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 discussions

Attempt to discredit using sexual orientation as a weapon

• Hypesmasher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Timtrent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - me, my signature is Fiddle Faddle.

• Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_30#Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor, Hypesmasher, has chosen to pick up userboxes from my user page and use them here as an attempt to discredit me. I have no idea whether the editor is homophobic, but it appears very much to be a homophobic attack. In such things the perception of the victim is of substantial importance. To pre-empt any criticism of my strong prior suggestion that he had had his fun, I accept that they perhaps should have been different in tone. Nonetheless that is no excuse for what I perceive as a homophobic attack.

I have read WP:COAL and am adhering to it. I judged that any attempt by me to seek to solve this by civil talk page messages would be unproductive, so I have no intention of interacting with this editor again, save to post the alerting template in their talk page. I rarely edit the article in question, and then usually simply to patrol it to delete uncited new 'facts'. I have not contributed to further discussions or edits in either location since this incident, and have chosen to wait until the matter was archived at DRN in order to allow time for any passions to cool. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of response leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the behaviour is expected, unexceptional, and not to be criticised. How disheartening. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing to contradict my view. Publicly expressed bias based upon sexuality is obviously acceptable. Currently consensus has been to avoid this topic. Thus it is allowed. Nemine contradicet. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you show a diff or at least quote the text rather than having people wade through the lengthy dispute resolution (that's probably why noone responded). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoted from the archived DRN:

Lastly, editor Fiddle Faddle (who has suggested this change of venue) lists (among other things) on his Userpage...

This user is proudly out of the closet and gay. This user is a supporter of the LGBT community. This user supports equal rights for LGBT people.

These disclosures make me suspicious of Fiddle Faddle's true motives for interfering here and suggesting this disruptive venue change. I suggest that Fiddle Faddle perhaps has a conflict of interest which should disallow him or her from even nominating the AfD for this specific article at this specific point in time.--Hypesmasher (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, and for responding with it :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I will limit my comments on this and then withdraw, because my past interactions with Hypesmasher have not been productive.[1] That being said, I cannot remain silent on this issue. In my opinion, Hypesmasher's comments quoted above are completely out of line. To imply that someone should not edit certain Wikipedia pages simply because his user page says "this user is proudly out of the closet and gay" and "this user supports equal rights for LGBT people" is a clear violation of WP:NOEDIT. The problem is that one incident of this kind does not rise to the level of requiring a block, and Hypesmasher has repeatedly shown himself to be oppositional and defiant in the face of any suggestion that he modify his behavior in any way. This can clearly be seen by my failed attempts to convince Hypesmasher that you cannot nominate an article for deletion on that article's talk page and by SineBot's repeated attempts to convince Hypesmasher to sign his posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of his comments.[2][3][4] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for those thoughts. I do not see this as block material either, and I saw all your attempts to interact with the user came to naught. My hopes in raising the matter here are that hitherto uninvolved editors attempt to guide this user away from the combative route and into the collegiate fold. And that as a matter of some importance he is told that what I perceive to be rampant homophobia has no place here. Further transgressions shoudl be discussed elsewhere and may result in a block, but that is not my concern. I am concerned that he is now advised strongly that his behaviour towards me has been sufficiently out of line to be in breach of our policies here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've put a warning on the editors page that further incivility can lead to RFC/U and arbcom involvement. This also is one step towards meeting the requirements of WP:RFC/U: Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

