' supposed acts of incivility. Discussions regarding the three points Nobs brings up belong on corresponding talk pages and/or noticeboards. Tmtoulouse, the diffs you provide are at best in the gray area of WP:AGF. Nobs seems to be generally civil, though at times rather vague. If either of you would like a third opinion regarding disputes over content, sources, or privacy, feel free to contact me on my talk page. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. nobs (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I am not going to take being accused of orchestrating an antisemtic attack lightly, and merely chalk it up to to some AGF issue. I will give Nobs one last chance to talk specifics (you said "at times vague"? show me one time he wasn't) and then I will just ignore him completely I suppose. Or if he refuses to drop the attacks we can move ahead with an RFC. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking for diffs, how about some unfounded personal attacks and insinuations of bad faith, and false accusations of bullying. Rob has a long history of being uncivil on RW (who doesn't?) and there are plenty more diffs of him being nasty here on WP. He also continues to bring up mediation as if TMT and Sid are responsible for it not happening, the simple fact of the matter is that Nobs hasn't done what he needs to to make mediation a viable option, so every single time he brings it up it amounts to nothing more than a distraction from the conversation. Once he identifies something specific then his repeted calls for mediation can be constructive, but not until that point. --EmersonWhite (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

EmersonWhite, are you an Administrator on Rationalwiki? --TK-CP (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this issue going to get any more attention? --EmersonWhite (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

For those who may be unaware of the fact, any person who registers a username on RationalWiki and makes a non-vandalism edit is made an administrator (this is jokingly referred to as "demotion" in RationalWiki parlance). I'm no friend of the RationalWiki people [14] but I'm an admin there on account of a few edits I made there last year.[15] --TS 02:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Biala Gwiazda

Resolved

 – Both editors blocked for edit-warring (and unblocked); both editors need to discuss their issues civilly.

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

---

User:Biala Gwiazda has left a massively uncivil message for me on his talk page. I made good faith edits to UEFA Euro 2012, but this user obviously has trouble with WP:AGF. In my opinion, he deserves a block for incivility. – PeeJay 11:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The user apologised and you called him a child first. You both seem to be engaging in an edit war on the article's page and you should both stop immediately and move your discussion to the talk page so that other editors can weigh in on the situation. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can compare me calling him a child to the tirade of abuse I received in that last message, especially when his conduct was indeed childish. – PeeJay 22:17, 7 April 2010 (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.

Hostilities of anonymous user 71.0.146.150

I made a critical remark on Talk:Omega_Point_(Tipler)#Skolem_Löwenheim about mr. Tipler. Anonymous user 71.0.146.150 responded with personal attacks. I reminded this user on talk page User_talk:71.0.146.150 to behave. He responded with more hostilities. I request support from volunteers to urge this user to refrain from hostilities to other editors.

See the conversation at User_talk:71.0.146.150. Otto (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're here speaking a falsehood, Otto. I was perfectly polite, as the below-quoted exchange that you here refer to shows. Apparently you are confused and are thinking of your own behavior, which as the below exchange shows, was indeed rude and abusive.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

[Quote:]

The article cites Tipler saying: "I pointed out in an earlier section that the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem suggests there is no real difference between a theory with a countable number of axioms and a theory with a finite number of axioms". The Skolem Löwenheim theorem says that every infinite model is equivalent to a countable model (in model theory). A model with a finite number of axioms (or just one: the conjunction of these) is a different thing. This Tipler (I heard today for the first time about him on a forum about the Rybka chess engine :-)) seems to me indeed a lunatic. Otto (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Then the professional physicists at the Institute of Physics (Britain's main professional body for physicists) entrusted with refereeing this paper are also "lunatics". Rather than charging professional mathematicians and physicists with lunacy due to your lack of understanding, it might help you if you were to read all of the Reports on Progress in Physics paper that you're quoting from. For example:

A major theoretical reason for thinking there is no fundamental difference between a finite number of postulates and a (countable) infinite number of postulates is the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem: Let M be a model for a collection T of constant and relation symbols. Then there exists an elementary sub-model of M whose cardinality does not exceed that of T if T is infinite and is at most countable if T is finite (Cohen 1966, p 18). The proof of this theorem uses a weak version of the Axiom of Choice (hereafter AC); see Boolos and Jeffrey (1974, pp 133 and 158). Skolem regarded this theorem as an argument that ZFC cannot form a 'reasonable' foundation for mathematics because it implies there is a countable sub-model for the uncountable set of real numbers (Yandell 2002, p 64). If we want an axiom system for the real numbers that yields only the uncountable real numbers as a unique model, we will have to have an uncountable number of axioms. If we regard the continuum as the fundamental entity in reality, and if we want the postulates giving the real numbers to yield only the real numbers, then the continuum must be governed by an uncountable number of postulates. A finite axiom system will yield a countable number of consequences, but so will a countable number of postulates. Our preference for a finite number of axioms may just reflect our human finiteness. I shall argue below that a countable infinity of axioms in the form of having a countable infinity of terms in the Lagrangian (all the invariants that can be formed from the Riemann tensor and all of its covariant derivatives) allow unitarity to force the finiteness of quantum gravity coupled to the SM of particle physics. It has been known for decades that even if you start the Hilbert action for gravity, the path integral will give you the entire countable infinity of terms, and these additional terms, if artificially suppressed, will yield a quantum theory of gravity that is either non-renomalizable, or not unitary. Conversely, if we accept quantum field theory, the fact that gravity is curvature (and recall that Cartan showed even Newtonian gravity is curvature—see Misner et al 1973), and locally special relativistic, then we have to accept the countable infinity of terms in the fundamental Lagrangian. Physicists have always hoped that when the equations of the Theory of Everything were found, it could be shown that there was only one model for this system of equations, namely the actual universe. What the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem demonstrates is that this hope cannot be fulfilled with a finite set of equations, or a finite set of constants, if the actual universe is actually infinite. If we regard the boundary conditions on the universal wave function as an 'axiom', then the boundary conditions on a continuous function will be in effect a set of axioms whose cardinality is that of the continuum. A system with a countable number of terms in the gravitational Lagrangian and an uncountable number of 'axioms' in the boundary conditions may, by the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem, have a unique (uncountable) model.