At one level it must be OK for editors to raise the possibility of a WP:COI with others. In a hypothetical example, if an editor is actively editing the page on the Ruritanian Liberation Front and has {{userbox|Free Ruritania!}} on their user page, we have a right to question their objectivity. But I don't think the logic can simply be rolled out mechanically. I am a man, as my user page makes clear. Do I therefore inevitably have a biased COI if I edit at Men's rights for example? I think the difference is that very few of us will have a position on Ruritanian liberation, so someone who proclaims it loudly is describing themselves as having quite an unusual position. However almost all of us are either male or female - to announce the fact doesn't immediately make us all biased. Similarly, all of us lie at some point on the continuum of sexuality; simply occupying a place on that continuum does not immediately imply a COI. Hypesmasher's unspoken assertion that a gay person would have a COI on this article where a straight person dwould not is untenable. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is similar to claiming that a Christian has a COI on Religion related articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an isolated and civil question about potential COI is acceptable. However I feel one must always consider the context which surrounds the question or statements asserting potential COI. This is why I linked to the DRN rather than simply quoting an excerpt initially. There is a lack of civility and also a hectoring tone in all or almost all of Hypesmasher's conversation there. One might also add that the user name chosen is somewhat combative, though within our policies.

With regard to any actual COI on my part I am certain that there is none, as my editing history shows. My edits reflect a determination to improve articles in many areas of our encyclopaedia. The sexuality of the person, if there be a person, in the article is not a matter which concerns me, though, as a member of a minority I find it of interest from time to time. And a self identified Free Ruritanian, while being asked about neutrality, should make it obvious by their edits that they edit in a neutral manner.

Thanks to RWolfie for the note on the editor's talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me that the behaviour I perceive as homophobic could still do with being directly addressed with Hypesmasher. I'm grateful for the other actions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Your perceptions are not evidence. Nobody Ent 13:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not relevant. What is relevant is that such behaviour causes those perceptions in those people targeted by the words and behaviours exhibited. Such things are both hurtful and harmful. Your statement is of interest, but that is all. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

His perceptions were not presented "as evidence", Nobody Ent. Attempting to characterize them as such is, at best, disingenuous. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 14:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't evidence either, but for what it is worth, my perceptions were the same, and I am straight (but not narrow). --Guy Macon (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Attacks on editors, not issues, at Talk:DOS#DOS is not a multitasking OS

• DOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Asmpgmr (talk · contribs) (previously 67.161.75.212 (talk · contribs))

Mostly at Talk:DOS#DOS_is_not_a_multitasking_OS

This is a highly technical content dispute (What defines a "multitasking" operating system?), but beyond that there are a couple of behavioural issues that have arisen and that are making any real discussion unpleasant, if not impossible.

• "Would you please give it a rest already ? The fact that you do not understand that multitasking operating systems have a task scheduler and continue to incorrectly maintain that DOS is a multitasking OS makes it very clear that you do not have proper technical understanding."
• "Are you going to stop making incorrect statements ?"
• "Wendy, you and Andy simply do not understand and/or refuse to accept the fact (...) You guys really have no idea what you are talking about."
• "You have just proven (actually proven again) that you do not have any idea what you are talking about. "
• "You clearly have no idea what you are talking about from a technical perspective."

I've tried to defuse some of this via article talk, but later comments led to a Canned message at User_talk:Asmpgmr

This is a highly technical issue. Worse than that, it's a subjective matter of opinion. No-one is really disagreeing with Asmpgmr on any technical detail, merely whether whatever it was that DOS did warrants one label or another. Yet within this toxic environment, it's impossible to work towards achieving any of that.

Secondly, we see lots of edits in the history that all boil down to "I disagree with one point in this section, so I'm blanking all of it". That's not the way we're supposed to work here (and usually don't), but in this case it's impossible to do anything about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't attacked anyone, I used no foul language and called no one any names. I have stated fact not opinion time and time again and provided links supporting this. That you and the other user choose to reject it is the problem. Yes this is a matter of a lack of technical understanding of DOS, BIOS and multitasking.

As I said on the talk page if you want to make the ludicrous argument that DOS is multitasking operating system then prove it:

• list of alleged DOS Int 21h API function(s) which support multitasking.
• disassembly of the alleged multitasking support code in the DOS kernel of any version of DOS other European MS-DOS 4 which is known to actually support multitasking.
• location of the alleged multitasking code in the DOS kernel (MSDOS.SYS or IBMDOS.COM) which can be independently verified by someone who is familiar with DOS internals and x86 assembly language.

DOS is not a multitasking OS, this is a matter of fact not opinion. Also I would say the worst thing here is putting incorrect information on Wikipedia. All I'm doing is making an article which I happen to know a lot about a better article by correcting inaccuracies. Asmpgmr (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way Andy Dingley you should not talk about me attacking another user (which I did not) when you did attack another user on your own talk page. I quote from your page to another user Please stop making some really bloody dumb decategorizations - dated 09:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of hypocritical of you to accuse me of attacking users when you made such as statement ? Also it would appear that your arguments are so weak that you now have to resort to making attack claims against me as a last ditch effort. Let me be clear, it is nothing personal. My only intention is to make a Wikipedia article which I know something about as clear, concise and accurate as possible. Asmpgmr (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a terminology issue, rather than a technical one. It's whether what TSR's do and their user access etc constitutes multitasking. Some say 'yes', some say 'no'. The issue is akin to saying 'Multitasking requires X and Y', or 'Multitasking needs only 'X', and 'DOS does at least 'X' but not 'Y'. So the lower bar (X) is that DOS multitasks, the upper bar (X+Y) is that it doesn't. None of the technical examples are shown wrong. Wendy.krieger (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been explained to you several times now by myself and other users that DOS is not a multitasking OS and why it is not (no task scheduler) yet you keep arguing about this. What a DOS TSR program does do not constitute what DOS does. DOS is a real mode OS and therefore no mechanisms exist to prevent direct hardware access thus programs are free to do whatever they want. Just because a DOS program provides something does not mean that it is part of DOS itself. Anyway if you want to make the claim that DOS (other than European MS-DOS 4) is a multitasking OS then prove it by providing one of the three things I have requested above. Otherwise please stop arguing endlessly about this. If you want to maintain this position then fine, you are entitled to your own opinion (albeit an incorrect one) but you are not entitled to your own set of facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus about facts not opinions. Asmpgmr (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor technical correction that does not invalidate your argument: There are multitasking systems that have no mechanisms to prevent direct hardware access. It is a subset of cooperative multitasking, and is mostly found in embedded systems with severely limited resources. DOS is not a cooperative multitasking system, because in those kind of systems the tasks save state and voluntarily turn control over to the next task. DOS, by design, never does that, and is thus not multitasking. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Armbrust

• Armbrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• myself

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2012 schedule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm at a loss with regard to Armbrust's behavior in the AfD. He is taking a somewhat belligerent stance, refuses to acknowledge arguments and imho displays overall pointy behavior. First he dismissed most !votes he doesn't agree with out of hand as going against some AADD section (even after having been explicitly explained that this doesn't apply to reasoned !votes). Then, after he was repeatedly asked to stop this, he has now taken to SPA-tagging of IP comments he doesn't agree with. I'm sure he means well, but he is less than communicative nor insightful as to the appearance of his behavior. And his block log reflects a pertinent history. --213.168.108.25 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek needs to be informed of what a personal attack consists of

• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• UEFA Euro 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User talk:Volunteer Marek.

I claimed that this editor (and others) were pushing a nationalist agenda. I reverted the wholesale removal of an entire section that made a host country in the tournament look back as vandalism. Editor responded that it was a personal attack when reverting. I commented on the editor's page that the action did not constitute a personal attack to which I tagged the editor responded with a direct personal attack and profanity. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Accusing others of pushing nationalist POV and vandalism is quite clearly a personal attack. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

+1. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

05:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)79.182.215.205 (talk)