From pp. 909-910 of F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, Bibcode:2005RPPh...68..897T. Mirror link. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

[Unquote.]

Generally, you should provide links to diffs, and then highlight the parts you feel were uncivil. I skimmed the conversation and it seems that there is a disagreement, but both are handling it quite civilly. It's perfectly normal to say "I think you are wrong and this is why" or "I don't think you understand topic X", though there are more tactful ways to express such ideas. Both of you, try proving your point less and instead try proposing more specific changes. See also WP:NOTFORUM ...comments? ~BFizz 21:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diff: [16].

1. 71.0.146.150 (N.N.)) is ridiculing my comment by claiming that I call "physicists at the Institute of Physics" lunatics. I did only comment on Tipler.
2. N.N. is putting words in my mouth I didn't say. That is manipulative and abusive.
3. N.N. didn't write "I don't think you understand" as you state it politely, but bluntly claims I have "lack of understanding". That is a personal attack.
4. The recommendation of N.N. that "it might help you if you were to read ..." is sarcastic.

When I reminded N.N. on his talk page to behave he reacted again aggressive in [17] by accusing me of "a falsehood", rudeness and abuse without substantiating. He bluntly denied my complaint which is rude as such. Otto (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've welcomed the IP and invited him use a username. I reiterate that the IP could certainly be more careful with his words, but dealings with him seem to be in an early stage. It would be better to make him a friend rather than an enemy. ...comments? ~BFizz 09:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

B Fizz, thank you for your mediation. For my part this case can be closed and archived.Otto (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I was perfectly polite to you, Otto. Hence, your claim that I was "rude an abusive" (sic) and engaged in "personal attacks" against you is a falsehood in the sense that it's false.

Apparently you are confused, Otto, and are thinking of your own behavior, which indeed was "rude an abusive" (sic) and did involve "personal attacks". You are the one who used the invective of "lunatic" to describe physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler, and by extension the professional physicists at the Institute of Physics (Britain's main professional body for physicists) entrusted with refereeing Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper, a quote from which you mistakenly disagreed with, whereupon you issued your vituperation.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to report something about a user without informing him?

I already informed an administrator about it [18] but apparently User:Supreme Deliciousness created reported an incident about a photograph (that I took with my camera) and that was on my user page, and he didn't like. He never informed me of this. I would have gladly removed the image if it bothered him and it wouldn't even have been the minor issue it was. I think a short ban to User:Supreme Deliciousness is appropriate here because this is sleazy. Amoruso (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was inappropriate but there was no support for their position -- had there been, someone would have notified you. Bans are preventative, not punitive. Gerardw (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, WQA does not have the power to impose bans. Bans can only be imposed by ArbCom, the community at large (usually at WP:ANI) or Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation. Perhaps you are confusing bans with blocks? Intelligentsium 18:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I was. I meant block, thanks. I think that it's sometimes punitive - even when people promise not to edit war for example after 3RR they will automatically be blocked, more often that not I believe. He's an experienced user and at least a warning by an adminstrator on his webpage should be approriate I think.. Thank-you for your response. Amoruso (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"I think that it's sometimes punitive - even when people promise not to edit war for example after 3RR" - blocks are never punitive. 3RR blocks are automatic so that we don't all spend every minute of our time on WP arguing about whether to block person x. 3RR is a tripwire: to break it it is to be blocked, right away, if the issue is raised. One may be unblocked right away, if the unblocking admin accepts the promise not to do it any more.- Sinneed 11:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Can Amoruso indicate where he informed Supreme Deliciousness of this report? Zero^talk 05:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm, on Supreme Deliciousness' talk page... as is customary... Breein1007 (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "I'm reporting you for incivility" without a link is obviously insufficient. Zero^talk 05:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done[19] --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 06:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So in summary Amoruso is asking for Supreme Deliciousness to be blocked for something that Amoruso immediately did himself. Zero^talk 06:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference is that Amoruso notified SD he was reporting him but failed to give him a diff link, whereas SD failed to notify him in the first place. The same, but different. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 06:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There are times when it is better for the filing editor not to be the one to notify. For example, if it will be seen as taunting, or if the editor has admonished the filing editor not to post to the editor talk page. It is better, when doing so, I think, to say "I have not informed editor-whatever because whatever reason."- Sinneed 10:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That being said, I don't think an administrator is needed here. I look forward to a response from SD, but on the face of it: SD should have simply objected to the image, if SD felt the image should be removed, on the editor talk page. Failing that effort, SD should have informed the editor of the complaint at ANI... which was the wrong venue anyway. I don't see a need for anything like a warning.- Sinneed 11:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see any need for "punative" action here. Rather, it should be taken as a "lesson learned" with the understanding that if you have an issue with content on an editor's userpage, you should try to address it with that editor first, instead of running to an admin to get unilateral action taken. Obviously, if an editor makes a habit of the behavior in question, it changes the circumstances, but I don't see that being the issue in this specific instance. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 11:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason this shouldn't be marked "resolved"? - Sinneed 19:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI[20], this might be of interest as the editor in question filed this ANI complaint today (4/12) and again failed to notify parties, even after the discussion here about similar behavior.--nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Squash Racket