Yes, the "vandalism" edit summary is definitely inappropriate. Nobody Ent 21:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comments seem to precisely be a personal attack. You incorrectly marked a bold edit as vandalism and then proceeded to accuse the editor of being a POV pusher. You also seem to have been very close to breaking WP:3RR in the same period. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Marek, however, is real, just check his today's edit summaries (accusations of trolling, [5]).Estlandia (dialogue) 21:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, talk about stalking. Estlandia, a user I've had problems with in the past, shows up here with that diff seconds after I made the edit. And guess what, the part he doesn't tell you is that this is in response to a user who's been trolling my talk page (as well as harassing me in other ways) for months, and whom I've already asked literally (not exaggerating here) at least half a dozen times not to post to my talk page. Nice game you're playing there Estlandia. Unfortunately this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a PvP MMPORG.VolunteerMarek 21:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

MMPORG is actually a fairly good description of Wikipedia. Telling someone to fuck off [6] is incivil and unnecessary. Now, as an experienced editor, Volunteer Marek likely knows he will not be blocked or otherwise significantly sanctioned for a single low level civility violation -- in fact, many editors will argue that it is not actually incivil. Nonetheless it's unwise in that over time repeated contributions of that nature build up animosity towards an editor that eventually the community gets fed up with the disruption and the editor gets blocked/banned, or fed up themselves and leaves Wikipedia. Given VM currently has 111 talk page watchers they should not be surprised when editors add comments to dispute resolution they're involved in; such action does not constitute stalking. (Piling on perhaps.) Incidentally "One instances of racism" is actually poor grammar due to improper subject noun agreement - should be "One instance" Nobody Ent 21:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

111? Wow, I had no idea. Time for a run at ArbCom '12.

As to the grammar mistake - yes, I accidentally re-added it once (I was looking at all changes since last diff (3 in all) and didn't notice immediately that that's what he was referring to). I was in the process of correcting that to "instance" but got an edit conflict with Malick78's TOTAL revert (i.e. he didn't just fix the grammar). Now that has become "Volunteer Marek keeps readding a grammar mistake" (the part about "(Volunteer Marek) claim(s) that a source didn't mention a person when it did in the second para" is also total nonsense) - do you see why I'm not exactly polite in a situation like this?VolunteerMarek 22:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hi, VM frequently uses the phrase "trolling" to make any other user look bad. He likes "stalking" as well. As for personal attacks, VM told me to "fuck off" in the edit summary just now, when I asked him not to term everything he doesn't like "trolling". (For the record, I'd complained about him edit warring today over two mistakes of his: a grammar mistake he kept readding (he later "partly" apologised, only after I left a message on his talk page (see, it worked!)); and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_in_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=497609570 his inability to see that a non-British footballer was mentioned, which he repeatedly called "British". My use of his talk page was because he couldn't/refused to see the problems with his edits.) As more proof of his baseless and disingenuous use of words such as "trolling" and "stalking", here he knowingly says "trolling" when it's merely someone enforcing the Danzig/Gdansk rule he hates. In short, VM continually makes WP a battleground and makes false accusations, hoping to scare others off. I hope he will now stop. Malick78 (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@VM. No idea. Successfully telling someone a 1 foot (0.30 m) taller and 50 pounds (23 kg) heavier than you in a bar to fuck off is impressive. Telling someone to fuck on the Internet requires neither courage nor intelligence nor persistence, doesn't solve any problems and may require follow up effort. Totally ignoring posts on your talk page you feel are bogus takes far less effort and I've found it to be highly effective. The most persistent editor I've encountered -- someone unhappy with what I said here on WQA some time ago -- gave up after five posts and has let me alone since. (I forget who it is.) Nobody Ent 22:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Accusing someone of a nationalist POV is not a personal attack. When someone is a vandal, accusing them of vandalism is appropriate as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, if the editor is pushing a nationalistic POV, the should clear off, and the editor was doing just that. There was no neutrality as was seen with an edit restoring the material after the page was unlocked. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here is a diff from talk page of VM dated March 25. Apparently, there was a request from VM to Malick78 that he should never come to his talk page again (and probably vice versa). I believe such requests must always be respected, no matter the reason. Every time when user X comes again to talk page of user A after receiving such request, this is showing utmost disrespect and the "battleground" behavior (excluding only official notifications about AE/ANI discussions as prescribed by the policy). Do not do it, please. How it will be in Russian ... "Unwelcome guest is worse than a Tartar".My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

X-ray_computed_tomography

• 79.182.215.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• X-ray_computed_tomography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have contributed to that article, and an other user:Jmh649 deleted my contributions, without discussion, without asking for refs, and without giving time to provide refs, and without stating statements that are not according to rules, and without allowing time to correct them.

I have reverted the deletions, and received a threat that I am edit warring, and that I will be banned.

Upon questioning, the user has deceived me by claiming, that primary sources can't be used at all in medical articles. ("All of the refs supporting this text are primary research papers", "The issue with your additions had to do with the references. The references where simply not appropriate", "The same thing as with all the content in question. It was not supported by proper references.", "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss.", and "For important medical information we use ideal sources." the last in reply to me saying "It does not state that non ideal sources can't be used".)

The user:Jmh649 does not have professional understanding in the area of the contribution, which he deleted, and after deleting them, he has contributed an error instead (mSv=mGy). This error is contradicted by the sources that are still used in the document. This prove that he have not read and understood the sources. Yet, he allowed himself to delete, without asking questions.

I think, that many of the sources, that back up the deleted contributions were adequate, but the contributions weren't edited in order to remove just inadequate parts, they were deleted in their entirety.

The content is currently being discussed at the article's talk page, and at the DRN, and I was referred here by the DRN, in order to discuss my complaint of unfair conduct.

I think that it is worth mentioning, that in his user profile page, user:jmh649 has stated that he is an ER doctor. An ER's income may be affected by the deletions that user:jmh649 has performed.

I am a volunteer Clerk/Mediator at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. For those of you who are unfamiliar with WP:DRN, it is sort of the "Evil Twin" of WP:WQA -- DRN addresses article content and not user conduct, WQA addresses user conduct and not article content. I have been working this case: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#X-ray computed tomography.

Two days ago I told 79.182.215.205 the following:

"Is it true that someone told you that primary sources can never be used? I looked at every single comment on Talk:X-ray computed tomography, then I went back and searched for all uses of the word "primary". The only person who has said anything about primary sources never being used is you. Nobody told you that. You made it up. Wikipedia has a page about that as well: Straw man."

If you do a search for the word "primary" on Talk:X-ray computed tomography you will see that the above is still true. On both pages our actual policy on Primary/Secondary sources have been explained in detail. Given these facts, I find the above accusation to be rather puzzling.

As for the "ER doctor" comment above, this is a clear violation of WP:AGF.

I am sure that jmh649 will welcome a close look at his behavior and will be happy to make any changes should he discover that he has misbehaved in some way, but I would also note that according to WP:BOOMERANG, 79.182.215.205's behavior will also be scrutinized.

If any questions about article content come up in this discussion, feel free to refer them to WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I have replied to you about your statement: "The only person who has said anything about primary sources never being used is you. Nobody told you that. You made it up. Wikipedia has a page about that as well: Straw man".

My reply was that I was told by jmh649 on the article's talk page - "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss." and that is pretty much saying you can't use primary sources period. I am surprised, that after that reply to you, you are bringing up the same straw man accusation again. Why did you bring it up again here?

Moreover, you Guy have replied to me "Primary sources can be used, but not the way you are trying to use them. They are to be used for things that are uncontroversial, uncontested, directly stated in the source (no interpretation or other use of your own knowledge or expertise allowed) and they have to be reliable sources.". This clearly indicate that jmh649 statement - "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss." is false. Clearly it is possible to use primary sources, and there is what to discuss - how they are to be used.

You said "On both pages our actual policy on Primary/Secondary sources have been explained in detail. Given these facts, I find the above accusation to be rather puzzling."

I have made many accusations, so you will have to be more specific, with regard to the primary sources my reply is that, if user:649 insist on deleting my contributions, just because he is not willing to accept primary sources at all, this goes against the policy.

As for the "ER" comment, I didn't assume anything, and I didn't write anything that is not true.