We are having a discussion on the talk page and there is no progress with a user who do not respect the basic wikipedia rules (WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL). Here are the examples: 1 , 2, 3, 4. I just want for the unnecessary hostility to stop. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Iadrian yu forgot to link to his own comments: for example [21], [22]. I just want the unnecessary hostility to stop. Squash Racket (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, you are repeating everything i say... the first evidence you presented is a fair answer, there is no insult there, it is clear that you have some feelings about this discussion, the second evidence you presented , i am sorry, but that is just silly, you attacked me personally and i said it, that isn`t an atack. You are again repeating everything i do and ignoring my appeals for good faith and neutrality.iadrian (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If you consider the first link a "fair answer", then you are right: there's clearly no progress with you regarding WP:CIVIL. Squash Racket (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with the first link? You already started with insults and i responded with a fair answer.iadrian (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case why exactly did you post here anything? Squash Racket (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, first of all you break all the rules regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH and now you are accusing me. Again, you are repeating everything a do/say. Not to mention that even here, you are still showing your uncivil attitude. Please present with a valid evidence with me insulting you, don`t throw false example`s to try to turn the story around.iadrian (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You broke the rules regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH and YOU started accusing me here. (Who started this false thread?) Squash Racket (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, i don`t want to talk like this, this isn`t going anywhere, you have a cycle that you repeat and that`s it, it is clear that you are not stopping with your uncivil attitude even here.., if you have some valid accusations about me, please fell free to make an accusation against me don`t try to make some kind of confusion with these false example`s.iadrian (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not possible to have a cycle with one editor. From the talk page it appears Squash Racket crossed the line first and Iadrian's behavior is escalating the situation. Best to:

• stop the jibes and name calling
• stop responding to jibes and name calling
• seek WP:THIRD, article RFC or other dispute resolution

Quibbling over who's behavior has been more out of line is unlikely to be productive. Gerardw (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

In a cycle i meant with the "everything i say he repeats it". I really don`t see where did i cross the line. As we can verify, the unnecessary hostility started from the User:Squash Racket and with the feeling that he owns the articleWP:OWNER. Anyway, it is ok, if i really crossed the line, I apologize. Thank you for your answer. Greetings. PS: I hope that this attitude ends here.iadrian (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie 2

Is this the appropriate place to come when User:Wildhartlivie appears to have completely ignored Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive84#User:Wildhartlivie and continues to make the same accusations "You never did respond to the question of whether you are blocked or banned under a registered account. " [23] MM 207.69.139.159 (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. It is tedious they continue the same behavior. You should notify them about the WQA. Gerardw (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Notified. [24] MM207.69.137.26 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

And the user is aware [25] and aparently I will need to ask someone else to notify the user in the future. MM 207.69.137.26 (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement at Alfred Proksch

I caught myself getting into an edit war with User:121.116.230.19 regarding the Alfred Proksch page. The user refuses to discuss the changes that they are making to the article, most of which strike me as just plainly unhelpful. As I wrote on their talk page, their additions include adding stub and expand templates (the article is not a stub and does not need to be expanded based on uncited material from another Wikipedia; I already took the cited stuff), an uncited placed of birth, formatting that is not consistent with the manual of style, and a "see also" link that only links to another list full of people with the same last name. I attempted to bring this up on the user's talk page, but they have not responded, so perhaps someone can help explain to them the problem (or correct me if I'm wrong). Thanks. Canadian Paul 02:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't revet - those are usefull, meaningless, helpless editing. And I want to change "rule" (bold parents' names). --121.116.230.19 (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the right forum for this, but I agree with Canadian Paul about this. The changes made by the IP are not improvements. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if this was the correct forum, but I figured that WP:ANI wouldn't be appropriate at this point. Canadian Paul 02:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)