I have opened this section because you (Guy) have told me "As for the behavior you describe, DRN only deals with article content, not user conduct. WP:WQA deals with user conduct.", I seem to have read on that, that you want me to report the described behavior of jmh649 here, and hence I did. I am new to Wikipedia, I don't know what these Wikiquette and DRN are about, thus I follow the suggestions of more experienced users, like you. In hind site, it seems like you didn't really want me to open a report here, did you? Is this going to affect your neutrality as our mediator at the DRN? Anyway, I welcome you to this debate, you are the first responder, btw, how did you learn of it? I have only sent a message about it to jmh649.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I still have the same opinion about you that I expressed before. I think you want what is best for the article. I would also ad that in my opinion you are intelligent and honest, but that you are also new and don't know all the rules yet. In my opinion, you have the potential to become a very valuable contributor to Wikipedia.

I did want you to post here because you clearly believe that jmh649 behaved badly, and I think you should have a fair hearing. That being said, you don't get a free ride. If I see behavior that needs to be commented on (and it is in a place where comments on user conduct are appropriate) I will give my honest opinion. And my opinion is that Jmh649 did not tell you that you can never use primary sources. Perhaps he wasn't clear enough, but do a search on every user of "primary" and "secondary" on that page and the total adds up to a pretty good explanation of why primary sources are to me used only for specific things.

I don't think I am biased against you, but of course I may be blind to my own bias. I would not be offended in the least if you asked for another mediator at WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just concerned, that you have objected to the issue of this report, and that my reply here to you might have antagonized us, which might leak to the DRN debate. But if you think, that you are above that, I believe you. I think that there is no harm in a friendly debate.

I think, that the major disagreement between us, is if Doc James categorically denied my use of primary sources. I think he did. I really don't understand why you think different. Maybe me and you speak a different kind of English. He eventually said "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss.". How do you interpret that?

79.182.215.205 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

On 12:32 am, 10 June 2012 Blue Rasberry told you: "Here is the requested Wikipedia rule which talks about primary sources - WP:PRIMARY. The ideal source is a secondary source which talks about the first paper."

At this point it is perfectly acceptable for everyone to assume that you have read and understood WP:PRIMARY.

WP:PRIMARY says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Note that it does NOT say that primary sources cannot be used, nor does it say that primary sources can be used in the way you want to use them.

At 11:03 pm, 9 June 2012, Blue Rasberry told you again: "When you use a source which does not explicitly mention the article's subject that is WP:SYNTH. Here is the requested Wikipedia rule which talks about primary sources - WP:PRIMARY. The ideal source is a secondary source which talks about the first paper."

At 2:15 am, 10 June 2012 Blue Rasberry told you a third time: "Wikipedia has rules and I think that if you asked other people they would also say that your contributions are not following them. Check out primary and synth again."

Finally, at 10:43 pm, 10 June 2012 Doc James told you "If you insist on using primary sources there is really nothing more to discuss."

You want to point at that last statement as if it was a skoking gun proving that Doc James told you that you could never use a primary source. This igrores all that happened before, which is you being told three times what the actual policy is. At this point Doc James has zero responsibility to explain to you what has already been explained to you three times. He is allowed to use a shorter sentence that can be read two ways, as "If you insist on using primary sources [which can never be used] there is really nothing more to discuss" or as "If you insist on using primary sources [which can not be used the way you are trying to use them] there is really nothing more to discuss." WP:AGF requires you to assume that he meant the one that agrees with the policies ( WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY ) that were discuseed at least three times already. My conclusion is that the accusation is not supported by the facts.

I could be wrong, of course, so I invite the fine folks at WQA to correct me. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Before that reply by jmh649, I wrote: "The WP:PRIMARY doesn't state that primary sources can not be used, it just state how they should be used. Instead of helping with the semantics, you (DocJames) just destroy stuff. Why?79.179.224.214 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)". This indicate, that I did not insist on using primary sources in any specific way. Thus, the second interpretation of jmh649 sentence is not valid. I bold stuff indicating primary source can be used in your post.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Let it be noted, that jmh649 did not participate yet in this discussion regarding his conduct, nor did he participate yet in the discussion at the DRN regarding content he removed.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Much great advice has been given. There is not really anything more to say. We have lots of great secondary sources regarding the subject matter at hand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Doc James, I thank you for taking the time to comment here. This thread is placed at the Wikiquette, a place in which discussion of behavior take place, your behavior. Your comment here have no reference to my complaint regarding your behavior. Please take the time to read my complaint regarding your behavior. Please reply on topic.

79.182.215.205 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

IP. I'm sorry your welcome to Wikipedia has been so unpleasant; I wish I could tell you it was unusual but unfortunately I can't. In theory, any contribution is welcome per the anyone can edit meme and ignore all rules pillars, but in practice often doesn't work that way. DJ and GM are correct about preferring secondary sources but could have handled all this much better. I've left links to a couple sources on the talk page that should satisfy their concerns. Unfortunately while we have a civility policy in practice the minor rudeness you've received here is best simply ignored, because not much else is going to happen. It is in your best interest to register a user name; again, while the written policy says you don't need have to in order to contribute in practice it will make your life much easier. Nobody Ent 01:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence of rudeness. I simply removed the content he had added as it was inappropriate. I wrote why in the edit summary and provided a link on this IPs talk page. After his third return of the material I posted that if he was to re add it again he would lose his editing privileges. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

goethean

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

• Cosmos_and_Psyche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WP:FTN

This user is being aggressive with almost every response to me. here are just some of the comments: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've already asked him to stop making things personal: [16], noted here that he is making everything personal: [17]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Scjessey

• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Scjessey
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been offended by the inexcusable conduct of a wikipedia account holder. This wikipedia account holder's word choice on talk pages and edit summaries and methods of handling and creating conflicts is clearly in violation of wikipedia policies and essays on WP:DR and described best as bullying.

Specifically, this wikipedia account holder has a self acknowledged habit of using profanity and sarcasm to negative effect on wikipedia. This behavior seems to contribute to conflicts with other wikipedia account holders(Note: i do not want to be accused of mass canvassing in the process of trying to determine if others feel the same. That is why I have only tagged one wikipedia account holder) and I am personally offended by the rudeness and cannot take this lack of respect towards myself and other wikipedia account holders lightly any longer. The wikipedia account holder in question's pattern of conduct is creating a poor environment to accomplish the goals of improving the encyclopedia on wikipedia.

I first became concerned reading comments on a talk page diff: [18] After reading this, I decided to politely ask this wikipedia account holder to refrain from using profanity. Instead, he reverted by new section and used more profanity in the edit summary.

More Diffs displaying usage of profanity in edits and edit summary:

[19] [20]

More Diffs displaying violation of Staying cool:

[21] [22] [23]

I Highly suggest wikipedia account holder to take a wikibreak and return with a peaceful and constructive attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.35.69 (talk • contribs)

This is a strange and suspicious report - an IP editor comes from nowhere and begins to launch procedural attacks encouraging the departure of a long-term editor of controversial high-traffic articles. Unless they can identify which IP or signed-in accounts they've operated in the past, they would seem to have no legitimate reason for picking a bone here. As I noted on the dispute resolution board where this editor posted a nearly-identical request, we've had a lot of socking and trouble on the Obama articles where SCJ edits. Even assuming good faith (which is a bit of a suicide pact these days with IP editors on Obama articles), this person saw a bad word not directed towards them (or anyone, for that matter), then followed SCJ around to various articles and took further offense at what they saw there. We've got our hands full as it is helping people who are legitimately upset with how they are treated here on Wikipedia. The last thing we need is people searching for offense to take. I really suggest that this complaint get closed again here and the IP editor told that Wikipedia is for editing articles (if they're a legitimate editor), not searching for trouble. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)